Something worse happened in my city. The city hall expropriated some land from the owner with the justification it was needed for a public interest project. The project wasn’t very detailed and pretty much half-assed like it wasn’t serious. The owner was pissed since the land was sure to raise its price by a lot in a few years. The city was experiencing a major boom and the land was right where the city center was expanding to. But he loses the land and receives a “fair market price”.
Right after the land is expropriated the city hall cancels the project and, since it was no longer needed and the land is considered useless sells it very cheaply to a known real estate entrepreneur with ties to the (very corrupt) Mayor. In a couple of years construction has started in the area (by other friends of the mayor) and the value of the land explodes. The entrepeneur sells it back for a fortune to the city hall. The city hall justifies the huge payment due to the need for a mall there. That mall never turned a profit and was bankrupt in a few years.
The original owner sued city hall and the old mayor. The case is tied in courts for decades now. It’s ridiculous. My city is the capital of corruption in a corrupt country.
People should know that donating land like this is not at all guaranteed to keep the land from being developed. Promises to keep parks in existence is nothing when the city “needs” a new development, hospital, data center, whatever.
And this is why you need a lawyer when you’re doing this kind of thing.
If this farmer was smart, there would be a clause in the contract that the land may only be used for a park or other public space. And that if the city decides to resell the land, the farmer or their descendants will have the right to reclaim it.
Thus, farmer could either stop the data center or at least get a solid payday.
If you read the article, there was exactly this sort of clause in the deed, and now the courts are saying “fuck you”
and now the courts are saying “fuck you”
It’s one Court and unsurprisingly it’s the Court located right there in town. I strongly suspect that the Third Court of Appeals is going to have a different take on this mess.
At least where I live you can’t wash away a deed restriction like this by transferring the property a couple times.
One of the more fucked up aspects of eminent domain. City/county/state governments can nuke deeds by using eminent domain. It allows them to turn a plot of land, regardless prior restrictions, into things like dumps.
The fucked up part about it is they can also turn public lands into private lands with that same trick.
What’s frustrating is we still need eminent domain for good. It’s basically the only way to build railways and roads. It even ends up being one of the few ways to deploy things like district heating/cooling and new fiber lines.
I believe eminent domain should have a very limited scope legally and should mostly only be used for public infrastructure projects and housing honestly…
She’s gonna get a share of the lease revenue on that, right?
…right?
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.
Huh, I’m not an attorney but that sure seems actionable if the intended use was documented in a contract.
The relevant case law may be found in Molotov vs. New Construction .
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.
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.
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.
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.”
gimme some wiskey and point them out, I get punchy, 1 shot or 20
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.
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.
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.
No takey-backs! ✝️
Best they can do is no trees, half of everyone riding mobility scooters and neighbors with dogs that can poop EVERYWHERE.
I was curious where the land was, and if I could help in any way.
It’s in Texas. I made a promise to myself that I’d never go back to Texas.
Texas. Fucking. Suuuuuucks.
“Don’t mess with Texas” now has a different meaning.
“Don’t mess with Texas, it might be contagious”
Just like “Everything Is Bigger In Texas” is considered a self-own to the rest of the world, they’re the brunt of the joke. (Sorry Austin, you too. Yes, even SXSW)
if you just give it away, assume it will be used for the worst thing you can imagine. You give it away with strict agreement that it will be used only for things you have intended.
There was a specific clause in the deed that it had to be used for a park, and now that is not being honored
then hopefully the city will be made to honor it
