Don’t even mention:
Datacenters Behaving Like Acoustic Weapons
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.”
The only reason they ever didn’t ignore people getting angry about things was because when people used to get angry they also got shooty.
gimme some wiskey and point them out, I get punchy, 1 shot or 20
What’s the saying? “Ownership is 90% posession.”
Like with the stuff going on at the East Wing or the Kennedy Center, some people just move forward even if they’re not allowed to because chances are they won’t be stopped or penalized.
“Possession is nine-tenths of the law” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
Interesting to witness societal decay in real time.
The relevant case law may be found in Molotov vs. New Construction .
Can’t find what it was, what did that one end with?
A bang
Oh, that, well it was definitely a hit
While in many ways it is a tragedy, the cure is often worse. I on balance oppose deed restrictions, either you own the land and pay taxes, or you give up all control. Deed restrictions just force future generations to live by your values and that is a bad thing.
It’s a lot like another commenter mentioned about eminent domain. It can be used for good (roads, fiber deployments, district heating, etc) but also for things not so good (data centers, etc).
I went out of my way to find a house that didn’t even have a vestigial HOA deed restriction, so I get that. But when a private citizen donates something to the local municipality, it’s pretty egregious to not honor those restrictions, especially for things that may take a while to develop.
I’d donate my share of my family’s farmland to build a park, but I wouldn’t sell it for all the money in the world to build a datacenter or landfill or anything else, really.
It is a jerk move for sure and the voters should be mad about this. If you can’t keep your word without a contract that says a lot about your lack of honor.
I’m talking pure legality here though. The cities actions are legal and should be. They are however dishonorable and nobody should deal with the city again.
As for your last line there, forcing future generations to live by the values of having a park isn’t a bad thing.
What makes you so sure? I mean, I would hope that future generations will have parks, but we don’t know what the future is going to be like. There may be some consideration that we couldn’t even conceive of that would make it not a good thing for them to have a park. Or maybe parks are considered good in future generations, but there’s a reason that that is a particularly bad spot to have a park.
No takey-backs! ✝️
Best they can do is no trees, half of everyone riding mobility scooters and neighbors with dogs that can poop EVERYWHERE.
Nice try, Big Dungbeatle Inc. 😑
they’re not even leasing. It’s a flat sale. For a measly 10 million
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…
We have different definitions of good. I don’t see how building a highway system through other animals homes is considered “good”.
A road in of itself is definitely a public interest…
Where they should and should not be built is another discussion.
Agree to disagree. I don’t believe humans own the earth.
Serving the public interest is not already a prerequisite? Surely gov’t cannot arbitratily pull this card?
I might be talking out of my ass but i’m pretty sure using imminent domain is not only needed for matters of public interest but specifically needs to be backed by it when you want to use it.
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.
Don’t forget the surveillance state! The global buildout for the NWO one government surveillance state will be paid with your pension and retirement savings.
Nothing to do with a so called new world orde just the same people as before. It is just the government and industrialist that want more power. We are just living though the beginings of a cyberpunk setting.
Yeah but without the cool tech or space exploration. We just get the shitty parts.
Well there is cool tech for the ultra rich (some examples, robotic prostetics, private space companies, Gabe’s private lab yachts, brain interface, private exploration of the Marianna trench).
We definetly get the sloppy seconds, if that.
I think the real goal is the billionaires uploading their minds to achieve immortality. Definitely impossible, but that’s what I think.
That was my theory to why Zuck was so interested in his Metaverse. Every billionaire is planning some sort of post-life or extending their lives one way or another. The same way kings and emperors of history have.
Chinese emperors often consumed mercury in pursuit of eternity. Zuck and friends want to print themselves onto silicon. Coincidence?
You also have Brian Johnson’s blood transfusions and it wouldn’t be a stretch that Musk’s children are all potential organ donors.
AI LLMs are definitely a smokescreen for justifying more compute.
What the real goal for all those CPUs is I have no idea.
Good thing my rural internet isn’t strong enough for that
Than just a thin client for you.
Jensen Huang has been pretty open about that being the plan lately. Although he still insists that even the cloud computers will be run by AI agents.
full circle, back when I started, main frames with thin clients.
That might have worked over a few generations but they want people that are used to owning their stuff to just give it up over night and it’s not going very well for them.
There are multiple goals in mind such as surveillance, pumping the stock market, taking control out of people’s hands, excuses to do things like lay people off, etc. In this case or in general for local governments, it’s a matter of a select number of people getting a lot of money in their pockets and thus pushing for these data centers to happen.
The bailout money will be double what they lost I am guessing.
That is crazy and would make no sense for them to do. Why do you think they’re doing that?
deleted by creator
Hmmm Providence RI by any chance? LOL
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.
“Don’t mess with Texas” now has a different meaning.
“Don’t mess with Texas, it might be contagious”
Just like “Everything Is Bigger In Texas” is considered a self-own to the rest of the world, they’re the brunt of the joke. (Sorry Austin, you too. Yes, even SXSW)
“Texas hurt itself in its confusion.”
Texas. The state by millionaires for billionaires.
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.
In my country it is legal to do so
It’s legal to burn down data centres if you don’t get caught.
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.
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.
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.
Whistleblowers with morals are also more important that people realise.
was there a clause that if it isnt used as intended, it return to the owner?
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”
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.
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.
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.
IANAL. The general approach to this isn’t to sell it, from what I’ve seen. It’s to lease it for purpose.
We have a number of scouting camps near me that have permissive leases. Technically, the family that “donated” the land has a conditional lease with BSA, with terms like “BSA may use the land so long as one Boy Scout sleeps on the property at least one night per year.” With stipulations that if this requirement is not met, the land returns full and unconditional ownership to the nearest living descendant.
In the mean time, BSA is responsible for all taxes, costs, upkeep and improvements.
Basically, until BSA dissolves, they will be free to use the land. Failure to meet the condition would immediately revert ownership and void the lease.
I can just see it- ‘Okay kids it’s that time of the year again, whoever wants to get their computer merit badge and their camping merit badge, bring your tent at meet at 6:00 p.m. in the parking lot of the data center on our old campground…’ 🤣
(I’m sure that’s not the only restriction heh)
But yeah I agree that’s the way to go, basically guarantees the donation recipient stays in line and the instant they don’t the donation evaporates.
Not a lawyer either, but the article explicitly says “sold”, so I assume it’s not just leasing
In 2003, the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation granted the land to another non-profit called the Williamson County Park Foundation. A month later, that non-profit gave the land to the City of Taylor. Five years later, in 2008, the city of Taylor sold the land to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation (TEDC) for $15,000. In 2025, TEDC sold the land to Blueprint, the data center developers, for $10 million.
I can’t imagine a better way to ensure people don’t donate land ever again.
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.
Word to the wise, get a good lawyer when doing things.
