No kidding. Did you forget the part in my earlier post where I said it was still being fought in the courts? Did you not understand the big words in the article where it described the former homeowners continuing battle, even after the bulldozers had demolished their homes? You state that there isn't anything in the article about what the courts had decided. Let me refresh your memory. The article states, "After eight months of legal maneuverings, their appeal is pending."
Your lack of reading comprehension ability is a dead give away that you're another victim of public education. I understand now why you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept here.
The article you linked was from 1998, five years ago. It isn't still being fought in court. I did a google search and could find not one article about this since 1998 or 1999. Odd, isn't it? Maybe you should read the dates on things you post before you keep acting like its recent. I actually wasted a good bit of time reading the entire article and seeking out other ones.
What I originally said, that you keep ignoring, is that what you are posting and linking do not say anything about the legal issues surrounding the Hurst Economic Development Corp. and the laws that allow the local government to use eminent domain. Nor do they mention anything about the court ordered offers. You just keep saying people were kicked out of their homes without compensation when there is no evidence that anything like that occurred.
Your lack of reading comprehension ability is a dead give away that you're another victim of public education. I understand now why you're having such a difficult time grasping the concept here.
Funny stuff. Is the 9:00 act completely different from the 7:00 show?