Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 574 posts

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#81

Post by dylan604 »

coredog64 wrote: post #13
helterskelter wrote: post #3

Wow they had the condition that the land be used as a park baked into the deed when they sold it to the city for $10, the city sold it, and when the family went to court their suit was dismissed. Now their home is worthless because nobody wants to live next to a data center. When are we going to hold local government officials accountable for bullshit like this? Send them to prison.

Is it true that it was sold for $10? There’s a common phrase in Texas deed transfers similar to the below which just means “The sale price is none of your business” Common Texas boilerplate: That for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Grantor has bargained and sold, and does here…

There's lots of places that give 99 year leases for obscenely small amounts like $10. The neighborhood church near where I grew up owned way more land than it currently used. They "leased" the land to farmer/ranchers to grow hay in part of it and graze animals in other parts. It was leased with similarly friendly terms if not the 99 year lease.

These things are more common that people might expect. Not everyone is a lawyer-esque asshole, but that does open situations up to disagreements where people respond with "should have talked to a lawyer"

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#82

Post by gfisher »

arjie wrote: post #43
helterskelter wrote: post #3

Wow they had the condition that the land be used as a park baked into the deed when they sold it to the city for $10, the city sold it, and when the family went to court their suit was dismissed. Now their home is worthless because nobody wants to live next to a data center. When are we going to hold local government officials accountable for bullshit like this? Send them to prison.

It was unclear from this summary but there are a few parties here: the original farmer A, the neighbouring family B, the city C, and the datacenter builder D. A sold to C with the deed restriction C sold to D without the restriction B tried to sue to stop D from building the datacenter, but B has no standing. Okay, that makes sense. It seems to me that A or C has standing, but not B. And depending on the way it's wri…

But that is how deed restrictions are enforced. If you didn't have that mechanism, then they would just not exist upon death, etc.

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#83

Post by s1artibartfast »

dfxm12 wrote: post #42
ianm218 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a lot of people indicate they think people's predictions for the future with AI are like a psy-op and that none of them really believe it. Isn't it simpler to believe that people like Terrance Tao who have been in good standing with the academic community for a long time are telling the truth? Like you may very well disagree with their predictions based on your lived experience or theories... But it doesn't…

Medicine researched even with government funding is out of reach for a lot of people. It's going to take a leap of faith to think that "breakthroughs" researched from a private business is going to be enjoyed by the masses. Socialized risk and privatized profit is the default. AI isn't going to change that. If it is as successful as the hype, it's going to exacerbate it.

However, That doesnt make it not real.

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#84

Post by dylan604 »

projektfu wrote: post #76
coredog64 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it true that it was sold for $10? There’s a common phrase in Texas deed transfers similar to the below which just means “The sale price is none of your business” Common Texas boilerplate: That for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Grantor has bargained and sold, and does here…

Even more bizarre, the $10 cash never changes hands.

Sounds like that sale should be null and voided at that point

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#85

Post by dylan604 »

bluGill wrote: post #8

I oppose deed restrictions. They last forever and who knows what is correct for future generations. This is a jerk move by the city, but that is a different issue.

Deed restrictions can be modified. There are processes for doing it.

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#86

Post by bluefirebrand »

phil21 wrote: post #45
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you should be able to block development on land you donated indefinitely. On land you contractually purchased with the condition that development be blocked indefinitely? Then why sign the contract? If they wanted a time limit, they could have put it in the contract, or not signed the contract.

Such contracts should simply not be legal. Past owners should in generally speaking terms not be able to limit development and land use decisions of future owners. It’s no longer your land. You sold it. Want to privately limit rights via contract? Consider not selling. If it gets zoned as parkland as part of a sale - great! You should be able to make that part of a sale contract. But if the governing body then votes…

> Old people ossifying things to how they prefer via preventing future generations to freely operate is not how I want a society to run.

What do you think the outcome of this would actually be?

Someone wants to sell land to develop a parkland but they aren't allowed to dictate that it must be a parkland.

So they just don't sell it ever. Now instead of a nice park it's a direlect lot for decades

The answer to this problem isn't "fuck you old people we're taking your land and building data centers"

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#87

Post by _heimdall »

phil21 wrote: post #45
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you should be able to block development on land you donated indefinitely. On land you contractually purchased with the condition that development be blocked indefinitely? Then why sign the contract? If they wanted a time limit, they could have put it in the contract, or not signed the contract.

Such contracts should simply not be legal. Past owners should in generally speaking terms not be able to limit development and land use decisions of future owners. It’s no longer your land. You sold it. Want to privately limit rights via contract? Consider not selling. If it gets zoned as parkland as part of a sale - great! You should be able to make that part of a sale contract. But if the governing body then votes…

How is this about old people ossifying things? The land owner chose to effectively give it to the city for free with a clear contract stipulating the use. The city took it knowing good and well what was in the contract.

I see plenty of people here angry when the idea is floated of the US government opening up public land for mining, drilling, etc. You may not be one of them obviously, but how is this different?

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#88

Post by _heimdall »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #70
triceratops wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right if the land is sold at market price. If it's sold at a discount because of the restrictions, then continuing to enforce those restrictions is valid. The land's value is permanently reduced due to the inability to build, and the price reflects that.

The price only reflects the future value out so far. The market price is based on a small number of decades. So for the purpose of respecting the discount, that reason dries up after a while.

Stipulating that such contract must expire after a period of time seems more reasonable than saying such a contract isn't valid at all.

Re: A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Data Center

#90

Post by waynecochran »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #69
jjk166 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't B have standing? They presumably are residents of and taxpayers to city C, and they face property devaluation stemming from nearby municipal actions.

you dont have standing from indirect harm or costs.

What is the legal precedent for this statement? I am not disagreeing, I just would like to know what the law is.
Post reply on HN