A lot of people have asked a fair question:

If the county can’t legally stop a data center from being built on private land, why focus so much on the tax abatement?

The short answer is this:

Because the tax abatement is the most meaningful leverage the county — and the public — actually has.

The county can’t “ban” a data center — but it can refuse to subsidize one

In Texas, counties generally have very limited zoning authority. That means:

  • If a company owns land
  • And it complies with state and federal law
  • The county usually cannot simply vote to stop construction

That part is real, and it’s frustrating.

But here’s what is also true:

👉 A data center does not need a tax abatement to exist — it needs one to make financial sense.

Why abatements matter so much to projects like this

Large data centers are extraordinarily expensive. They require:

  • Massive upfront capital
  • Extremely high ongoing operating costs
  • Long timelines before profitability

Tax abatements are not a “nice bonus” for these projects — they are often baked into the business model from day one.

When a company asks for an abatement, what they are really saying is:

“This project is viable only if our long-term tax burden is reduced.”

That’s important.

What we’ve already observed

So far, several things stand out:

  • The developer does not yet own the land
  • Properties are under contract, not purchased
  • Escape clauses appear to exist
  • Key permits and approvals have not yet been filed

That tells us something critical:

👉 This project is not a done deal.

If it were, land would already be purchased and sunk costs would be piling up. Instead, the developer is still managing risk.

What happens if the county says no to the abatement?

This part matters, and it often gets glossed over.

If the county refuses to grant a tax abatement:

  • The project does not automatically proceed
  • The financial model changes dramatically
  • The long-term cost to the developer can increase by hundreds of millions of dollars

At that point, the company has choices:

  • Walk away
  • Relocate to a county that will subsidize the project
  • Or come back with a materially different proposal

In other words:

👉 Saying no doesn’t “block” the project — it tests whether it actually belongs here.

Why this is not anti-business

Refusing a tax abatement is not the same thing as being anti-development.

It is simply saying:

  • If a project is going to permanently change Leon County
  • If it will impact water, infrastructure, noise, and land use
  • Then it should be able to stand on its own without extraordinary public concessions

That’s not radical. It’s responsible.

Why this decision matters more than anything else right now

Once a tax abatement is granted:

  • The incentive structure is locked in
  • The project becomes much harder to reverse
  • The county’s leverage largely disappears

Before an abatement is granted?

  • The county still has negotiating power
  • The public still has a meaningful voice
  • The developer is still deciding whether this location truly works

That’s why this moment matters.

Bottom line

The tax abatement is not just about taxes.
It’s about leverage.

If the county says no:

  • The project may very well go away

If the county says yes:

  • The project becomes far more likely — and far more permanent

That’s why residents paying attention, attending meetings, and speaking up before an abatement decision is made is so important.

Once that door closes, it’s very hard to reopen.