new | show | ask | jobs Github

protocolture 4 hours ago

Whats the problem here?

Farmer gives land to city.

City goes "We can have 10 million dollars AND a brand new data center, hot diggity"

City is enriched in both money AND services.

Thanks Mr Farmer.

▲

ozim 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Farmer donates land for a park

If you are my friend and I gift you a nice item … I would be majorly pissed at you and would not talk to you ever again if you would sell it online.

I would expect you give it back or pass for free to someone who is also close to you.

	▲	bawolff an hour ago \| parent [-]
		When you put it that way, i disagree. A gift is a gift. Once you give it to someone its their's to do with as they please. A gift with strings is not a gift. This story is different though, the farmer sold the land for cheap in exchange for some conditions. This situation is more like going back on a contract.

▲

mystraline 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No.

Farmer SELLS land (for $10) with a deed restriction that it is to be used for a public park.

Hand wavey timey wimey...

Deed restriction 'magically' goes away.

Gets sold for $10M.

▲

protocolture 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So a city should tie its hands permanently because of a gift? Donations can now override city planning?

Tired of paying property tax? Gift your house to the city with a deed that says they have to rent it back to you forever for $1 a year?

Lets be clear, this wouldnt even be news if it wasnt for "Datacentre"

▲

potatototoo99 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The city could have refused to buy the land for $10 if they didn't agree to the terms. Or claim eminent domain and pay a fair price maybe.

▲

zerobees 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Gift your house to the city with a deed that says they have to rent it back to you forever for $1 a year?

What if I write a note saying that you need to pay me $10,000? That's not a contract, that's just a fever dream. But if you shake my hand and sign that piece of paper, that's a different story.

The same applies here. If you get the city to agree (and they don't get raided by the FBI after that), then sure, they should be bound by the deal they made.

Note that this works both ways. If you own nice rural acreage, the federal or state government will often be happy to pay you some token amount and give you a tax break for a conservation easement that prevents not only you, but all future owners, from using the land in certain ways. It's still yours, but it's now a scenic corridor and you can't build there anymore. There's plenty of such easements in California and other Western states. If I'm bound by such a perpetual, deed-attached restriction, why can't the government be?

▲

bumby 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they don’t want to use it for the agreed upon purpose, they could either offer to pay the true value so they can use it for something else or give it back to the farmer/heirs.

The real problem seems to be one city gave the land to a parks nonprofit who then sold it to another city, but the original park intent did not follow those sales.

▲

protocolture 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And if they need it for something else they could just compulsorily acquire it from themselves for 10 more dollars?

	▲	bumby 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not sure I follow. Are you implying $10 is the material value of the property?

▲

_DeadFred_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. Society doesn't work if the government is above contract law. If the city can't abide by it's contracts it should not enter into them. Unlike abusive software TOSs the sale was/is not self executing/binding/changed after the fact. The city chose to enter into it with their eyes open.

▲

DennisP 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]