"The mayor of New London, where a fight over government seizing property led to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is proposing a compromise for a group of homeowners.What? Are you kidding me? Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the word "compromise?" Let's see, government takes a person's property, pays the person some money (which I think is likely to be less than the economic value of the property), and then says to this person: "Oh, don't worry you can still live in what you thought was your home and pay us rent." I see. I guess that is a compromise.
Under a plan presented to the City Council Monday night, four people whose homes were seized for a private development would be allowed to stay. The city would own their properties and the residents would have to pay the city to live there."
And, there's this:
"But she and another plaintiff, Michael Cristofaro, said they aren't interested in paying rent for homes they owned."Oh, so the people who had their property taken by the city don't think this is a compromise either, eh?