1216
A Farmer Donated Land to Turn into a Park. The City Is Building a Massive Data Center Instead (www.404media.co)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 167 points 5 months ago* (18 children)

Even if they didn't do her dirty, she wouldn't. She donated it to the city and relinquished ownership of it. The expectation, even written into the deed, was that the land was to be used as a park, but they turned around and sold it multiple times. Despite the stipulation in the original deed to the parks and recreation department, the data center is still going forward.

The story is just such a tragedy all around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 112 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    Huh, I’m not an attorney but that sure seems actionable if the intended use was documented in a contract.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 145 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

    She's got an attorney and they're trying to stop it based on that, but it just seems like everyone involved (edit: besides her) just doesn't give a fuck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 109 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    They've been taught that if they ignore the law and do whatever they want to they don't get punched in the face.

    That will only go on for so long but it's going to suck until someone gets punchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Especially with the recent East Wing argument, the lesson is "if you do it fast enough and ignore other people getting angry about it, you can do whatever you want."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What's the saying? "Ownership is 90% posession."

    Like with the stuff going on at the East Wing or the Kennedy Center, some people just move forward even if they're not allowed to because chances are they won't be stopped or penalized.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The relevant case law may be found in Molotov vs. New Construction .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    While in many ways it is a tragedy, the cure is often worse. I on balance oppose deed restrictions, either you own the land and pay taxes, or you give up all control. Deed restrictions just force future generations to live by your values and that is a bad thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    It's a lot like another commenter mentioned about eminent domain. It can be used for good (roads, fiber deployments, district heating, etc) but also for things not so good (data centers, etc).

    I went out of my way to find a house that didn't even have a vestigial HOA deed restriction, so I get that. But when a private citizen donates something to the local municipality, it's pretty egregious to not honor those restrictions, especially for things that may take a while to develop.

    I'd donate my share of my family's farmland to build a park, but I wouldn't sell it for all the money in the world to build a datacenter or landfill or anything else, really.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    It is a jerk move for sure and the voters should be mad about this. If you can't keep your word without a contract that says a lot about your lack of honor.

    I'm talking pure legality here though. The cities actions are legal and should be. They are however dishonorable and nobody should deal with the city again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    As for your last line there, forcing future generations to live by the values of having a park isn't a bad thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    What makes you so sure? I mean, I would hope that future generations will have parks, but we don't know what the future is going to be like. There may be some consideration that we couldn't even conceive of that would make it not a good thing for them to have a park. Or maybe parks are considered good in future generations, but there's a reason that that is a particularly bad spot to have a park.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent