141–150 of 574 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At today's rate in the US, executive immunity is going to extend to all elected or appointed officials in perpetuity.
And just behind that is politicians getting beat down in the streets when people realize the rule of law means nothing anyways and they have no reason to play along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like that sale should be null and voided at that point
Would that mean the original owner gets it back? Would they have to pay property tax backlog retroactively? Might be huge ..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deed restrictions can be modified. There are processes for doing it.
Maybe. Many are forever. If the restriction is a via HOA there is generally a process to modify the HOA agreement. However there are other restrictions and some don't make provisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly... there is a lot of unknown details here. The article posted appears to be rage bait rather than a well researched article.
Yes, as we all know big tech absolutely follow the rules and don't skirt regulations. It's clearly the journalists causing the problems and not the government that has a history of ignoring contracts when it benefits them!
Is the idea that "when it benefits them" was... 23 years ago, and then they just sat on the land waiting for big tech to come along and want to buy it?
As mundane as it may sound, it seems most likely this was a clerical error made a long time ago. Maybe it can get unwound, but maybe not. If the people of this town are being screwed, it's by incompetence on someone's part 23 years ago, not by big tech.
The article didn't really convince me that the homes are going to be significantly devalued or that people are going to be thrust into poverty. It says so, and dismisses out of hand claims to the opposite, but doesn't give much in the way of evidence for its points.
I'm sympathetic to the agreement for the original donation. If the original deed said that the stipulation of donation was not only "only use this for a park" but also "never sell to anyone who might do something else," then I do think the city owes some very large compensation amount to somebody. If not, though... the city sold the land in 2008 to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation, at which point it doesn't really sound like the original deed has much value. If you buy land from someone privately and 18 years later it turns out it was gifted to them with the stipulation that they never sell, how much recourse should another party really have to stop you doing what you want with that land?
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…
B doesn't have standing because they are indirectly harmed? So if I sell a home in an HOA without the HOA covenant on the deed, can the HOA sue? It seems they are also only indirectly harmed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At today's rate in the US, executive immunity is going to extend to all elected or appointed officials in perpetuity.
And just behind that is politicians getting beat down in the streets when people realize the rule of law means nothing anyways and they have no reason to play along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the legal precedent for this statement? I am not disagreeing, I just would like to know what the law is.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) the requirements for standing were developed in the Constitution and elaborated in some later cases. To quote from the article, the apt criteria seem to me (2 of the 3): 1. Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or immi…
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…
B doesn't have standing because they are indirectly harmed? So if I sell a home in an HOA without the HOA covenant on the deed, can the HOA sue? It seems they are also only indirectly harmed.
You would then have violated your contract with the HOA.
I also expect that the city violated their contract with A('s heirs). B still has no standing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me how I can just strip deed restrictions simply because I don't like them and/or they're inconvenient for me. Deed restrictions are the mechanism that basically all HOAs are built upon so if you can just skirt around them because $reasons there are millions of people who would like to know.
> Please tell me how I can just strip deed restrictions simply because I don't like them and/or they're inconvenient for me. Easy - be a municipality. There's a reason the phrase "can't fight city hall" exists, and is for the most part universally true.