I've seen this story a few times now. Is there (gonna be) a court case, or is that it?
Nobody got any fight in them anymore. Which is how they like it.
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
1236 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
85309 readers
5219 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, it's a park... An industrial park
was there a clause that if it isnt used as intended, it return to the owner?
She trusted the government I don’t understand what Went wrong
I can't imagine a better way to ensure people don't donate land ever again.
Don't even mention:
Datacenters Behaving Like Acoustic Weapons
Stories like this always remind me of the Peter's parking deck at GA Tech. The couple that donated the land wanted it to be a park, so that the students would have a green place to play and relax. Once Tech had the land, they put a parking deck there instead. But they put a basketball court on the top level so that they technically met the letter of the law.
In fairness, as a student I needed that parking deck way more than I needed the park.
omg, never knew about this donation. Sad, but also in the spirit of an engineer doing absolute minimum to pass compliance while achieving what you need. Whats the good word!
The said part there is truly that the you needed a parking lot more than greenspace.
a while back when i was a animal physio class a university, the profess told how he knew someone about to retire/Will but he wanted to donate it to STANFORD on the sole purpose of it being used as a research station in some island/country. the guy somehow heard the stanford lawyers said they were going to sell it or rent it out instead right behind his back. he gave it to Berkley university instead to be used for science.
the moral of the story make sure you have something in place so that the land/property being donated is used properly by a lawyer or a trust org.
Universities are a business and have the morals of your generic street thug. Why anyone would consider donating anything to them is a mystery.
Mostly to get their kids guaranteed entry into the university.
load more comments
(1 replies)
AI is starting to show that it isn't worth the investment and they are STILL building more?!? WTF is going on?
Because I do not think AI is the actual end goal. I think the actual end goal is cloud computing. They want everyone to use thin clients and connect to their data center instead of using a pc at home.
load more comments
(15 replies)
The bailout money will be double what they lost I am guessing.
load more comments
(3 replies)
She’s gonna get a share of the lease revenue on that, right?
…right?
Even if they didn't do her dirty, she wouldn't. She donated it to the city and relinquished ownership of it. The expectation, even written into the deed, was that the land was to be used as a park, but they turned around and sold it multiple times. Despite the stipulation in the original deed to the parks and recreation department, the data center is still going forward.
The story is just such a tragedy all around.
Huh, I’m not an attorney but that sure seems actionable if the intended use was documented in a contract.
She's got an attorney and they're trying to stop it based on that, but it just seems like everyone involved (edit: besides her) just doesn't give a fuck.
They've been taught that if they ignore the law and do whatever they want to they don't get punched in the face.
That will only go on for so long but it's going to suck until someone gets punchy.
Especially with the recent East Wing argument, the lesson is "if you do it fast enough and ignore other people getting angry about it, you can do whatever you want."
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
they're not even leasing. It's a flat sale. For a measly 10 million
load more comments
(4 replies)
It should be legal and acceptable to take back things given for one purpose that end up being used for something else.
It actually is if the gift is conditional on a specified use - in writing of course.
load more comments
(2 replies)
One of the more fucked up aspects of eminent domain. City/county/state governments can nuke deeds by using eminent domain. It allows them to turn a plot of land, regardless prior restrictions, into things like dumps.
The fucked up part about it is they can also turn public lands into private lands with that same trick.
What's frustrating is we still need eminent domain for good. It's basically the only way to build railways and roads. It even ends up being one of the few ways to deploy things like district heating/cooling and new fiber lines.
Eminent domain didn't factor into this particular case. The Taylor Economic Development Corporation simply ignored the deed and sold the land to BPP Projects LLC/Blueprint while Taylor City Council and Judge Ryan Larson approved and upheld it respectively.
I believe eminent domain should have a very limited scope legally and should mostly only be used for public infrastructure projects and housing honestly…
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
404 Media is journalist-founded and supported by reader subscriptions. They are four high quality investigators doing amazing work (they work with a couple of other people on some stories).
If you can't afford it, I understand. I share archive links all the time. For anyone with a few extra bucks who cares about quality reporting by people with integrity, this is easily one of the best options around. I've been extremely happy knowing they exist. (Gets you extra content from their podcast, too.)
I generally hate the principle of subscriptions + ads + paywalling stuff to viewers but not to crawlers, it’s pretty much double-dipping while baiting people for SEO.
On the other hand, I understand that in this day and age keeping a news outlet afloat without “outside influence” requires doing stuff like this. It’s a hard thing to balance but in either case I appreciate the insight from your comment, I admit I didn’t look them up and I figured they were just another money-hungry megacorp-owned outlet.
I’m curious what would be the better approach if someone wanted to donate land to be used for a park? Give it to a charity? Or somehow find the cash and just build the park yourself and let people visit your land?
My town had a guy that loved baseball a long time ago, he had money and wanted it local so he built a baseball field right on the river, made a big park and donated it to the city. He was pretty smart about it and worked the deed so that it would take a two-third vote of the citizens to sell it.
Fast forward to a couple of years ago and the mayor petitioned the governor to change the deed under an NDA as he wanted to lease the park to a minor league baseball team. In the deal he also gave them the naming rights for the park, so the baseball team renamed the park after a local bank that gave them money.
Damn, you really can’t control your legacy, huh?
It would be easier if you weren't dead
Depends how it was dontated, you can specify a loan of the land indefinetly to the city as long as its use is xyz.
If its a straight donation with no caveats attached then the city can do what it wants
My local council tried to build on some park land donated 100 years ago but the donator had specified its usage in the donation so they got shut down pretty hard.
Unfortunately it seems like the donator specified the usage in this case as well, but the courts are straight up ignoring it.
On July 7, 1999, Bland’s descendants granted 87.97 acres of land to the “Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, a Texas non-profit corporation, to be held in trust for future use as parkland by Williamson County, Texas,” according to a copy of the deed reviewed by 404 Media.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I know the saying is "don't mess with Texas" but Texas seems to fuck itself over all the time. I would be raising hell about this if it was my backyard.
load more comments
(27 replies)
I was curious where the land was, and if I could help in any way.
It's in Texas. I made a promise to myself that I'd never go back to Texas.
Texas. Fucking. Suuuuuucks.
Texas. The state by millionaires for billionaires.
load more comments
(4 replies)
People should know that donating land like this is not at all guaranteed to keep the land from being developed. Promises to keep parks in existence is nothing when the city "needs" a new development, hospital, data center, whatever.
And this is why you need a lawyer when you're doing this kind of thing.
If this farmer was smart, there would be a clause in the contract that the land may only be used for a park or other public space. And that if the city decides to resell the land, the farmer or their descendants will have the right to reclaim it.
Thus, farmer could either stop the data center or at least get a solid payday.
If you read the article, there was exactly this sort of clause in the deed, and now the courts are saying “fuck you”
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›