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

181–190 of 574 posts

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

#181

Post by ianm218 »

kunai wrote: post #28
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…

Academics aren't infallible at all. The studies showing tobacco as non-harmful had the collaboration of a great many cooperative scientists. Generally speaking, many academics are amoral and will do very unscrupulous things for grant funding and exposure. It is a business. > AI could get better at fundamental/ applied STEM research than humans -> we can scale this up exponentially -> scaled up human level or super hu…

My point is just we don't need to jump right to everything is a hype train and it's all a conspiracy to pump stocks. You are welcome to disagree with Tao or anyone elses line of thinking.

> Any software producing stochastic or probabilistic output and cannot produce verifiable, repeatable, and predictable data cannot fundamentally replace something that requires a high level of proof and validation

Human output is also stochastic and probabilistic - our brains are not deterministic software. There is no fundamental reason we couldn't replace the human role in research with some form of AI (LLM or otherwise) if AI keeps improving.

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

#182

Post by zeroonetwothree »

adjejmxbdjdn wrote: post #168
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…

Are B not part of the city? Why wouldn’t they have standing on an action by their government? (This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one).

Generally the idea is that if you don’t like what the government does you deal with it through politics (elections and so on).

You only have standing if the government is actually directly harming you.

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

#183

Post by toomuchtodo »

DANmode wrote: post #134
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Whenever possible, conservation land should go into a conservation trust, not to the city, with a conservation easement. Defense in depth. Local government will do whatever is best at the time with whomever is in charge, conservation trusts will optimize to conserve and protect the land. No shame against this family, they and their gift were taken advantage of by their city and its representatives. You don't know wha…

> Local government will do whatever is best at the time Must have spent most of your years in better States than I!

My apologies, my thought was "for them."

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

#184

Post by [deleted] »

HWR_14 wrote: post #140
sleepybrett wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.. and if A is dead?

Property rights would inherit. So one of their relatives or heirs. If they had no one to inherit the restriction it would go to the state - but the state would have gotten the land unrestricted in that case anyway.

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by ortusdux »

gfisher wrote: post #82
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…

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

Depends on the wording. "Upon X, the land shall revert to Y, or current heir" is common verbiage in deed restrictions.

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

#187

Post by alhirzel »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #115
alhirzel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been on the board of directors of a land trust, and this situation is a poster-child for why an existent concern must retain standing to litigate. A lot of what the Land Trust Alliance (LTA) does is ensure things like the legal nuts-and-bolts of conservation stays possible and durable, including conservation easements. CEs can be a lot of work, especially as the legal landscape changes. I think the dismissal o…

> The land trust you work with - are they accredited with LTA? They are. Great comment, I could not agree more with your thoughts.

I am so glad to hear this. Thank you for your work in support of land conservation!

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

#188

Post by ortusdux »

PyWoody wrote: post #52
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…

What you're describing sounds like what we call "in current use" in New Hampshire. I know Maine has something similar but I can't remember what they call it. You don't pay taxes on land in current use, but, if you or whomever you sold the land to, wants to build on it, they have to pay the back taxes first. It's a great for conservation.

You can get a hefty tax break on forest land in WA state as long as you have a forestry plan in place, and the same goes for fields in Florida for cattle grazing.

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

#189

Post by order-matters »

jjk166 wrote: post #60
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…

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.

presumably because it's not their land and if A wanted to build a data center on it to begin with then B could do nothing about it.

the key issue is C doing things that it's taxpayers dont want done.

in this case though taxpayer money is not being spent, the property is being sold which means money is being generated for the taxpayers, and the new property owner is

ultimately A never had the authority to contract the land as a park indefinitely and relied on C to have respect for the deal and intent. Maybe a timeframe needed to be stipulated, but even then we are talking about land ownership - once C owns it they own it. If you wanted to buy a house and the seller said something about you never being allowed to develop a section of the backyard because they buried their goldfish there or something, and you respect that wish but now need to move as well, are you stuck with passing that obligation forward? someone can just arbitrarily decide that land cannot be used?

No thats why there is no standing, they have every right to use the land to better the taxpayers. the problem is not the method or authority, the problem is that people dont want to give up a park for a data center and dont see the data center as something that benefits the taxpayers. that issue is not one that should be settled by the deed.

the property devaluation is a problem that should be addressed independently on its own merits and not through the means of challenging if they have the authority or not.

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

#190

Post by bluGill »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #180
bluGill wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The courts have no choice - they are following the law as they should.

However that doesn't mean the law is just or right. This is an important philosophical difference

Post reply on HN