Dog's Head TERS and Development Agreement

Asked the council to pause the TERS process, collect more information, and engage the community, questioning why tax benefits are needed if the development would happen anyway.

Expressed opposition to the tax benefits, citing environmental concerns, potential traffic displacement along Montopolis, and impervious cover issues.

Spoke in opposition on behalf of GAVA, supporting the Environmental Commission's recommendation to postpone the TERS vote until transparent public engagement and environmental assessments occur.

Argued that land in the area is developable without taxpayer subsidies, pointing to nearby successful construction projects built without TERS assistance.

Shared concerns about severe local drainage issues and flooding in the Dog's Head area based on recent volunteer visits.

Urged the council to show courage and say no to an environmentally dangerous and politically catastrophic deal.

Argued there is no legal or technical case for the TERS and questioned the water and power demands of the project.

Spoke for Poder in opposition to giving millions in tax money to millionaires while cutting program services.

Expressed concern over lack of community engagement, nebulous plans involving a Fortune 100 company, and potential data center uses.

Questioned why taxpayer money is needed for a project that consultants describe as economically feasible, calling it corporate welfare.

Criticized the lack of constituent input and expressed concern that public revenue is being diverted away from public schools like AISD.

Called for baseline public health assessments and emphasized the need to respect East Austin residents.

Urged a 'no' vote on the TERS, citing illusory affordable housing commitments and severe flood risks in high-risk flood zones.

Described how Carson Creek flooding and project impacts threaten her family's historic property and party barn business.

Argued that industrial development is already booming in the southeast sub-market without subsidies, failing the statutory 'but-for' test.

Questioned the city's approach to non-disclosure agreements and urged slowing down on a major project.

Analyzed general fund spin-offs, arguing the project yields minimal direct benefit per resident and suggesting more limited infrastructure partnerships.

Warned that the project would create the furthest upstream heavy industrial site on the Colorado River, risking water quality.

Asked the council to delay the TERS to incorporate Environmental Commission recommendations, protect river corridors, and secure firm housing commitments.