new | show | ask | jobs Github

dwohnitmok 2 hours ago

My guess is standing. The family bringing the suit is not the family that donated the land.

▲

Glyptodon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So deed restrictions are unenforceable then?

▲

AdrianB1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it is a park, does it mean anyone living in the city has standing because their entire city lost the park?

▲

asdfasgasdgasdg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hopefully 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. I mean if that holds why shouldn’t visitors who might one day hope to visit the given park have standing to sue?

	▲	AdrianB1 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.