this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
1237 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

85339 readers
4461 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (2 children)

If you read the article, there was exactly this sort of clause in the deed, and now the courts are saying “fuck you”

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

and now the courts are saying “fuck you”

It's one Court and unsurprisingly it's the Court located right there in town. I strongly suspect that the Third Court of Appeals is going to have a different take on this mess.

At least where I live you can't wash away a deed restriction like this by transferring the property a couple times.

[–] kevinsky@feddit.nl 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It is wild to me that this wasn't handled elsewhere to begin with. There is no way to at least somewhat guarantee a fair process with this massive potential for conflict of interest.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago

Actually just did read the article, had to dig it up off an archive site. Honestly this seems like it's a garden variety case of deed washing. Pass the property back and forth a few times between various entities, somewhere in the line the deed restrictions get 'accidentally lost', and what comes out in the end is a parcel with no restrictions and the only one with any interest in enforcing restrictions is five or six owners ago (all with impeccable arm's length separation of course) so if a court does try and fix it you end up with a giant mess of transactions to unwind, some of which may not be possible to unwind.

Sadly if I'm correct that means the most likely outcome is the deed restriction is enforced and the data come center company files a claim with their title insurance. The best shot at actually unwinding any of this is that the property was transferred for significantly below market value or for nothing between some of those entities in the middle, which makes it a lot easier to argue they were acting as one.