THE INSIDE STORY

Grove City residents and Council members spoke with one voice this week on the issue of data centers. They declared, “Enough is enough.”

Enough of skyrocketing water- and electric-rate increases caused by energy-hungry data centers.

Enough of out-of-state developers threatening lawsuits, if our local community wants to impose a temporary moratorium.

Enough of high-tech companies gobbling up hundreds of acres of valuable central Ohio farmland for massive data centers that could become obsolete in 10 or 15 years.

Enough of fast-talking Texans painting unrealistic pictures of pollution-free, Garden-of-Eden industrial complexes in Grove City.

Enough of data-center hubs that store the most intimate information about every American who uses a laptop computer and/or cell phone so it can be used by the ever-increasing surveillance state.

The City Council’s 6-1 vote in favor of a temporary moratorium on data centers did not occur by accident. It resulted from an intensive two-month grassroots campaign and Council members who were not intimidated by a well-financed out-of-state developer.

Here’s the inside story of what developed into a battle for Grove City’s soul.

Plans for a massive industrial data center in Grove City were initially kept quiet by its developer – Texas-based Headwaters Site Development. For months, Headwaters Development’s representatives had quietly lobbied Mayor Ike Stage and Council members through private contacts.

Kurt Nader, whose Pleasant Township home lies close to the proposed 310-acre project, was one of the first people to blow the whistle on Headwaters Development’s plans. In on-line posts, Nader revealed details of the project. Nader and several of his neighbors had been contacted about selling their property for the project.

Progress Grove City, a left-leaning grassroots organization, soon joined Nader, a conservative, in warning the public about the mega center. While individual members of Progress Grove City have publicly endorsed Democratic candidates, most of the organization’s efforts are focused on non-partisan issues like assisting the poor, public education and minority rights.

Members of Progress Grove City quickly worked with other community members and devised a low-budget strategy based on volunteers spreading throughout neighborhoods to publicize plans for the data center. Up to this time, few residents knew a data center was being proposed.

Flyers were printed and yard signs cobbled together. They were financed with small donations from activists. As volunteers began fanning out through neighborhoods, their worst fears were realized. While all but a handful of homeowners said they opposed data centers, most admitted they didn’t realize one was being proposed for Grove City.

With the demise of the Grove City Record years ago, volunteers realized a door-to-door publicity campaign was the most effective way to spread the news. And their efforts began  bearing fruit. Local TV stations and The Dispatch began running news of the controversy.

Residents – Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals – began spreading the news through word-of-mouth. Data center critics in May began speaking at City Council meetings. Council members were besieged with anti-data center emails.

A signature-gathering campaign was launched. A new website – ProtectGroveCity.org – was created to focus exclusively on the data center controversy. Eventually, flyers were distributed to 3,500 area homes and over 4,000 signatures were collected from residents opposed to the hyper-scale project.

Data center critics began posting on-line copies of news articles about successful efforts throughout the nation to stop the spread of data centers. These posts were morale boosters for local data center critics. They began to realize they were not alone. 

Mohamed Omar and Ted Berry became the first two Council members to publicly endorse a 12-month moratorium. But their tactics varied.

 Mohamed, one of three freshmen Council members, wanted to introduce a moratorium ordinance as quickly as possible before Headwaters Development submitted its annexation and preliminary re-zoning applications to Franklin County and the city, respectively. Berry, a veteran Council member, wanted a delay until more ducks were in order.

All the while, the anti-data center movement built up steam.

On May 27, Headwaters Development finally submitted its official proposals to the county and city. The developer’s application to the city included a so-called Project Narrative. The three-page document detailed what Headwaters Development planned for the 310-acre site west of Harrisburg Pike.

But critics quickly realized the Narrative misled readers.

 Each of the benefits outlined in the Narrative would become a reality, if Council would only approve its proposal, Headwaters Development claimed. Not so – not by a long shot, critics correctly countered. The Narrative represented only the developer’s wishful-thinking speculation, critics noted. Decisions on what would actually be built and its power sources would be determined by whatever high-tech company bought the land from Headwaters Development, critics noted. By that time, Headwaters Development’s staff would be back in Dallas, 1,000 miles away, critics added.

(Spoiler Alert: As it turned out, only one City Council member – Randy Holt – apparently believed Headwaters Development’s public relations Narrative.)

Just a few days later, Omar finished writing his moratorium ordinance and placed it on the Council’s agenda for its June 1 meeting.

By this time, Headwaters Development apparently was getting worried, maybe even panicking, City Hall insiders speculated. The Reason: The developer’s local re-zoning attorney, Rebecca Mott, made two last-minute tactical mistakes.

First Mistake: Mott invited all Council members to meet privately with Headwaters Development lobbyists just hours before the June 1 public Council meeting. Mott’s email invitations urged no more than three Council members to meet with the lobbyists at one time. This way, the chummy get-togethers could remain closed-door affairs without any public notice. Four Council members meeting at one time would constitute a quorum and would allow public participation and require official minutes to be taken.

Unfortunately for Mott, In My Opinion – through a public-records request – obtained copies of email correspondence involving the private meetings. The correspondence included email responses from Council President Berry and Council member Alan Sturm. Both declined Mott’s invitations. Such behind-the-scenes meetings would be improper, especially so close to the Council’s moratorium vote, they said. In an on-line post on ProtectGroveCity.org, In My Opinion publicly revealed details of the incident.

Second Mistake: Mott fired off three-page letters to Council members arguing a temporary moratorium would be illegal. The letter, in effect, said Grove City could face a lawsuit, if a moratorium was enacted. The letter even hinted that such a lawsuit could ask for monetary damages.

Talk about failing to read the room! The idea that an out-of-state company would use such hardball tactics rubbed many Council members the wrong way. Also, three citizen speakers at the June 1 Council meeting lambasted the letter. 

Council member George Holinga was especially upset. Holinga is seen by many City Hall watchers as a political ally of Mayor Ike Stage. Although the mayor did not publicly take a stand on the Headwaters Development project, he had been a major supporter of another data center that was unanimously defeated by the Council three years ago.

Despite his friendship with Stage, Holinga is known as a crusty retired businessman with an independent streak. After the meeting, Holinga recounted an instance years ago when someone sued him for $50,000. Holinga countersued, asking for more than twice as much. The plaintiff quickly dropped his suit, Holinga recalled with a sly smile. “Lawsuits?” he said. “I’m not intimidated by lawsuits.”

Mott obviously overplayed her hand. But she can be forgiven for her miscalculation. Mott is a managing member of the Plank law firm of Columbus. Plank has successfully represented developers of two of Grove City’s largest housing subdivisions – Pinnacle and Beulah Park. Plank is known as one of the go-to law firms for getting tricky land-use matters approved by City Council. But its reputation might be a bit outdated.

The makeup of today’s City Council is vastly different than it was just 2 ½ years ago. Five Council members – Omar, Sturm, Holinga, Jodi Burroughs and Melissa Anderson – are in their first terms. Omar, Sturm and Holinga have been members of Council for barely five months. Burroughs and Anderson have been Council members for 2 ½ years. Only Berry and Holt are veteran Council members who have dealt with Plank lawyers for many years.

Data center critics jammed City Hall on June 1. The 200-plus attendees marked one of the largest crowds to ever turn out for a Council meeting. The standing-room-only audience was so large it spilled out into the hallway and into the City Hall basement.

The tension inside Council chambers was intense. Only Omar and Berry had announced before the meeting that they endorsed a temporary moratorium.

 To make matters even more difficult, Omar had introduced his ordinance as an emergency. Although the legislation would take effect immediately, it would require a super-majority of five votes for passage. Non-emergency legislation, which takes effect 30 days after passage, only needs four votes.

Mike Lebow, founder and CEO of Headwaters Development, and three of his associates spoke for almost 50 minutes. They were followed by residents who each gave three-minute speeches. The proceedings were documented by all the local TV stations.

Many data center critics were confident that at least three Council members – and maybe four – would vote in favor of Omar’s ordinance. But reaching the five-vote margin required for an emergency ordinance seemed to be a long shot.

When Council Clerk Tami K. Kelly announced the final 6-1 tally, the audience erupted in cheers. Many hugged and high-fived each other.

They had done it. A grassroots movement – along with six Council members who were not intimidated by threats and intense private lobbying by well-heeled developers – had beaten back the Big Boys. Council member Holt was the only negative vote.

Will the successful campaign for a temporary moratorium mark a turning point in the good ol’ boy network that has dominated City Hall throughout Stage’s many terms as mayor? Only time will tell.

There are signs, though, that things might be changing.

 Stage appeared visibly nervous throughout the June 1 meeting. The mayor usually lets Council know beforehand how he feels about an issue. But Stage did not speak at the Council meeting in favor of or against the moratorium. It was almost as if he had an inkling of what was to come.

Although Stage didn’t publicly announce his position, he left little doubt in conversations with In My Opinion and others about where his sympathies lied. In two phone conversations with In My Opinion just hours before the June 1 meeting, Stage repeatedly lambasted data center critics for what he claimed was misinformation they posted on-line. However, Stage did not level similar complaints about exaggerations and misrepresentations bandied about by data center supporters.

Also, Stage scoffed at Omar for offering the moratorium ordinance as an emergency that would need a super-majority for approval. Of course, as it turned out, Omar – the newcomer – wasn’t as politically naïve as Stage implied. The moratorium didn’t just garner five super-majority votes. It had one additional vote to spare.

Hmmm. Maybe things are a’changin’ at City Hall after all.

(In My Opinion plans to post another commentary soon on ProtectGroveCity.org recalling the high points and low points of the June 1 Council meeting.)

← Back to Updates