Tuscaloosa council tables Delaney Group Springbrook development after residents urge denial of $5.75M incentives

The Tuscaloosa City Council voted to table indefinitely on Aug. 8 a proposed development agreement with Delaney Group LLC for a commercial project in the Springbrook neighborhood after multiple residents urged the council to deny a tax-incentive package.

The item before the council was authorization to execute a development agreement with Delaney Group and consideration of tax incentives the applicant said would total $5,750,000. During a public hearing, Susie Smith, who identified herself as a Springbrook resident since 1989, told the council the project would require “the demolition of 20 rental properties and the failing and removal of around 200 trees” and argued the plan “has no such definable public interest.” She urged councilors not to subsidize the private development, saying, “Please do not vote to approve giving $5,750,000 of Tuscaloosa taxpayers’ dollars to an ill-designed private commercial development.”

Joan Barth, who gave her address as 5541 Woodberry Lane, told the council the proposal diverges from the vision approved when the parcel was rezoned in 2017 and said the current plan includes more auto-oriented uses — such as drive-through restaurants and fuel stations — that she said would disrupt surrounding residences. “Approving this incentive package sets a low bar for others who seek incentives for their projects,” Barth said, urging councilors to maintain a high standard.

Sandy Wilson, who said the development would be “across the street from my house,” told the council she was concerned about property values, safety and construction impacts for long-time Springbrook residents and said she supported remarks by Barth and Smith.

Councilors moved and seconded a motion to table the development agreement indefinitely. After the public comment period closed, the motion carried.

Why it matters: The proposed 5.61-acre Springbrook development was framed by neighbors as primarily private commercial gain rather than a public project that would deliver jobs, services or other documented civic benefits. Residents pressed councilors to weigh neighborhood impacts — including housing loss and tree removal — against the fiscal incentive requested from the city.

Next steps: With the motion to table indefinite, the council did not take a final vote on the development agreement or the incentive package. The item will not proceed to a vote at this meeting; any future action would require the council to reintroduce the item for consideration.