Developer pitches $1B commonwealth for Belle Isle (Detroit's special PUBLIC park island)

[happyslug]

25. What were the deed restrictions on the original grant?

Many of these grants of land retrain deed restrictions, that if violated returns the land to the grantor and his heirs (i.e. his heirs). This came up in regards to a Public Park in the South, donated to a City, but only for "White People". In 1966 the US Supreme Court ruled that such a restrictions violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore was the Park had to be opened up to non-whites.

Subsequently, the heirs of the grantor demanded that the park be returned to them, for the park had been donated with that restriction and with the city unable to enforce that restriction, the park reverted back to the heirs. This second case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and this time, 1970, the Court upheld the right of the heirs to get the park back, even through the only reason for the reversion was that the City was unable (but willing) to keep the park white only. i.e. The restriction was enforceable by the heirs as a reversion to them.

Please note, in the late 1940s, the Supreme Court ruled that deed restrictions, restricting property to "Whites only" were unenforceable by any court but that is NOT the same as a reversion. In such cases, the deed restriction is viewed as legal, but any action by a court to enforce it would violate the 14th Amendment (i.e. it was illegal for any court to enforce such restriction, but if people want them, they can still put them in deeds).

1966 Decision:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evans.html

1970 Decision:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/abney.html

Just a comment, to look into the grant and see if Detroit CAN do this, i.e give someone else the land. In th above Case the Supreme Court relied on State Law as to the rights of reversion, thus you may want to look into Michigan law as to reversion.