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

251–260 of 574 posts

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

#251

Post by order-matters »

thayne wrote: post #242
order-matters wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city usually has the authority to dismiss deed restrictions if it is in the best interest of the city. my wording was too vague though, youre right in that I took for granted we were talking about the city and this doesnt generally apply to normal ownerships or else HOAs wouldnt be anywhere near as annoying as they are.

> if it is in the best interest of the city I think a lot of people, including many of the citizens of this city would say this is not in the best interest of the city.

the point is that argument can be made regardless of deed restrictions. the city generally does things it believes to be in the best interest of the city, so making a deed restriction with it is borderline meaningless with respect to authority. it is purely symbolic, but you would hope that people representing the city see the deal for what it is and respect it unless it's absolutely necessary to override it.. rather than treating the original owner like a sucker and putting up a data center

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

#252

Post by AdrianB1 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #218
AdrianB1 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just being a resident of a city doesn’t give you standing to sue over any decision that has a tenuous adverse effect on you Why not? If you are impacted, why not? When do you have a standing then? Visitors out of town have less standing than the people paying taxes to the town, that is fair, but the city IS the people, each and every person, not an abstract third party that herds them like cattle.

The impact should need to be material and related to some legal right you have, it seems to me. In general you cannot sue to enforce a contract or agreement you are not a party to, even if the outcome of adhering to that contract affects you.

That is the point: as a citizen in a city, you are part of that city and any contract the city is part of. Otherwise, what/who is a city?

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

#253

Post by db48x »

unholiness wrote: post #220
db48x wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a park, then build a park. Don’t give away the land and hope someone else builds a park.

The Trustees of Reservations, in the Boston area, are a great example of this working well.

Yea, I suppose if you gave the land to an organization dedicated to building parks then you could reasonably expect to get a park out of it. Of course, they might decide to build a garage to house and maintain their fleet of mowing and gardening equipment instead.

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

#254

Post by ninalanyon »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #167
nativeit wrote: post #2

Tangentially related: https://youtu.be/F4SmgrAmdUQ “When nothing belongs to everyone, the rich will own everything, including the rebellions against them,”

Unincorporated areas of London that were previously shared informally were commodified and transferred to the rich roughly around the 19th century, depriving commoners of them and gradually pushed them out.

Happened all over England and started much earlier than that.

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

#255

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #252
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The impact should need to be material and related to some legal right you have, it seems to me. In general you cannot sue to enforce a contract or agreement you are not a party to, even if the outcome of adhering to that contract affects you.

That is the point: as a citizen in a city, you are part of that city and any contract the city is part of. Otherwise, what/who is a city?

In the US, normally, citizens of a city do not have the right to act on behalf of the city. They cannot sue on behalf of the city, they cannot unilaterally attempt to enforce the city’s laws, etc. There are some rare exceptions where cities and states pass laws that create private rights of action when regulations are violated but these are the exception.

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

#256

Post by melon18 »

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.

I'm a little skeptical the farmer's family didn't see this coming. $10 in 1999 for 87 acres?That's basically giving it away with a handshake. City councils change, money talks.

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

#257

Post by ProllyInfamous »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #246
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #237

The US Federal Government donated surplus ammunition depots to the city of Chattanooga, decades ago. Deed restrictions limited its usage as "parkland." Recently, our mayor attempted to sell this parkland (technically zoned "industrial") to gain a quick half-million for the county. It is adjacent to VW's Tennessee assemblyline. Fortunately this was rejected, and now it's being greenwashed as "conservation" by that sam…

Why is it better for the city of Chattanooga to use land formerly occupied by ammunition depots as parkland, than for it to sell it to VW so they can use it to expand their assembly line?

Currently VW is contracting (as is most of non-tech global manufacturing). Third-shift has entirely stopped. Severance-buyouts offered.

...so currently unnecessary.

Also, the parkland has heavily-used trails, and this would block off almost the entire south of the park from pre-existing public access/neighborhoods.

Our county recently (a few years ago) purchased the largest remaining farm, with intentions of developing an industrial business park – IMHO: also foolishly: it's so far away that it has no infrastructure and is difficult to access – but perfect for bluecollar (county-living) workers, nearby.

----

Thankfully this issue has been tabled, for now.

NPS just gave the county this land this century, with deed restrictions for "greenway" – I agree that 200-years-past restrictions shouldn't debilitate living populations... but most of those living (when NPS gave to county) are still living.

Post reply on HN