Quote:
Originally Posted by northcrunk
My sister and brother in law will be on facebook live with Danielle smith at 2pm to talk about the situation. They only purchased their home there because of the cities assurance to move into east hills. They didn't mind the park was moving and have letters from the city stating the land was bought and plans were in place.
|
This is literally the only valid argument, and lawyers can determine if the documentation available makes it legally binding.
You'd have thought that this process would've been started when the east hills plan was scrapped 3 years ago and not 30 days from eviction though. If it was started long ago, I'd be interested to see where the court case is at.