The Teluga Bay area of the city is a formerly run down area that is undergoing "gentrification." Many of the formerly run down houses are now prized jewels on the bluff overlooking the seacoast. The City Housing Authority (CHA), a department of City Government, is looking for a place to put a series of what it calls "low income condominiums." Since gentrification has come, the Teluga Bay Homeowners Association (TBHA) has improved the area by cleaning up the streets and making "mini-parks" which it has built on small unused plots that they bought usually for unpaid taxes.
When the CHA looks around, it finds four contiguous lots in the Teluga Bay area that fit its requirements. It undertakes an eminent domain lawsuit to condemn the lots which TBHA had bid on at the tax sale. No bids have yet been accepted. These lots were to be the latest mini-park when the purchase was complete. The TBHA files to oppose the eminent domain action but loses on summary judgment when the judge rules against them as they have no standing in the suit. The TBHA begins a petition drive to stop the court action and lobbies City Council to stop the condemnation suit when the CHA sues the TBHA and all its members to cease this activity as it is "discriminatory, based on economic circumstance of individuals." which is forbidden by a city ordinance.
Who wins which court action and why?