Is it time to call Bab’s a liar like she has called others that go against the official narrative? Is she really the person you want running your child’s sports league? She cannot even distinguish the truth any longer.
STATEMENT-BY-STATEMENT COMPARISON
Barbara Clowdus Rhetoric vs. the Documented Record
Project Beskar (ANX 24-072) — Hyperscale Data Center Pathway
Purpose. This document provides a direct, side-by-side comparison of key claims made by Barbara Clowdus regarding Project Beskar against the public record. Primary sources include the April 29, 2025 Fishkind Consulting Economic Impact Analysis for the Hyperscale Data Center in Indiantown (commissioned by Beskar), the April 25, 2025 multi-parcel deed cluster from Tesoro Groves Ltd. Partnership entities, the formal annexation/Light Industrial application (ANX 24-072), and standard Florida entitlement sequencing.
Each entry quotes the claim, states the documented record, and notes the rhetorical effect of the framing.
Claim 1
Clowdus: “Having parts of the Beskar Investments’ 175-page annexation application posted online by new Indiantown resident Melissa Hague is truly enlightening, as long as you ignore the headline.”
Record: The materials include both the annexation / Comprehensive Plan / rezoning application and the separate Fishkind economic-impact study that Beskar itself commissioned for a hyperscale data center. The headline accurately reflecting the study’s own title and content is not misleading.
Rhetorical effect: Frames accurate labeling of the applicant’s own study as the problem, rather than engaging the substance of that study.
Claim 2
Clowdus: “(The projection of 185 full-time, permanent high-paying jobs was particularly interesting, considering the criticism by some that no jobs would materialize.)”
Record: The 185-job figure is taken directly from the Fishkind study commissioned by Beskar (operating impacts section / Table 3). The study states the Center will have a permanent staff of 185, “mostly high paid engineers,” drawn from the Martin County market. It is the applicant-side projection, not an outsider’s invention.
Rhetorical effect: Presents the number as a surprising positive discovery while later dismissing the same study as analyzing an “imaginary” project.
Claim 3 — The Central Assertion
Clowdus: “However, you can see for yourself that the documents posted are NOT an application for a data center. Calling Hague’s multiple postings ‘the Beskar Data Center Documents’ is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers and throw shade on the Village Council, particularly the mayor. There is NO data center being considered for the Beskar property.”
Record: The formal filing is an annexation + Future Land Use amendment to Light Industrial + rezoning application. That narrow technical point is correct. However:
• The Fishkind study (April 29, 2025), prepared for Beskar’s attorneys and commissioned by Beskar, is titled “Economic Impact Analysis for the Hyperscale Data Center in Indiantown.”
• It states: “Sassoon Equities is planning the development of a hyperscale data center (‘Center’) on +/- 400 acres of land it has under contract with Beskar Investment, LLC.”
• It further states: “Beskar is in the process of applying to annex its property into Indiantown and to change its zoning from AG-20A to light industrial. The annexation and zoning change would allow for the development of the Center.”
• The study models a Tier 3, approximately 1-million-square-foot hyperscale facility with specific cost, power-density, cooling, and staffing assumptions.
Calling the package “Beskar Data Center Documents” accurately describes the complete record presented to the public.
Rhetorical effect: Creates a false binary — either a site-plan application exists today or “there is NO data center being considered.” This erases the explicit enabling language in the study Beskar paid for and misrepresents standard Florida entitlement sequencing, in which comprehensive-plan and zoning changes precede site plans.
Claim 4
Clowdus: “Yes, Jerry Emmert, the principal of Beskar Investments Inc., and his representatives floated several ideas before individual council members and staff a year or so ago to make ANNEXATION more palatable. One of their enticements was promising a water plant… and another was a general hospital or urgent care facility, as well as the one project they settled on as having the greatest potential to create jobs in Indiantown, a data center.”
Record: This portion is largely accurate as far as it goes. The data-center concept was presented as the highest job-generating option. What is omitted is that Beskar then commissioned a formal, multi-page economic-impact study of that specific concept in April 2025 — timed with the land assembly from the Tesoro complex and the formal annexation filing.
Rhetorical effect: Reduces a commissioned professional study to the same casual status as verbal “enticements,” minimizing the seriousness with which the applicant treated the data-center option.
Claim 5 — The Core Distortion
Clowdus: “Emmert must have thought that the potential for the estimated 185 high-paying jobs… might overcome the objections to annexation… Consequently, the company commissioned an economic development analysis of the impact of the imaginary jobs at an imaginary data center, which Hague also posted online.”
Record: The Fishkind study is not an analysis of an “imaginary” project. It is titled for the Hyperscale Data Center, states that Sassoon Equities is planning it on land under contract with Beskar, and explicitly links the annexation and Light Industrial zoning change to enabling that Center. The 185-job figure and economic multipliers are the study’s own outputs based on industry benchmarks (Stargate project data, NESCOE, PWC, Colliers, Cushman & Wakefield).
Rhetorical effect: The repeated use of “imaginary” is the central distortion. It converts a formal applicant-commissioned study into speculation, thereby neutralizing the most damaging evidence that a data-center pathway was being actively modeled and advanced in April 2025.
Claim 6
Clowdus: “The analytical report involved lots of guesswork and many generalizations, since no data center application existed to provide the details the consultants needed for an accurate report. Still, 185 estimated jobs is considerably more than the few to nothing that others claim.”
Record: The study itself acknowledges the Center was still in the design phase and therefore used publicly available industry data and benchmark projects. That is standard practice for economic-impact analyses of projects that have not yet filed site plans. The consultants applied documented assumptions for a Tier 3 hyperscale facility of the scale described. The claim that “no data center application existed” is true only in the narrow sense that no site plan had been filed. The Fishkind document itself treats the data center as the project whose impacts are being quantified and whose development the pending annexation/zoning would enable.
Rhetorical effect: Uses the normal absence of a site-plan filing to discredit the study, while still wanting the 185-job number to be taken seriously when it serves the narrative.
Claim 7
Clowdus: “Hague’s conclusion that no Indiantown residents would get those jobs due to their lack of education also underestimates the abilities and drive of Indiantown residents, which rankled many residents.”
Record: The Fishkind study itself states the 185 permanent positions will be “mostly high paid engineers” and that they “will be drawn from the local market in Martin County.” Whether Indiantown residents specifically capture a meaningful share of those roles depends on training pipelines, certification access, and any local-hiring commitments — none of which are binding in the current application.
Rhetorical effect: Converts a legitimate workforce-access and local-capture concern into an alleged insult to residents, shifting the discussion from structural job quality to emotional defense of community pride.
Claim 8
Clowdus: Provides general BuiltIn.com FAQ answers about data-center employment numbers, degree requirements, certifications, and pay ranges as “a realistic picture.”
Record: These are generic industry talking points. They do not override the specific staffing model in the Fishkind study (heavily weighted toward engineers) nor do they constitute enforceable local-hiring or training commitments for this project.
Rhetorical effect: Substitutes broad industry marketing language for project-specific analysis and for the absence of binding local-benefit conditions.
Summary of the Distortion Pattern
Clowdus’s piece repeatedly employs three techniques:
1. Narrow technical truth used as a shield. Correctly notes that no site-plan application exists today, then leaps to the absolute claim “there is NO data center being considered.”
2. Erasure of the applicant’s own formal work product. The Fishkind study is reduced to “imaginary jobs at an imaginary data center” even though Beskar commissioned it, it is titled for a hyperscale data center, and it explicitly states that the annexation and Light Industrial change would allow that Center.
3. Selective elevation of favorable numbers. The 185-job figure is highlighted when useful, then the same study is dismissed as guesswork when the underlying project becomes inconvenient.
The Whole-Truth Record
In April 2025 — contemporaneous with the Tesoro-sourced land assembly (April 25, 2025 multi-parcel deed cluster into Indiantown II North LLC, Indiantown II Mid LLC, and Emmert Trust vehicles) and the formal annexation push — Beskar commissioned a professional economic-impact study of a Tier 3 hyperscale data center on land under contract with it. The study states that the very annexation and zoning change still before the Village would enable that Center.
That is not outsider speculation. That is the applicant’s own documented modeling.
The public and the Village Council are entitled to evaluate the full picture: the application as filed, the enabling platform it creates, the ownership succession from the Tesoro complex, the applicant’s own prior pitches and formal study, and the cumulative impacts on rural character, infrastructure, and quality of life. Selective framing that stops at “no data-center application exists today” leaves out the material facts that matter for decision-making.
Primary Source Note
Fishkind Consulting, “Economic Impact Analysis for the Hyperscale Data Center in Indiantown,” April 29, 2025. Prepared for Ms. Cynthia Angelos, Esquire (Bartlett Loeb Hinds Thompson & Angelos, PLLC) and Mr. Tyson J. Waters, Esquire (Fox, McClusky, Bush, Robinson, PLLC). Commissioned by Beskar. Additional context drawn from the April 25, 2025 deed cluster, ANX 24-072 application materials, and the July 21, 2026 Beskar–Tesoro Succession analysis.
Prepared for public distribution and Village record | July 27, 2026