The only reason it would be a fraction of the cost is because there would be no regulations and no requirement to adhere to certain standards. Of course it would be cheaper, but it would also probably miss a lot of evidence and destroy much more if there was no requirement to meet a standard. Probably no indigenous inclusion as well.
I do agree that the law needs to be redone to define undue hardship and set clear limits on what a homeowner is responsible for. Owning property is a privilege, not a right, and thus the homeowners should be responsible for a portion of it, but not a bankruptable amount. I have a hard time assessing what pity is deserved in this case, because they clearly had the money to buy a second, lake-front home. Not saying $300k is chump change, but this isn’t a poor family by any means.
I am a bit shocked that the homeowners were unaware of the amount of remains found in the area.
The only reason it would be a fraction of the cost is because there would be no regulations and no requirement to adhere to certain standards. Of course it would be cheaper, but it would also probably miss a lot of evidence and destroy much more if there was no requirement to meet a standard. Probably no indigenous inclusion as well.
I do agree that the law needs to be redone to define undue hardship and set clear limits on what a homeowner is responsible for. Owning property is a privilege, not a right, and thus the homeowners should be responsible for a portion of it, but not a bankruptable amount. I have a hard time assessing what pity is deserved in this case, because they clearly had the money to buy a second, lake-front home. Not saying $300k is chump change, but this isn’t a poor family by any means.
I am a bit shocked that the homeowners were unaware of the amount of remains found in the area.