In Tarrant College land fight, there’s more to weigh than quick tax score | Opinion

Once public land is sold off for a flashy commercial project, it is gone. That should make all of us slower, not faster, when politicians tell us the answer is “obvious.”

Mayor Jack McCarty recently argued that Tarrant County College should sell land at its Northeast Campus because a major retailer wants it, the land is not being used right now, and the city could benefit from jobs and tax revenue. That sounds simple. It is also the kind of argument that only works if you reduce public land to one question: How quickly can it be turned into retail?

That is not how public land should be judged.

A public college is not a shopping center. Its purpose is not to jump at the next commercial offer just because a piece of land is not covered in classrooms today. Land owned by a public college should be judged by what it can mean for students, job training, local business growth and the future of the community over decades, not just by what it can be sold for this year.

McCarty is right about one thing: Tarrant County College should not leave valuable land untouched forever without a plan. But that does not mean the only smart answer is to sell it for ordinary retail.

The college’s own planning documents show that the Northeast Campus has older buildings and underused classroom and lab space. But those same documents also say future planning at the Northeast Campus should take into account the needs of technical programs, Early College High School, student support services and a Learning Commons.

The master plan also proposes a new science building. In other words, underused today does not mean worthless tomorrow. It means the college needs to think carefully about what comes next.

Before McCarty lectures Tarrant County College, he should explain why North Richland Hills itself made a similar decision with city land at Davis Blvd and Lola Drive. The city’s public timeline says it bought that 4.36-acre site in 2021 for future commercial or municipal uses. In 2023, officials discussed using part of that land for a new Fire Station No. 3 and part for commercial development.

In May 2025, the City Council approved an agreement for a restaurant park on the vacant property, and the city has defended that choice as the best use because of expected sales tax, property tax and redevelopment benefits.

I am not saying restaurants are evil. I am saying public officials should apply the same standard to every piece of public land. If college land should be sold because it can bring in tax revenue, then city leaders should be honest that they used the same logic when land once publicly discussed for a fire station was redirected to restaurant development.

Residents are allowed to notice that pattern.

McCarty also leans heavily on the idea that more commercial development helps ease the burden on homeowners. People in North Richland Hills have heard that line for years. Yet the city’s own budget says it will raise $1.1 million more in property taxes than last year, and it includes a surplus of nearly $2 million. So, residents are right to be skeptical when they are told that the next development deal will solve their tax concerns. They are still paying attention to the bill in front of them.

Cities should want jobs, growth and a stronger tax base. But McCarty writes as if the choice is between action and stagnation, progress and doing nothing. There is another path.

If Tarrant County College decides that its land should do more for the public, there are better options than simply handing it over for a big-box retail project. For instance, that land could become a business annex tied directly to the college’s mission. It could host an entrepreneurship center where students and local residents learn how to start and grow a business. It could include flexible space for trades training, maker space and workforce partnerships with local employers.

It could create room for student-run businesses or any others to get real-world experience.

Not all growth is equal. Not every project that makes money creates the same kind of lasting value for a city. A large retailer can sell bulk goods. A college-connected business center can help produce future employers, skilled workers, taxpayers and business owners from right here in our own community.

That is a much bigger return than just another place to shop.

The question is not whether Tarrant County College should ever sell land but whether public land should be judged only by short-term tax math or by the long-term good it can do for the people it is meant to serve. Once you ask the question that way, the answer is not nearly as obvious as McCarty wants people to believe.

Public land should serve the public first. If our leaders are going to pressure others to cash out public land for retail, they should be ready to answer hard questions about the times they have done the same thing here at home.

Literally Anybody Else, who legally changed his name from Dustin Ebey, is a candidate for North Richland Hills mayor.