"No one wanted the city to lose that park, but the private property was owned. Doesn't the owner have the right to do with their land as they please? But really

"No one wanted the city to lose that park, but the private property was owned. Doesn't the owner have the right to do with their land as they please? But really, it is in the interest of no one except the owner that the owner should build there. Even the people who buy the appartments are getting screwed in a way." I think this is easily solved by requiring the owner to post a bond that approximates the future risk exposure that public entities (like FEMA, the National Guard, state police, etc.) face due to the new buildings now in place. That and, of course, full disclosure in sales literature/contracts. In this way the private property owner exercises their right to dispose of their property as they see fit but the general public is not shouldering a public cost.