I don't know how to pull the actual court documents without paying for them, but the article indicates the case was dismissed for lack of standing.

The plaintiffs tried to argue that as neighbours, they had an interest in the land usage being enforced. The court disagreed.

I presume the original family could bring a case? It doesn't seem like the 404 article or the Taylor Press article talked to them to see how _they_ feel about how their gift is being used.

▲

limagnolia 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Possibly... there is a lot of unknown details here. The article posted appears to be rage bait rather than a well researched article.

▲

Legend2440 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That's 404media for you. They are anti-tech-industry activists who exist to get people riled up against tech companies.

▲

shimman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

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!

	▲	cldellow 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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 was a clerical error made a long time ago. Maybe it can get unwound, but maybe not. If the people of this town are being screwed, it's by incompetence on someone's part 23 years ago, not by big tech.