Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • There seems to be some missing details from the few sentences in this article. Does anyone have the full story? Why did the court dismiss the families lawsuit?
    by limagnolia
  • https://www.kut.org/energy-environment/2025-09-26/taylor-tex...

    This is closer to the time of the lawsuit and has some more details - they sold it to a trust who then sold it to the city some years later, and the city rezoned it in 2005. It's possible they missed the timing maybe?

    by nemomarx
  • https://www.taylorpress.net/article/10705,judge-rules-in-fav... has a bit more info.

    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.

    by cldellow
  • Gonna play a little devil's advocate here.

    Setting aside whether I think data centers or good or bad and just focusing on the sale of the land (for whatever purpose).

    The land was donated back in 99 and looks like they never followed through on making it anything. Which is pretty shitty to Mr Bland's vision.

    Though that donation itself is a bit weird because literally on the just the other side of the neighborhood is. a park!

    https://maps.app.goo.gl/jwcANZ59bW17sTmm7

    according to the town site the park was dedicated in 1955 https://www.taylortx.gov/244/Fannie-Robinson-Park

    I suspect It just sat fallow for 25 years because there was already a park nearby and nobody bothered to press them on using the land for it's donated purpose. It switched hands a few times. Likely someone turned it up in some meeting and realized at this point they were never going to do anything with it and might as well sell it.

    Edit: In considering the protracted timeline, I revise the assumption to "nobody at the office knew why they had the land or any stipulations attached to it". it's even possible that the buyers in 08 didn't know the terms of the original deed from nearly a decade before. Not that it makes it right to sell it but the intent wasn't likely malicious, the land wasn't donated just last year or anything.

    by ticulatedspline
  • It's crazy how people in this thread wanted to physically cause harm to this city's councilmen when it does seem pretty believable that "nobody at the office knew why they had the land or any stipulations attached to it" when someone takes a second to look into it

    @dang what kind of site are you trying to run here?

    by bryan_w
  • Next up is the argument that it was to be used for future park land, but: they didn't specify a timeframe... taps head
    by prawn
  • > Though that donation itself is a bit weird because literally on the just the other side of the neighborhood is. a park!

    To be fair, parks don't just mean playground equipment. It could be a forested area with trails. It could be a drainage pond you can fish in. It could be a garden or prairie. It could even just be a big grass lot where people can play games and do whatever.

    by CivBase
  • Calling that a park is stretching it, even if someone named it "park". That's a playground, some grass, and a parking space. Not something where you can enjoy a stroll for a couple hours.

    A city of ~20k doesn't have to go crazy here, but surely you can maintain something nicer (especially once you have that data center money!)

    by chmod775
  • I oppose deed restrictions. They last forever and who knows what is correct for future generations.

    This is a jerk move by the city, but that is a different issue.

    by bluGill
  • Deed restrictions can be modified. There are processes for doing it.
    by dylan604
  • I could see some kind of legal max duration of a deed restriction, but it seems totally reasonable as long as both parties know the agreement.

    If I can't write in a deed restriction then I also don't want the government writing easements and land use restrictions.

    by _heimdall
  • Tangentially related: https://youtu.be/F4SmgrAmdUQ

    “When nothing belongs to everyone, the rich will own everything, including the rebellions against them,”

    by nativeit
  • Tragedy of the commons, re-framed
    by bigp3t3
  • Beautiful work, that video.
    by impossiblefork
  • Unincorporated areas of London that were previously shared informally were commodified and transferred to the rich roughly around the 19th century, depriving commoners of them and gradually pushed them out.
    by burnt-resistor
  • Reminds me a teacher lived thriftily in life and donated 2 or 3 million to a school in his will when he died. The school used it to buy a state of the art high school football scoreboard.
    by b3ing
  • Donating money is just not it. It's so easy to spend money you didn't work hard to make yourself. If you wanna do good, figure out how to deploy the resources to your cause.
    by wagwang
  • Notwithstanding the merits of this case, I'm against the concept of unlimited time deed restrictions on property. Dead people should not be able to decide what living people can do with land or any other property indefinitely. That's why we have things like the rule against perpetuities, and requirements that charitable foundations spend a certain percentage of their assets every year.

    Some of these ideas strongly carry over to the idea of AIs acting as autonomous agents as well.

    by cameldrv
  • Yes, they should if they are selling the land for $10. You don't want limits? Pay without limits.
    by crossroadsguy
  • >> Notwithstanding the merits of this case, I'm against the concept of unlimited time deed restrictions on property. Dead people should not be able to decide what living people can do with land or any other property indefinitely.

    I used to disagree with you, but your stance is the only one that makes sense. The way you control property use is through ownership.

    In this case the original family wanted it to be used as a park, but they didn't want to set up an entity to own and maintain the park so they tried to conditionally donate it to the city. And that worked for a long time. The weird thing is that the city agreed to this, and the state apparently honored the deed restriction and considered it valid, but now it can just be thrown out?

    by phkahler
  • Unfortunately this is just the only defense we currently have against powerful interest groups. It's the reason we still have any redwoods today. Absent of a fair replacement, a powerful corporation will, over time, always win even if it's not the net social benefit.
    by culi
  • Agreed, but I am also against government selling public land, since we have so few parks and public spaces. It is much harder to buy it back later.
    by francisofascii
  • Today the Sagrada Familia, now the tallest church in the world, was inaugurated in Spain, 100 years after the death of its architect Gaudì.

    Can you imagine the number of H100s we could have put in there if this was Texas?

    by sebastiennight
  • Make it GB300s and now you're cooking with gas (specifically the gas in the supplemental methane turbine generators that will be on site for when the grid is overwhelmed)
    by connicpu
  • We can right these wrongs. Vertical cooling seems feasible. A Google Maps 3D tour of the interior would be much more accessible. You’re not anti-accessibility, right? This is a moral imperative. Thank you for pointing this out.
    by DrewADesign
  • It's exhausting that the "solution" to problems like this is getting tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens stressed until enough public attention gives some small chance of redress. I'm not calling for violence, but if we can't get these things fixed in court there has to be a more effect and more forceful avenue for protest than venting on internet forums.
    by zug_zug
  • I’ve organized so much that I’m exhausted from organizing

    but if somebody else wants to organize I will 100% show up

    So consider me first on the list of people ready to do whatever it takes to fix this shit

    by AndrewKemendo
  • > I'm not calling for violence

    We all know that you are, and that that's fine, and you're just hedging because you're scared of the list you'll be placed on. Do not worry, you're on it already.

    You would never have mentioned it if you weren't.

    by deaux
  • 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.
    by DennisP
  • I am ambivalent about whatever this controversy is (taking it at face value, it seems pretty bad, I don't know all the backstory) but we have in fact in the US the exact opposite problem: tiny, nonrepresentative groups of noisy stakeholders have an alarming track record of halting development, which has been deployed in the service of keeping home prices high, neighborhoods white and/or wealthy, transportation inefficient, and the power grid fossil-based and rickety.
    by tptacek