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

Post by IG_Semmelweiss » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

Glyptodon wrote: post #80

arjie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So there are two issues: (c) shouldn't be able to sell without the restriction, and (b) knowing of the restriction made decisions in good faith believing it would be followed and hence have been harmed by it not being followed, no? If (b) doesn't have standing, nobody does and deed restrictions are de facto useless.

Post by elzbardico » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 5:16 PM UTC

Post by msandford » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

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…

Post by freak42 » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #67

miltonlost wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public parks should not be developed on for the sake of the community. We need wild areas.

We need wild areas in the community ? Why? Let the wild be in the wild.

Post by selimthegrim » Mon, Jun 08, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #54

Aunche wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tax loophole where you buy a lot of land and donate 90% of it to the government to be "public parkland". However, in actuality, you're the only person who has convenient access to this land and nobody else can build there, so you get nearly all the benefits of this land while claiming a big tax deduction. It doesn't sound like what is happening here, but I don't think you should be able to block developmen…

The law addressed this centuries ago. The general rule is that you can enforce such rules for a generation plus twenty years. That may seem like a long time, but the rule prevents the "cold hand from the grave" dictating how living people should act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities In this case, the farmer should have talked to a lawyer first. There are ways to set thing up to prevent misuse.