I wish I could say their loss is a foregone conclusion, but all bets are off when there’s a court and a plaintiff who claims to have been victimized by the government.
Presumably they were informed up front that the property rights they were buying were restricted – and they obviously agreed to those restrictions in exchange for getting the reduced price. This government subsidy was intended to provide for their shelter and stability, not to enable them to profit from the flipping lotto.
