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

231–240 of 574 posts

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

#231

Post by dylan604 »

projektfu wrote: post #105
dylan604 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like that sale should be null and voided at that point

Someone apparently thought that about a Texas option contract but the Texas Supreme Court disagreed and said the contract was still valid, endorsing the fiction.

Hmm, if I refuse to pay my car note, they repossess it. If you fail to pay taxes, the gov't places a lien on the property. Can the family that never received payment put a lien in place instead? That would prevent the $10million sale. That'd get someone's attention

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

#232

Post by everforward »

butlike wrote: post #225
everforward wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is something that could have been objected to by the original seller (they would have had standing to sue) and they have not agreed to change the covenant (because they are dead), it seems as if anyone affected should be able to sue. They don’t because it’s a private agreement, so only the involved parties can sue. In this case, if the original seller died then standing to sue would be inherited (I believe).…

> Like if the land just isn’t usable as a park because it’s too out of the way to be worth maintenance or building it would be insane because it’s a literal swamp, what is the city supposed to do with that? Own it and just do nothing with it in perpetuity? Why would the city buy it with the original stipulation attached if that were the case? Seems dishonest (which isn't illegal), but yeah...

The guy donated it, so they didn’t buy it per se.

This is purely from a legal perspective. Morally it’s abhorrent (at least as presented).

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

#233

Post by wagwang »

tyrust wrote: post #213
wagwang wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donating money is just not it. It's so easy to spend money you didn't work hard to make yourself. If you wanna do good, figure out how to deploy the resources to your cause.

There are plenty of highly effective charities.

Maybe but the ones in my city(who take city money) have literally nothing to show for.

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

#234

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

georgeburdell wrote: post #100
coredog64 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it true that it was sold for $10? There’s a common phrase in Texas deed transfers similar to the below which just means “The sale price is none of your business” Common Texas boilerplate: That for and in consideration of ten dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Grantor has bargained and sold, and does here…

Not a lawyer but my understanding is that a valid contract must involve an exchange of value from both parties

Having a rancher grow hay and graze their animals on your property is valuable: it means you don't have to take care of the land, which might otherwise become host to invasive species, or overgrown.

A neighbor used to let us graze horses on his property for the same reason: "that way I don't have to bother mowing it."

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

#235

Post by munk-a »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #69
jjk166 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you dont have standing from indirect harm or costs.

This statement is far too vague semantically to be meaningful. It is technically correct under some extreme definitions of indirect (e.g. no affecting in any way) but if you are harmed in many inobvious manners you have recourse. In this specific example the neighbor is harmed through their property valuation - whether that will be a successful suit I cannot comment on but there is observed harm. Additionally, if a relatively forgotten homeless person is murdered and the murderer is found we still charge them - even if no individual is directly harmed by the murder happening we have a general understanding that murder is bad. Would you consider murder is bad to be a direct harm and thus skirt around the vague statement above or would you consider murder is bad to be an indirect harm and thus challenge the validity of charging someone with murder of someone without any obvious social ties? Also, if it's just some random person being murdered is the emotional distress on a family enough of a direct harm to qualify for your statement or do you think that murder (when it is not a failed attempt) is a crime for which no person has standing (aka the Telvanni way).

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

#236

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

seligerasmus wrote: post #204
waynecochran wrote: post #90

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.

Lots of questions about the colloquial (mis)understading of standing, and the actual standard, so might as well reply here. IAAL, and the legal precedent is... the doctrine of standing. The article is paywalled halfway down for me, so I don't know the particulars of the complaint, but it's presumably in state court. Either way, most state doctrines are some variant of the essential elements for Article III (federal)…

IANAL, but from all the legal podcasts/commentary I consume, I get the general impression that standing is a bit of a mess and is applied in highly inconsistent ways throughout the legal system

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

#237

Post by ProllyInfamous »

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 same mayor.

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

#238

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

phil21 wrote: post #62
alex_young wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservation easements are a thing. Many people support protecting natural spaces and the law is composed of such general understandings.

Yes, and they need to be flexible via public policy. If two generations from now some 10acre plot of land made into wildland is now surrounded by skyscrapers it probably makes a whole lot of sense for there to be a means for the local population to vote to remove that protection and turn it into affordable housing or whatnot. It gets nuanced - but in general speaking terms this sort of thing should never be forever s…

> Even conservation trusts make more sense to me.

That seems to be what was used here. Then the trust sold it for some cash.

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

#239

Post by shimman »

cldellow wrote: post #144
shimman wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

According to https://www.taylorpress.net/article/10664,blueprint-data-cen... , the restriction on the deed was gone by the time the property was transferred to the city of Taylor. That seems to have been in 2003. 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 w…

Yes, the old "well that's just the law" while ignoring the material effects of said law. They're just following orders after all right? Just ignore the playbook big tech has been using across development boards in America to somehow always get the outcomes they want while civilians suffer with little to no reprecaussions.

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

#240

Post by s1artibartfast »

munk-a wrote: post #235
s1artibartfast wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you dont have standing from indirect harm or costs.

This statement is far too vague semantically to be meaningful. It is technically correct under some extreme definitions of indirect (e.g. no affecting in any way) but if you are harmed in many inobvious manners you have recourse. In this specific example the neighbor is harmed through their property valuation - whether that will be a successful suit I cannot comment on but there is observed harm. Additionally, if a r…

If we are taking about standing to sue, we are talking civil lawsuits, not criminal law. This distinction sresolves many of your questions. Yes there are nuances, but in general I think it is a reasonable huristic.

If Mcdonalds raises the price of burgers, I have more costs, but that alone is not grounds to sue Mcdonalds.

If a burgler robs mcdonalds driving a price hike, that is not cause for a customer to sue the robber.

Post reply on HN