Comment by order-matters
2 days ago
presumably because it's not their land and if A wanted to build a data center on it to begin with then B could do nothing about it.
the key issue is C doing things that it's taxpayers dont want done.
in this case though taxpayer money is not being spent, the property is being sold which means money is being generated for the taxpayers, and the new property owner is
ultimately A never had the authority to contract the land as a park indefinitely and relied on C to have respect for the deal and intent. Maybe a timeframe needed to be stipulated, but even then we are talking about land ownership - once C owns it they own it. If you wanted to buy a house and the seller said something about you never being allowed to develop a section of the backyard because they buried their goldfish there or something, and you respect that wish but now need to move as well, are you stuck with passing that obligation forward? someone can just arbitrarily decide that land cannot be used?
No thats why there is no standing, they have every right to use the land to better the taxpayers. the problem is not the method or authority, the problem is that people dont want to give up a park for a data center and dont see the data center as something that benefits the taxpayers. that issue is not one that should be settled by the deed.
the property devaluation is a problem that should be addressed independently on its own merits and not through the means of challenging if they have the authority or not.
A never had the authority to contract the land as a park indefinitely ... once C owns it they own it
That's not what a deed restriction is.
are you stuck with passing that obligation forward
Generally yes. Which is why the deed restriction can affect the market value of the property.
The city usually has the authority to dismiss deed restrictions if it is in the best interest of the city.
my wording was too vague though, youre right in that I took for granted we were talking about the city and this doesnt generally apply to normal ownerships or else HOAs wouldnt be anywhere near as annoying as they are.
> if it is in the best interest of the city
I think a lot of people, including many of the citizens of this city would say this is not in the best interest of the city.
1 reply →
"someone can just arbitrarily decide that land cannot be used?"
Yes, deed restrictions in Texas are contractual obligations that run with the land. Due diligence in acquiring land in Texas involves making sure existing deed restrictions do not impede your intended use.
Some cities in Texas don't even have zoning (Houston is the largest such city, though it does have some land use controls these days that it historically didn't have), it's deed restrictions all the way down.
If you want to sell real estate while still retaining rights to visit a grave sited thereupon, the legal instrument is called an "easement". Sometimes the access grant is associated with ownership of another property (e.g. shared driveway), but it can just as easily be just to a sentimental goldfish aficionado.
This is well thought out and a good point, it does feel like though there should be some “special case” for donating land to keep for public use as a park.
You are right though, how long can someone who doesn’t own that land, have authority on how it is used.
In Seattle the city is not allowed to take away park land without replacing it with the same area of new park land. No need to special case “if it was given by a citizen to be a park” - just make it park land at the time, and it’s permanent enough.
If you want a park, then build a park. Don’t give away the land and hope someone else builds a park.
The Trustees of Reservations, in the Boston area, are a great example of this working well.
1 reply →