The solution here might be the appeals court, since there is a deed restriction. The city agreed to it when they paid $10 for the land. The article mentions that Texas courts tend to be pretty serious about enforcing deed restrictions.

▲

no-name-here an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> there is a deed restriction

Was there ever a deed restriction? The government says no, but they say there was something else which I don’t understand.

> In the notes about the grantee, the cash warranty deed states that the property was to be held in trust for future use as parkland by Williamson County, Texas. This was not a deed restriction.

The rest of the page doesn’t display properly on iOS. https://taylortx.gov/1293/Blueprint-Projects-Data-Center

▲

bumby 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That property was transferred multiple times after the farmer gave it away. I can’t tell if that save deed restriction followed those sales

	▲	teeray 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Encumbrances and easements tend to follow the land even if they aren’t explicitly mentioned in the deed in question from the most recent transaction. They must be explicitly struck. Source: land attorney when asked this question about a deed restriction from a past deed. It was about NH real estate law, but I was told this was a general principle. It’s part of the reason title searches are done. The effective deed is a fold over the sequence of deeds.
	▲	toast0 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I went through the deeds the other night. The first transfer from Bland to Texas Parks and Rec Foundation had a restriction to be held in trust for a city park (or for parkland or something). The transfer from tp&r to williamson county park foundation only said to be held in trust. The transfer from the park foundation to the city didn't mention it. I don't know enough about texas real estate law to know if the restriction would tend to follow or not. I also don't know if the city would have done title research to have seen the restriction, so they may not have knowingly violated it (which may or may not matter; and maybe they should have known). Also, fwiw, the 'one month later' sale reported in the article was more like a few months later, in case you date restrict deed searches.
	▲	wahern 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		AFAIU, the people suing have no privity; they're just a neighbor and don't have any right to enforce the covenant. (If the covenant had granted them an interest, they could have.) Presumably the original property owner who granted the land, or their successors in interest, could sue to enforce the covenant, but they haven't.