They Promise a Park and Build a Data Center: The Griffin Battle

The city of Taylor, Texas, resold an approximately 35-acre piece of land for $10 million that had been donated in 1999 by a farmer with the clear condition of being used as a public park. The intended use, however, will be a massive data center of about 12,500 square meters, which has already sparked protests from the local community, located just a few meters from the site.

The story began in 1999 when farmer Mr. Bland and his family ceded the land to the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation, a non-profit organization, for a symbolic price of $10. The explicit condition was that the area would be used in the future as a park by Williamson County, Texas. This clause was directly included in the deed.

Over the years, the land changed ownership several times: in 2003, the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation transferred it to the Williamson County Park Foundation, another non-profit. A month later, the latter transferred it 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. Finally, in 2025, the TEDC ceded the area to Blueprint, a data center developer, for $10 million.

Pamela Griffin, a long-time resident of Taylor and a member of a family that has lived in the area for generations, recounted how she and her relatives have always used that land for playing and spending leisure time. She pointed out that her family, made up of African Americans, had purchased land on the outskirts of the city at a time when buying within city limits was not allowed. Griffin learned of the data center project only last year when local activists knocked on her door. Unaware of the nature of a data center, she conducted some research and quickly realized that the development, only 150 meters from her home, would not benefit the neighborhood.

The land sold for $1 becomes a million-dollar investment opportunity, but the community is not having it.

Community concerns, expressed at a city council meeting, revolve around the environmental and social impact: noise, consumption of water and electricity, and the devaluation of real estate. The city of Taylor tried to reassure residents, stating on its website that noise would be contained within the building and mitigated by sound barriers and embankments. It also claimed that the data center would use a closed-loop system to reduce water consumption and that developers would fund a new electrical substation to avoid burdening the local grid.

However, the city also stated that it could not stop the project. Daniel Seguin, executive director of community services for Taylor, explained to 404 Media that Blueprint did not require explicit approval because the existing zoning of the land, designated as an "Employment Center," already allowed such use. The city's zoning code primarily governs the form of buildings, not their function, only requiring approvals for the overall layout, landscaping, and impermeable cover. Seguin specified that the developer has not yet obtained final subdivision and building permits.

Faced with this situation, Griffin reminded activists of the existence of the clause in the original deed. After some research, the document copy confirmed her version. Griffin and four members of her family decided to take legal action, hiring attorney Chris Osborne. Initially skeptical, Osborne examined all property transfers: despite the clause, Pamela Griffin's request for an injunction against the construction was denied, and the first-instance case was dismissed. The lawyer explained to Griffin that fighting against the development of a data center is particularly difficult.

By late 2025, local activists expressed their discontent through a statement on Facebook, calling the issue a "property rights dispute" affecting a predominantly working-class community. Despite the failure in the first instance, the plaintiffs appealed to the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Griffin reiterated that her struggle is not for money, but for the principle of keeping promises and protecting deeds, which she claims are pillars of Texas legislation.

Meanwhile, the city of Taylor continues with its plans, citing significant economic benefits. Seguin stated that they expect $30 million in tax revenue from the data center in the next decade, of which $20 million is intended for the school district. He argued that data centers bring great financial benefits to cities without increasing the demand for public services or infrastructure, as they employ few people and do not attract many visitors, thus not increasing traffic, emergency service calls, or the need for new housing and classrooms.

However, Carrie D'Anna, a community organizer in Taylor, harshly criticized this perspective, stating that current choices could lead many people into poverty, preventing them from selling their homes or moving. She emphasized how real estate values in the area of the data center are significantly lower than the examples cited by the city, potentially making it difficult for residents to sell their properties and face the consequences of the installation.

The Griffin family confirmed that they are not seeking financial compensation, but the return of the land to its original intended use: a park for the community. The city stated that it is not a party to the legal dispute, as the defendant is Blueprint's parent company, which did not respond to requests for comment from 404 Media, the website that brought this case to public attention.