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

171–180 of 574 posts

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

#171

Post by culi »

_heimdall wrote: post #96
dwohnitmok wrote: post #31

Since this seems to be a misapprehension by a couple of commentators I'll put this as a top-level comment. The family bringing the lawsuit is not the family that donated the land.

(Sorry, I don't have access to read the full article) Is the family suing a member of the city? If so they still seem like valid complainants in the case since its publicly owned land.

1. Cromwell family donated 87 acres to nonprofit Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation in 1999

2. City sold 53 of those acres to Blueprint for $10 million in 2024. In addition, the city gave Blueprint 50% rebate on property taxes for 10 years and a 50% rebate on local sales-and-use tax collected on construction material purchases

3. Local neighbors sue to stop the violation of the deed. Judge dismisses the case on "no standing" in 2025.

https://old.reddit.com/r/InterstellarKinetics/comments/1u0cf...

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

#173

Post by antisthenes »

miltonlost wrote: post #37
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…

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

It just depends on the size. I know of several 1000+ acre parks that would be essentially considered wild areas with the exception of a few hiking paths.

They are full of wildlife ranging from small rodents to bears.

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

#174

Post by msandford »

cogman10 wrote: post #131
stronglikedan wrote: post #109

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. Easy - be a municipality. There's a reason the phrase "can't fight city hall" exists, and is for the most part universally true.

Yeah, city law can easily override deed laws. But further, eminent domain allows the city to strip away deed restrictions through a "one weird trick". The city can eminent domain the land from themselves removing the restriction and then sell it privately. The same way the city can eminent domain your home and put a road through it. The HOA can't stop the city from putting in a new road.

Aren't deed restrictions usually done at the state level? If so, the city can't just magic them away. State law is going to trump city law unless the city's restrictions are tighter.

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

#175

Post by limagnolia »

alex0015 wrote: post #145

What I'm seeing from the article is that the land is 87 acres and the data center is going to take up ~4 of them. Perhaps with the extra $3 million a year in tax revenue the city could build a park too. 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…

In another article, it mentions that there is a buffer zone still owned by the city between the houses and the datacenter. They also mention that there is another park nearby (doesn't say how near).

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

#176

Post by SilverElfin »

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.

This feels a lot like what happens with taxes too. You pass some measure to fund a particular thing voters want. That money then gets spent on unrelated things or just siphoned off into a city’s general fund, disappearing into corrupt grifts and waste. Meanwhile the thing you wanted is unaddressed, and a couple years later, that same thing ends up being recycled into yet another new tax to vote for. But you, the voter, still won’t get what you think you will pay for.

There is no accountability. And it starts with the notion of immunity. I think we need to get rid of that concept altogether. Politicians, cops, etc. must be liable for their actions. Personally. Otherwise even when they do something wrong, it’s taxpayer money that is lost. The perpetrators face ZERO consequences.

As an example: If a politician does something to violate your constitutional rights like when ICE does something bad or when legislation violates your first or second amendment rights, that politician should pay fines and end up in jail. If a cop makes a wrongful arrest or commits brutality, they should pay fines and end up in jail. If civil forfeiture steals from a law abiding citizen, those performing the act must be in jail. And so on.

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

#178

Post by bitmasher9 »

crossroadsguy wrote: post #158
cameldrv wrote: post #126

Notwithstanding the merits of this case, I'm against the concept of unlimited time deed restrictions on property. Dead people should not be able to decide what living people can do with land or any other property indefinitely. That's why we have things like the rule against perpetuities, and requirements that charitable foundations spend a certain percentage of their assets every year. Some of these ideas strongly ca…

Yes, they should if they are selling the land for $10. You don't want limits? Pay without limits.

Should the limitations really exist in perpetuity? It seems unreasonable that land is forced to be a park in 1000 years because it was donated. The people in one hundred generations should be able to use the land how they see fit.

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

#179

Post by ianm218 »

nancyminusone wrote: post #119
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…

>we can scale this up exponentially Lost me here. It usually means something will require exponentially more resources, and eventually a finite limit (money, time, raw materials, land, energy, lifespan, speed of light, etc) will be hit.

I'm not sure what you mean, we have already scaled up AI exponentially. The amount of AI compute in the world has been doubling every 7 to 8 months [1], so it is already exponential despite not being able to do human or super human research. The % of all AI compute going towards academic style knowledge research is quite low as well. So it stands to reason AI Compute used to do research would in fact scale up exponentially if we did figure out how use weights in a datacenter to do frontier research.

That doesn't mean were going to go right to Dyson spheres so that every possible molecule is going towards scaling.

[1] https://epoch.ai/trends

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

#180

Post by bitmasher9 »

bluGill wrote: post #118
_heimdall wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see some kind of legal max duration of a deed restriction, but it seems totally reasonable as long as both parties know the agreement. If I can't write in a deed restriction then I also don't want the government writing easements and land use restrictions.

I consider easements only valid when in use, or 5 years. That is once you build the "thing" you get to keep the easement, but if you stop using that pipe/cable/... you get 5 years to clean it up. If you are planning on building, you get 5 years to complete it, otherwise you have to start over getting another easement.

I was recently involved in a civil suit where an 50+ year old easement was brought up. I’m glad you only consider the easement valid for 5 years or when in use, but the courts disagree.
Post reply on HN