A Texas family is reportedly fighting to reclaim 87 acres of land that was originally donated for use as a public park but has since been sold to a data center developer for $10 million. Pamela Griffin, who grew up near the property in Taylor, Texas, and four of her relatives have filed a lawsuit over the sale, according to court records reviewed by 404 Media.
The land’s history goes back to 1999, when the Bland family deeded 87.97 acres to the Texas Parks and Recreation Foundation for $10, with the condition that it be used as parkland, according to a copy of the deed. The deed named Williamson County, Texas, as the intended beneficiary of the trust, documents show. Over the following years, the land reportedly changed hands several times, eventually passing to the City of Taylor in 2003, then to the Taylor Economic Development Corporation in 2008 for $15,000, and finally to Blueprint, a data center developer, in 2025 for $10 million.
Griffin said that she had no idea the city planned to build a data center on the land until local organizers knocked on her door. “I was like, ‘what is a data center?’ So me and my sisters and my brothers, we all got together and we started looking it up and we said, ‘oh, this is not good for the neighborhood,'” she said. Griffin’s home reportedly sits roughly 500 feet from where the facility is planned to be built, between a power substation and nearby railroad tracks.
The Bland family donated the land after seeing neighborhood children play with nowhere to go
According to Griffin, the farmer who originally owned the land, referred to in court records as Mr. Bland, had watched her and other children playing in the area for years. Griffin recalled a conversation her father had with Bland, in which he said, “I see the kids don’t really have nowhere to play. I’m thinking about giving this land for parkland because these kids need somewhere to play.” Griffin’s family had lived in the area for generations, she said, as her grandmother had purchased land on the outskirts of Taylor at a time when Black and brown residents were not permitted to buy property within the city limits.
After learning about the data center plans, Griffin reportedly hired a local lawyer named Chris Osborne, using money from her own family. Osborne initially told her the case was a long shot. “He said, ‘Oh Pam, I don’t think you have a case,'” Griffin recalled. But after reportedly reviewing nearly 30 years of deeds and property transfers, Osborne found the original 1999 deed with the park-use restriction still in it. Cases like Griffin’s are becoming more common as communities push back against data center expansion, as one Mason County farmer rejected a $26 million offer to fight data center development on his land.
Griffin and four family members reportedly filed suit against Blueprint’s parent company, citing the deed restriction. However, per Griffin, Blueprint filed a motion to dismiss, which the judge granted. The judge also denied a request for an injunction to pause construction while the case went through appeals. Griffin’s lawyer told her the nature of the project made it especially difficult to challenge legally. “He said, ‘Pam, if you’d been fighting an apartment complex or anything else, you would have won that case,'” she said.
Daniel Seguin, Taylor’s executive director of community services, told 404 Media that Blueprint did not need explicit city approval to proceed because the property’s existing Employment Center zoning already permitted a data center use. Seguin said the city expects to generate $30 million in tax revenue from the project over the next decade, with $20 million of which he said is projected to go to the local school district.
“Data centers create a significant net financial benefit for cities because they generate a lot of new tax revenue without also increasing demand on city services and infrastructure,” he said. The strain large facilities can place on local power supply is a growing concern, as residents in one California town are set to lose electricity access after their grid was rerouted for a business.
Community organizer Carrie D’Anna told 404 Media that residents feel let down by local officials. “What do you do in a situation like that? Citizens go to your city council, who have to approve zoning, and they’re supposed to be the one who protects or helps or be the stopgap and they shrug their shoulders,” she said. Griffin, for her part, said the lawsuit was never about financial compensation. “My family didn’t hire the lawyer to sue the company to get money,” she said. “We’re suing for the deed to build a park for this community.”
According to a statement from local activists, the appeal is still ongoing. “At its core, this is a property rights dispute: a generous family set aside land for a future park, and this change of use directly impacts a largely working-class community,” reads the statement.
Published: Jun 9, 2026 05:30 pm