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.
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
353 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
85212 readers
4050 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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