Saline MI
7-18-2026 1:09am

Saline Hears Legal Threat, Relents to Oracle's Ask for Maximum Tax Break

Three days after granting the Oracle data center a tax break on an investment of about $4.8 billion, the township board met for a special meeting Friday evening and granted the 12-year, 50-percent abatement on $43.1 billion - the latest investment estimated by the developers. It was the latest twist in a saga that has gripped the township for about a year.

The move was criticized by the mostly anti-data-center audience members at Saline Township Hall on Braun Road.

The board's decision came after ominous meeting-opening comments from attorney David Landry, who came on to help the township address the data center issue after it was sued by Related Digital and property owners when it decided not to grant the rezoning request it needed to build the development on the west end of the township. Landry helped negotiate the consent judgment that stipulates the the tax abatement, among other things.

Landry reiterated points in the court judgment, including that the township will agree to theIndustrial Facilities Exemption and that it will agree to the maximum exemption.

    "The judgment does not say the township may approve it, it says that it shall approve it. It doesn't say  the township could decide whether or not to approve it. It says the township shall approve it."

    Landry said Related Digital submitted and executed an application on May 18 for an abatement of 43 billion. Then Landry said the township held public meetings July 8 and July 14 and allowed extensive public comment at both. On July 14, the board voted to limit the tax break on just $4.8 billion - the figure that was estimated as the value of the development last fall.

    "In a word, you can't do that. It's a violation of the consent judgment. It's also a violation of Public Act 198. The consent judgment order of the court said the township shall provide the IFEC and it shall provide the maximum exemption," Landry said, adding a second foul. "Act 198 does not authorize a local unit of government to lower or limit the amount."

    Landry went back to the public comment sessions, which obviously swayed the board.

    "Act 198, which allows the exemption, does not require a township to even hold a public hearing," Landry said.  "You have to approve it in a public meeting, but a public hearing is different."

    Landry has taken aim at a smaller issue, allegations that construction began in November, which would change the timing to apply for the tax break. He said, in accordance with the consent judgment, development activities had begun, not construction.

    Landry said if the township didn't grant the tax break on the full $43 billion figure, the township would be sued.

    "What happens if you don't do that? You're going to get sued for violating the consent judgment, and you're going to get sued for violating Act 195. You're going to be required to pay not only attorney payments and costs - that's the easy part - if you don't agree to this, and this project gets delayed, there's what's called consequential damages. Can you imagine all the contracts that have been entered and all the materials being delivered every day and all the equipment that's been ordered and each one of those labor contracts and construction contracts? If they don't finish by a certain date, they have to pay damages," Landry said. "Those consequential damages are easily going to be in excess of a million dollars. Do you really want to expose the residents to those specific damages if you don't correct this?"

    Supervisor Tom Hammond asked if the cost lawsuit would be the biggest issue. Landry said it would be.

    "How are you going to raise us 1.1 to 1.5 million dollars? I don't think you have it in your budget. You going to have to assess the residents," Landry said.

    The township board considered moving without a public comment. It did decide it would act before public comment. Treasurer Beth Boulter moved to amend the approval of the industrial facilities exemption, made at Tuesday's meeting, and to adopt the May 18 application for an IFEC as required by the consent judgment. It was passed by a 5-0 vote.

    A chorus of boos rained from the audience.

    This all took place in the first 17 minutes of the meeting.

    Supervisor Hammond opened the meeting to public comment. Nearly all of it was opposed to the board's decision. 

    "I'm so disappointed. I really thought you guys had our backs," said a woman who said she recently moved out of the community. "I love this community more than they want to rip it apart."

    County Commissioner for Ann Arbor Yousef Rabhi spoke to "officially object" to the decision.

    "I wanted to re-emphasize to the board that the decision you're making here today does not just impact your township. It impacts all of these taxing jurisdictions.  The county again provides services, including for our veterans. We have a millage for veterans. We have a millage for Public Safety. We have a millage for mental health. We have a millage for the seniors in our county,"  he said.

    While many agreed the board members were in a tough spot, they said they wished the board would have accepted the assistance of the people and worked for the people.

    Jordan Kleinsmith donated $1,000 to a GoFundMe page he started to help the township with a legal fight.

    "I know you folks are not the enemies here, and I know the rock in a hard place," Kleinsmith told the board. "I just want to reaffirm that if you want to go against this consent judgment, if you want to relitigate it, we are behind you."

    Ted Douglas wanted to know what kind of auditing Saline would do to make sure the data center doesn't underreport its equipment to lower its tax payments.

    Several saved criticism for the attorneys Landry and Fred Lucas. 

    At times, it was absurd. Ray Smith, dressed in a red, white and blue top and shorts, played an AI-composed song and swayed to the music as the song bemoaned Lucas.

    Some criticized Landry for referencing figures that showed a majority of the speakers at a past meeting were not Saline Township residents.

    "I think for you to belittle anyone coming from outside the township to pass comment is not correct," Kim Rose said. "Everyone's opinion here matters."

    More News from Saline
    10
    I'm interested
    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive

    Replies

    7-18-2026 7:00am

    Nice of the attorneys to clarify this language at this point rather than having the foresight to understand that language should never have been in the agreement to start with! It seems this untenable position the Township has been placed in falls squarely on the shoulders of the attorney(s) involved in the matter from the outset. Of course, it seems Oracle negotiated in bad faith from the outset thereby setting the duck for this and the attorneys working with the Township were not astute enough to recognize the language was far too brood and placed the Township at risk, which has now played out. Entirely unjust for it all to trickle down on the backs of Township residents (once again - as the mere presence of the data center has). Frankly, the disparity in the values would seem large enough to make a fairly reasonable argument in court for both bad faith negotiations and incompetent legal counsel. Not really one for conspiracy theories. The facts and realities typically dispel any such silly conclusions when looking to assign "blame" or explain outcomes. That said, this is the straw that broke the back. One does have to wonder just who is working for/with whom. Seems pretty basic contract negotiation and the Township attorney blew it up front. 

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 7:09am

    Perhaps the Township should have sought counsel from an attorney not involved in the original contract negotiations (and perhaps they did - do not know) before changing direction. To be clear, this is not to criticize the Board - they have an incredibly difficult job under circumstances and on a topic that NONE of them is expert in (as likely no one elected to the Board would be) and that no one including them wants to be dealing with/happening. Just might have been prudent to go to a different "well" to evaluate the options before taking action . . . and perhaps they did.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 7:16am

    Final thought - perhaps the attorney(s) working with the Township on the agreement can provide an explanation as to why that language HAD to be as represented in the final version of the agreement/why protections against exactly what has happened were not put in place. We are open to hearing and understanding that and adjusting opinion if warranted. It does seem the residents of the Township are due at least that explanation.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 9:45am

    The entire fate of this project was sealed before they even approached the property sellers. The township dropped the ball by not hiring competent legal representation from the beginning. Had they done that, we may have at least slowed this down via referendum and/or moratorium. But the path that was chosen was best case for the developers and I have no doubt it was the path the board was given a nudge in with crafty maneuvering. Had they hired competent attorneys, they could’ve seen this coming. Why wouldn’t they have been advised that the moment they vote “no” on the rezoning, the game would be over and all power would be removed from the people and we would be at the mercy of the court. It seems obvious now, but at the time it would’ve taken the advice of a well read attorney to advise the board of this.

    We have to accept that the game is over. The only thing that can slow this down now is at the state level and as we’ve seen, the uniparty is all in on these projects. The governor even said, they’re used to being told no and doing it anyways. All we can do now is serve as a case study for other communities and try our best to keep mega tech from drying up our wells and polluting the community.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 11:11am

    The alleged statement by the Governor that you include in your post has not been substantiated and I believe (not certain) has actually been disproven. Agree that she and, unfortunately, several others have been all in on the data centers and that local resident concerns have been ignored. All of this regarding positioning the state (Townships in particular) as targets by the actions of public officials happened FAR too quickly without, it would seem, serious thought of consequences or the desire of the folks it is their job to represent. All that said, your position is compromised when you include information that cannot be supported such as the alleged quote. Given the party reference, would also point out that both Democrats and Republicans have supported (and members of both parties have expressed opposition to as well) the data center concept and tax cuts that put the target on Michigan, albeit yes, the Governor is a Democrat.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 12:30pm

    I'm not sure if you're saying that because you don't want it to be true or what, but you can literally watch the video. I'm not sure what other proof you need. You know who said it was manipulated? The CEO of Oracle; that's a guy I trust! Snopes confirmed its authenticity with the videographer. This is a fact and I'm not sure why it's hard to believe. She has been the biggest cheerleader of this entire thing. You are the one saying there's a tit-for-tat on the legal side of this; "who is working for whom" were your exact words. It's a tough pill to swallow, I too was a supporter of Whitmer but her time has run out and the will of the people is no longer her top priority. So please, spare me the lecture, google the video. If you want to pretend like that's not what she said, that's fine, but you can't come on here and say that the township attorney is probably working for the other team (talk about compromised opinion) and then pretend like a literal fact caught on camera is not a fact.   The overarching point is that everybody wants this, except the people that live here.  Prove me wrong.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-18-2026 12:48pm

    Also, please note that nowhere in my post do I say anything about Democrats or Republicans.  Because I mentioned the governor who happens to be a democrat does not automatically imply I am making my argument on the basis of political affiliation, but that certainly seems how you want to read it.  I mentioned a uniparty, which implies that both democrats and republicans by and large support these data centers, as you pointed out.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive
    7-19-2026 7:39am

    Actually, what Snopes found was that the video was in fact authentic AND the audio was too distorted to confirm the authenticity of the statement. Yes, they also said the videographer stated the video was authentic which, frankly, should not be taken as proof positive for a host of reasons. Not defending Whitmer. Her actions and position on data centers are indefensible in our view. But facts matter and the statement has not been validated. As for the question about the attorney(s), simply saying it would seem the best interests of the Township are not represented in the final document language (the purported statement that the Township will use the higher amount for in particular seems to stand out as very open ended and not in the Township's best interest. Would like to understand their explanation as to why that would be as it does not appear their work resulted in the Township's best interests being protected. These matters are complex, the businesses (developers, data centers, etc.) have the upper hand, and clearly the Township was not going to get support from the legislature at any level given the backdrop to all of this. But that type of statement might be in an agreement for a desired operation as an enticement but for something the vast majority of local and nearby residents did not desire? Perhaps there is a basis for justification but hard to conceive what that might be and without additional information, hard to understand why that piece of the agreement would have been handled as it was.

    I disagree with this
    This is unverified
    Spam
    Offensive