Your editorial on the sale of land to Hugh Grant is right on the mark. One problem: The recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain probably gives the city the right to take a part of Grant's land for access to it's own land. Your article makes no reference to the court ruling, which agree or disagree, is now the law of the land. In this case, it makes me think that maybe the ruling did have merit. The city could establish part of the land as parks, put in streets and have a lottery on the residential lots. If Grant doesn't want to pay market value, the city should take a strip of land from him at market value for public access.