• bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • Iced Raktajino@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.