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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.