Texas Community Challenges Sale of Former Parkland as $1 Billion Data Center Moves Forward
Residents in Taylor argue that land once intended for a public park was improperly repurposed and sold for millions, prompting two ongoing lawsuits over deed restrictions and city authority.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A long-running land dispute in Taylor, Texas, has escalated into court after residents learned that acreage once conveyed for $10 with the understanding it would become future parkland was later sold for $10 million to a developer planning a large-scale data center.
At the center of the controversy is a tract of land adjacent to the home of Pamela Griffin, whose family has lived in the area for generations. Griffin recalled spending her childhood playing and camping in the open field, which borders a historically Black neighborhood southeast of downtown Taylor near Martin Luther King Boulevard and the railroad tracks.
Her family’s connection to the land stretches back decades. Griffin said her grandmother purchased property in the area when it was still outside city limits, noting that during the 1960s, racial minorities were not allowed to buy property within Taylor, making the family’s holdings and history especially meaningful.
For years, the field behind Griffin’s home remained largely unchanged while Taylor—now a city of roughly 18,000 people outside Austin—grew slowly. That changed as technology companies moved into the region, accelerating development and population growth.
Griffin said she only became aware of the planned data center last year when local organizers came to her door.
“In this neighborhood, nobody had ever heard of a data center,” Griffin told The Epoch Times.
After learning of the proposal, she began researching the project and its potential impact, which would replace the open land with large industrial facilities. Griffin also said many residents were not informed by the city before plans advanced.
“A lot of them don’t have money. A lot of them are old people, handicapped people, low-income, single moms, single dads,” she said. “They can’t afford to move anywhere, and they’re upset, and they didn’t know how to fight.”
A Land Transfer Spanning Decades
Property records show the dispute traces back to 1999, when the Bland family transferred 87 acres to the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation for $10. The deed stated the land was “to be held in trust for future use as parkland.”
The foundation later sold the property to the City of Taylor for another $10. A decade later, in 2009, the city transferred the acreage to the Taylor Economic Development Corp. in exchange for $15,000 and 39 acres of additional land.
In 2025, the economic development agency sold 52 acres of the original tract for $10 million to Blueprint Data Centers, according to a detailed report by The Epoch Times.
Blueprint’s planned facility is expected to cost approximately $1 billion. City projections estimate it could bring in $30 million in revenue for Taylor and another $20 million for local schools.
Dispute Over Deed Language
City officials argue that the original parkland wording did not create a binding restriction that carried through subsequent transfers. Griffin, local activists, and their attorney disagree, saying the obligation remains enforceable regardless of later omissions in the deed chain.
Griffin said her family had long believed the land was intended for public use, based on what her father had been told about the Bland family’s original intent. The family only discovered the full history after learning about the data center proposal.
Initially, Griffin considered leaving her home. However, her sister encouraged the family to stay, and her brother expressed a desire to remain on the property permanently. The siblings ultimately combined resources to hire legal counsel and challenge the planned 135,000-square-foot development.
Griffin’s residence sits roughly 500 feet from the site acquired for the project. The city has stated it was only required to notify 19 property owners within 200 feet of the development boundary.
Community Opposition Organizes
Carrie D’Anna, a local resident and activist, said she first learned of the project by chance and began distributing flyers in Griffin’s neighborhood urging residents to attend a City Council meeting.
At that meeting, which drew a large turnout, Griffin spoke against the project but said her concerns were dismissed by officials.
D’Anna later formed the Halt Taylor Data Centers coalition, which has expanded to include residents from across the city and launched a GoFundMe campaign to support legal and organizing efforts.
Blueprint did not respond to an email from The Epoch Times requesting comment.
D’Anna also noted that the Taylor Economic Development Corp. retained 35 acres of the original 87-acre tract after selling 52 acres to Blueprint. She argued that this remaining land could have served as a buffer zone and affected which residents were formally notified.
“So when the notice goes out, basically the notice is being sent to themselves,” D’Anna said.
She added that residents who met with project representatives were told, “‘Hey, we’re trustworthy. We work with community partners,’” according to D’Anna.
City officials, however, have said Blueprint complied with all applicable regulations and that the council lacks authority to halt the project. A council member previously involved with the economic development corporation said the land had been on the market for more than a decade after being rezoned for industrial use.
“He’s like, ‘We couldn’t give it away,’” D’Anna said. “And yet they sold it for $10 million.”
Legal Battle Over Standing and Deed Enforcement
Attorney Christopher Osborn, representing members of the Griffin family, said the case likely would have drawn earlier public scrutiny if broader notice had been provided.
“One of the excuses [the city uses] now is, ‘Well, we’re so far along in the process, we can’t stop now,’” Osborn told The Epoch Times.
In July 2025, Osborn filed suit in Williamson County District Court seeking a temporary injunction to enforce the original parkland provision and block development of the data center. The court dismissed the case, ruling that the Griffin family lacked legal standing.
Osborn has appealed the decision to the 15th Court of Appeals in Austin and requested oral arguments, arguing that prior Texas case law supports the family’s right to bring the claim. His filing references a 1960 Texas Supreme Court ruling recognizing standing for property owners adjacent to land abandoned from park use.
He described the dispute as heavily one-sided in terms of legal resources.
“It was like a football team of attorneys,” Osborn said.
He also said he has received widespread support from other attorneys and members of the public.
“I’ve gotten numerous emails from attorneys, from third parties, other people who just wanted to help,” Osborn said. “It’s just disappointing that the city would have moved forward with this without any type of real meaningful judicial analysis or even public involvement.”
Osborn maintains that every entity that held the property remained bound by the 1999 deed language requiring it to be held in trust for park purposes. He argues that later deeds did not need to repeat the restriction for it to remain valid.
“If it’s in one deed, it doesn’t have to be recited in the subsequent deeds. And so, even though it wasn’t in those subsequent deeds, it still is an enforceable provision,” Osborn said.
He added that formal court approval would have been required to remove the restriction.
“As far as I can tell, it was never brought to any decision maker’s attention that there was in fact a deed restriction,” Osborn said.
“While the city now claims it was not bound by that clause, we believe developing the land as a data center violates the provision.”
Broader Development Plans and New Legal Action
The controversy is unfolding as Taylor considers additional large-scale data center projects. In March, the city approved annexation and rezoning for Project Comal, a proposed $2.5 billion facility spanning 210 acres. City estimates suggest it could generate $145 million in revenue and $70 million for local schools over a decade.
D’Anna said the rapid expansion highlights the need for clearer zoning rules specific to data centers. She helped organize a petition effort calling for an ordinance that would temporarily prohibit data centers in all existing zoning districts until a dedicated classification is created. Organizers collected more than 1,400 signatures, meeting the threshold required under the city charter.
Under that charter, a valid citizen petition requires the City Council to either adopt the ordinance or place it on the ballot. The council declined to do either in July, citing legal concerns, and instead opted to draft alternative regulations.
Osborn has since filed another lawsuit in the Austin-based Third Court of Appeals, alleging the city violated its charter by refusing to act on the petition.
City Response and Ongoing Review
Daniel Seguin, Taylor’s executive director of community services, told The Epoch Times that city officials were not aware of the Bland family’s original parkland intent until recently.
“The city didn’t disregard the Bland family’s intentions. We didn’t know about the request because, without a formal deed restriction, the request did not transfer with ownership of the property,” Seguin said.
He added that the city has taken steps to address concerns about environmental impact, property values, and notification procedures, including commissioning multiple reviews of the project and its planning framework.
Taylor has also released proposed data center regulations for public comment, which officials expect the City Council to consider in September.
The original lawsuit over the parkland designation remains pending before the 15th Court of Appeals, while the separate charter case continues in parallel. The outcomes may determine both the future of Blueprint’s development and how Taylor regulates similar projects moving forward.
Original article
Comments