presumably because it's not their land and if A wanted to build a data center on it to begin with then B could do nothing about it.

the key issue is C doing things that it's taxpayers dont want done.

in this case though taxpayer money is not being spent, the property is being sold which means money is being generated for the taxpayers, and the new property owner is

ultimately A never had the authority to contract the land as a park indefinitely and relied on C to have respect for the deal and intent. Maybe a timeframe needed to be stipulated, but even then we are talking about land ownership - once C owns it they own it. If you wanted to buy a house and the seller said something about you never being allowed to develop a section of the backyard because they buried their goldfish there or something, and you respect that wish but now need to move as well, are you stuck with passing that obligation forward? someone can just arbitrarily decide that land cannot be used?

No thats why there is no standing, they have every right to use the land to better the taxpayers. the problem is not the method or authority, the problem is that people dont want to give up a park for a data center and dont see the data center as something that benefits the taxpayers. that issue is not one that should be settled by the deed.

the property devaluation is a problem that should be addressed independently on its own merits and not through the means of challenging if they have the authority or not.

In Texas, only certain parties can enforce deed restrictions, usually:

  The original grantor (or heirs)
  A property owners’ association
  Or someone specifically granted enforcement rights

They don't have standing on the deed restriction, and would have to sue for the property devaluation directly. IANAL.

Depends how it works in the jurisdiction, but in common law usually this form of restriction is like a contract, but between two pieces of land, or between a piece of land and the public, rather than between two persons. In the former case only the current owner on the benefited property can complain. In the latter case, any member of the public can - but I'm not sure if a member of the public can create such a restriction.

> Why shouldn't B have standing? They presumably are residents of and taxpayers to city C, and they face property devaluation stemming from nearby municipal actions.

It's extremely common. They get called NIMBYs, because they bought a property at a certain price and a low-ability local bureaucrat wants to do something that destroys that value.

you dont have standing from indirect harm or costs.