County leadership appears to be struggling with oversight of hyper-data center development in St. Joseph County. According to recent reports, the county council and the redevelopment commission are at odds when it comes to their own comprehensive land use plan and data centers. Worse, discussions on important economic development issues are subject to the secrecy of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). The county has not provided basic facts about the latest proposal for a 1,000-acre data center, such as the identity of the company behind the proposal or related development agreements that outline tax breaks, infrastructure investments and other county commitments.
Nor has the mysterious company disclosed any key facts to the public about the basic workings of the proposed center. I attended the Area Plan Commission meeting on September 16 to hear the developer's attorney present the proposed project. To say the proposal is light on important details is an understatement. When asked repeatedly, the attorney was unable or unwilling to disclose material information about the operation of the data center, including the type of cooling system to be used or the subsequent quantity and power consumption. What about noise and air pollution?
This is not acceptable. What is the mysterious company trying to hide? The county's planning team chose not to comment for or against the proposal. No wonder the Area Plan Commission voted 7-0 against the project. The most impressive aspect of the hearing was the many audience members who spoke about a high level of data center knowledge. We are not a clueless, disengaged community.
Companies often use nondisclosure agreements to protect trade secrets in economic development projects. But they can also limit what information can be made available to the public and suppress community input. Data center water, wastewater and energy consumption should not be withheld from the public in projects of this scale and with public investment. The well-being of our rivers, streams and aquifers affects us all. If such projects are indeed in the public interest, as is claimed, the projects should be able to withstand public scrutiny. Perhaps more importantly, conducting county business under a cloak of secrecy contradicts basic notions of local control and democracy.
The county appears to be taking a blind man's approach to overseeing data center development. In the three previous developments, the county appears to have set few requirements for water and energy use. The identity of the latest prospect has become a shadowy figure lurking in northwest St. Joe County. Is it meta? Microsoft? Amazon? Google?
County Council President Dan Schaetzle appears to be operating in the dark, publicly portraying Meta as the company only to have to back down. Bill Schalliol, executive director of economic development for St. Joseph County, assures that there is no confirmation as to who the end user is: “The developer has not been granted permission to share the name of the end user.” So who authorized Schaetzle to publicly out Meta? Did he violate a non-disclosure agreement? Why did the council and the redevelopment commission agree to such secrecy? It leads to the question: Who is in charge? It appears that the mystery lies with the “end user”.
Cities and counties across the country are becoming aware of the tactics data companies use to circumvent public scrutiny. In response, these communities provide the public with actual information and enact regulations that limit what NDAs can keep secret. They reject data centers or set stricter ground rules for development and oversight. The St. Joseph County Council and Redevelopment Commission need to get their act together and take leadership on our behalf.
Jan Cervelli, dean emeritus of the University of Arizona's College of Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Architecture, is a professor at Saint Mary's College and a resident of Granger.