Citizen Comment:
This lasted for almost 5 hours. By my count, there were about 66 speakers, (plus another 44 at the public hearing that started twenty minutes later, and another five speakers at the 3 pm workshops).
Of the 66:
11 in favor. They break down as follows:
- I am Maberry, just a guy trying to make a zillion dollars
- I am Maberry’s lawyer
- I am a guy from Kissing Tree who has gotten involved in local politics over the last six months. I see this as being pro-business!
- 8 of us are union workers, all wearing matching orange shirts. Maberry promised to hire union workers to build this thing. We’re going to talk about why unions are generally good.
55 speakers opposed. The basic arguments:
- Data Centers use too much water, and we’re in a historic drought, and climate change is going to dry out Texas further.
- Data centers use too much electricity, which requires even more water
- Data centers pollute the environment in general industrial ways
- Approving this will not prevent a different one – ERCOT has stated that they’re committed to just growing the grid to meet demand.
- There is not a significant gain in jobs
- Listen to the people! Can you believe how many of us showed up tonight?!
- About 3000 people signed an online petition against this. That’s more than most of you got in votes, when you were elected.
- Emotional or spiritual arguments towards conservation, or talking more generally about AI
If I had to guess, there were about 300 people hanging out on the lawn outside the meeting, but not everyone spoke.
A couple specifically memorable comments:
- Please don’t destroy my way of life. My family has put everything into this farm.
- I worked at a data center. It’s basically a remote job, except two days a year when you work in person.
- How will the waste from the closed loop system with all its chemicals be safely disposed of?
- Study from International Energy Agency: Each MHW of energy uses 1850 gallons of water per day, onsite and offsite. Since Maberry’s is going to be 375 MWH, this would be 693K gallons of day.
- John David Carson: yes, it’s true, I want to put in a data center next door to this one, too. But listen guys: mine’s going to be so much better! There’s gonna be homes, and a green space, and a data center, and you’ll just love it! Vote this other guy down though, please and thank you.
(I listened to everything, but I confess that I played it at 1.75x speed.)
Citizen comment lasts until 10:52 pm. Fortunately, the data center is the very first item.
….
Item 8: The Data Center
Back story: Discussed previously here, here,here,here, here, here, and here.
Here’s the super short version:
- March 2025: Maberry wants to rezone his land to build a data center.
There is a huge outcry from the public. P&Z denies the rezoning. - August 2025: The rezoning goes to council.
It needs 6 votes to overturn P&Z. Maberry only gets 5 votes. - January 2026: Maberry re-applied for his rezoning to P&Z.
This time P&Z approves it.
This means that Council only needs 4 votes to pass it. - February 2026: Activists successfully file a “valid petition” with signatures from residents within 200 yards. So Council is back to needing a supermajority (6 votes) once again.
These are all the data centers (that I’ve heard about) trying to get built in Hays County:
- Maberry, the one that Council will vote on tonight.
- Carson properties. He talked at Citizen Comment, above.
- I don’t know who. These guys call it the “Doster property“
- Cloudburst Data Center (already being built)
There could be more – these are just the ones I’ve heard about.
The presentation:
It’s mostly the same presentation that we’ve heard for the past year.
- All the concessions that Maberry is going to put in the restrictive covenant
- How he’ll mitigate the noise
- How it’s going to be a closed-loop system that uses less water than a field full of single-family homes.
- Wouldn’t it be worse to put homes out there?
- Yes, it’s a lot of energy used, but it comes from the entire state. It’s not drawing on our power plant in particular.
- It’s a LOT of property tax income.
Council approval of the rezoning will require 6 votes, because of the valid petition.
A “valid petition” is a very specific thing in Texas – if you get enough signatures of land owners within 200 feet, the rezoning has to pass with a supermajority. The activists successfully got enough neighbors to trigger this.
….
The public hearing: Another chance for the public to weigh in!
Same arguments, minus the union workers who all went home. This time it’s 2 in favor (Maberry and his lawyer) and 42 opposed.
….
Finally, we get to the Council Discussion. It is 1:20 am. Holy moly.
Right out of the gate, Lorenzo moves to postpone.
Listen, this is insane. I was flabbergasted: literally hundreds of people have carved time out of their schedule to show up tonight, and this item has been kicked around for over a year. Nothing is being rushed through here!
Everyone wants to know why?
Lorenzo: There have been a lot of questions raised! We need to do our due diligence!
Amanda is spitting nails with fury. “That’s it? That’s your reason?” She’s seething with contempt. “Postponing would be torturing people. Stop playing with people. This is unserious and disrespectful.”
(She is 100% correct. Postponing is wild.)
Alyssa: Was the newest version of the restricted covenant available to everyone?
Answer: Basically no. We got it late this afternoon, and just kinda threw it up on the message boards. [Read it here, if you want. It’s pretty short.]
Jane: Postponement is a bad idea. If you sincerely need more time, you can vote yes tonight, and then we can delay the second vote.
Josh: I don’t get it. What’s the point of postponing this?
Lorenzo: I campaigned against single family sprawl. Right now, it sounds like we’re picking between a data center and single family homes in the middle of nowhere. I want to know if there’s a 3rd option.
Alyssa keeps speaking in coded language: “This does not exist in isolation. I am stuck on the larger conversation. I am not clear on the ripple effects.”
She is referring to John David Carson’s property, immediately next door. Legally, council members can only talk about the item on the agenda. She wants to be able to talk about both projects, simultaneously.
Matthew sounds genuinely stressed out: I used to be a yes. Things are changing and the water facts are weighing heavily on me. I truly don’t know how I am going to vote.
Amanda speaks to Matthew directly: I know you’re wrestling with this. But these people have been fighting for a year. It would be cruel to drag it out.
Matthew considers this and says: I don’t want to torture everyone by postponing, so I’ll vote no on postponing. But I might vote yes tonight, so that I can buy myself more time before the final vote.
The vote on postponement
Should Council kick the can down the road, till March 31st?
Thank GOD that failed. Good lord.
In hindsight, the pivotal moment of the night was when Amanda spoke directly to Matthew and got him to switch his vote to “no” on postponement. Otherwise, this tortured mess would have gotten prolonged for another six weeks.
This vote is a very bad look for Jane, Shane, and Lorenzo!
….
Onto the real discussion
Alyssa makes a motion to deny. This means a few things:
- “No means yes” – if you vote no, you’re voting for the data center.
- This would be the denial that never happened last August. Denials mean that the developer can’t come back for six months. Denials are important.
Jane: I feel good about the closed loop water system. But now I understand about the offsite water, from the electrical usage. That’s new to me.
Alyssa: This is a local pre-emption issue. Everything is always a local pre-emption issue. We’re always being screwed over by the state.
Note: “Local pre-emption” means that the state keeps taking powers away from local government. It’s a giant fucking problem in Texas.
However: for data center permits, it’s the counties that have been pre-empted, not the cities. Literally, San Marcos can vote no on this data center because we still have that power. The real fight is at the county level.
…
Amanda: I worked for five years at the capitol. I felt rage most nights. There are some very conservative forces up there. But listen: there are seeds of a bipartisan movement. Very conservative Republicans are actually saying things about water conservation that I agree with. The problem is that the legislation does not meet until 2027, and that might literally be too late. There are 400 data centers now, and 1000 more that want to get permitted before 2027.
College Station just denied a data center. Their mayor said, “Even if it’s not our water and our electricity, it’s drawing on someone’s water and someone’s electricity.” At least we can say no to one, tonight.
Alyssa: whoopsie! I zoned out. Amanda, can you catch me up real quick on what you just said?
Amanda: [throws knives with eyes] Are you serious?
Alyssa: tee-hee!
[Very tense, weird moment passes]
Matthew: Can they de-annex and build it anyway?
Answer: Not without Council approval.
…
Sidebar: Why WOULD anyone consider voting for this!?
The reason that councilmembers are struggling is because this city is very, very broke. This is their own fault. Or more specifically, it’s the fault of Lorenzo, Matthew, Shane, and former council member Saul Gonzales.
Last summer, staff gave a very serious budget presentation. Council was presented this choice:
For months, Council told staff to plan on a structurally balanced budget. They geared up for a tax hike. If you own a $300K house, you were going to pay an extra $10/month.
Literally at the last second, Lorenzo got cold feet and immediately, those four switched their vote.
So instead, we did this:
and now we’re like this:
That is why this data center is so tempting – the city budget is strained to its limit.
(I’m still angry at them for that vote. Read it all here.)
…
So let’s vote already!
The vote to DENY the data center (ie yes means no):
Famous image by now – you’ve seen this all over social media! This specific proposal is dead.
Josh: Thank you to everyone. The consensus tonight is what changed my mind. But look, I want to solve city budget problems, and this would have brought in a lot of money.
Translation: I might vote for the next one.
…
My $.02:
- I sincerely think that Matthew was wrestling with the decision, and voted yes to buy himself more time.
- I sincerely have no fucking clue what Lorenzo is thinking.
- Carson’s data center proposal is clearly waiting in the wings
This is a big win for democracy. This was the right vote, because we live in a democracy, and the people expressed their opinion loud and clear.
But this was not the big win yet for water. I know that’s depressing. This was the easy part – really – because it happened within the rules. This was a symbolic victory.
The real victory will be getting the rules changed so that counties can regulate data centers.
Listen: if you signed the petition, or showed up on Tuesday, you must understand this. You have not saved anything yet. You need to join the data.center.action.coalition and Save Our Springs and SMRF, and bring all of this amazing energy to the county and state level.
- Get Ruben Becerra to challenge data centers in court. Attend Hays County Commission’s Court on Tuesday, 9 am, at the town square.
- Show up at the Texas Water Development Board meetings
- Pressure all candidates running for office to take a stand on regulating ground and surface water. Make the November elections about water and data centers*.
This was a win for democracy, but it was not yet a win for the environment. Celebrate, but then buckle down again. Please.
* I mean, the November elections should be about data centers, but also ICE and Trump and all the other dumpster fires burning right now.
…..
Special note: As long as we’re talking about clean water, let me plug this SMRF petition against polluting the Freeman’s Ranch with rocket fuel because some company wants to test rockets there.
…..
Item 12: The Strategic Plan
Next September, Council will pass the 2027 budget. This is the first step.
Backstory:
As I mentioned above, last summer Lorenzo, Shane, Matthew, and former council member Saul voted for this:
(I’m really not exaggerating. See here.)
and so now our city budget looks like this:
The big theme for the Visioning workshops was this: “All the departments are making drastic cuts and it’s really awful and will make voters mad.”
As the kids say: we’re in the “find out” part of FAFO.
…
Anyway, Council heard a lot from each department, and then they put their own goals into the Vision Board.
Here are the major changes from last year, by category:
Category 1: QUALITY OF LIFE & SENSE OF PLACE
- Identifying and addressing accommodations for community members with disabilities
- Getting more town halls and videos from the city, and more zoom access to town halls
- More public art, from diverse cultural perspectives.
- Work with downtown partners
- Work on making outdoor spaces more kid-friendly
- Get some sort of volunteer home repair thing for home owners experiencing hardship
- Get some affordability standards in our Public Improvement Districts
Category 2: ECONOMIC VITALITY
- Safe working conditions and better wages for workers when the company is getting tax breaks.
- Get some businesses in town that will create kid-friendly spaces
- Figure out some way to work on the dire child care situation in town
- Be realistic about our budget woes
Category 3: PUBLIC SAFETY, CORE SERVICES & FISCAL EXCELLENCE
- Work on SMPD and SMFD staffing and training, in light of the budget woes.
- Partner with Texas State on downtown safety
- Make bills payable on the 1st and 15th, and have a better grace period
Category 4: MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY
- do something about replacing the scooter rentals
- Maybe a free bike program!
- Better bus shelters and seating.
Note: The free bike thing reminds me – we desperately need sidewalks all the way down to the high school. We do not need kids skirting the edge of 123.
Category 5: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
- Get the word out on the water rebate program
- Work on our drought stages
- We are all thinking about the data center, but we can’t say “data center” because of legal rules around only discussing what’s on the agenda.
……
And here’s the whole thing, with changes highlighted:
Category 1: QUALITY OF LIFE & SENSE OF PLACE
Category 2: ECONOMIC VITALITY
Category 3: PUBLIC SAFETY, CORE SERVICES & FISCAL EXCELLENCE
Category 4: MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY
Category 5: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
…
There were some other items – improvements on Linda Drive, some certificates of obligation to take on debt to fund some big projects, some nominations for boards and commissions – but council zipped through everything super fast. So I will, too!
The San Marxist 