In My Opinion - by Bob Ruth
May 11, 2026 — Bob Ruth
(Full disclosure: The author, a retired newspaper reporter and political consultant, lives less than a mile from a proposed mega data center in Grove City. He has friends and family who live even closer.)
Stephen J. Smith, city attorney for Grove City, contends he is neutral on the issue of a proposed hyper-scale data center in the city. He merely gives city officials unbiased opinions on legal matters swirling around the controversy, Smith argues.
But remarks he expressed during a May 4 City Council meeting and conversations between Smith and In My Opinion and others have many data-center skeptics scratching their heads.
They say Smith appears uncomfortable with the types of public debates and legislative options that are advocated by local data-center skeptics. Some of these same tactics — the ones with which Smith appears to be uncomfortable — have been used by grassroots organizations throughout Ohio and the nation to slow the rush to build data centers, these skeptics say.
Also, Smith has parroted arguments made by data center supporters. He has criticized what he claims is misinformation being disseminated by data center opponents, but he has not leveled similar criticism about overly rosy and conflicting information put forth by data-center supporters.
Bottom Line. Despite Smith’s declarations of neutrality, skeptics are growing increasingly concerned with his remarks.
At the May 4 meeting, Smith told Council members that he is “not a big fan of moratoriums.” He also has said he worries townhall meetings will go off the rails. Such public meetings could feature free-wheeling discussions among residents, City Council members and representatives of the proposed data center’s developer, Headwaters Site Development of Dallas, Texas.
Instead, Smith appears more comfortable with the restrictive types of hearings held by City Council. These hearings limit residents’ speeches to three minutes. Residents are prohibited from asking City Council members follow-up questions. Virtually no back-and-forth feedback is allowed between the audience and Council members. And residents are not allowed to publicly ask questions of data center representatives who attend the meetings.
Case in Point: A representative of Headwaters Development sat silently in the first row of the audience at the May 4 Council meeting. She was not asked to publicly respond to residents’ comments opposing the mega center.
Smith told In My Opinion that he fears townhalls might become too rowdy. Because of this, pro-data center residents might become fearful of speaking out at townhalls, he added.
In My Opinion countered by telling Smith that townhall meetings played key roles in the development of American democracy starting in the Colonial Period. And townhalls still today are a part of local governments in some states, In My Opinion noted. (For more on townhall meetings, see a companion article by In My Opinion headlined Townhalls: Democracy in Action.)
And Smith frowns on temporary moratoriums. At the May 4 Council meeting, he argued that months-long moratoriums are not necessary because the city’s zoning code currently does not permit data centers. City Council would have to amend or re-write portions of the code to permit them, Smith advised. “When it comes to re-zoning, Council has all the discretion in the world,” he said. “The law is really clear.” In other words, Council could deliberate for as long as it wants without a formal moratorium, Smith said.
In many cities where temporary moratoriums have been enacted, municipal zoning codes already allow for data centers, Smith declared. In such cases, cities must impose temporary moratoriums to keep data center construction from beginning, he said. But in Grove City, a data center currently “isn’t permitted in our code,” he told Council members. Council would have to take proactive steps to permit its construction, he said.
Other cities he represents have been sued for imposing temporary moratoriums, Smith warned.
Skeptics have called on City Council to enact a 12-month moratorium on any vote to approve the mega center being proposed for Grove City. They note that cities, townships and counties throughout the nation have imposed similar pauses. The 300-plus-acre proposed center in Grove City would be built west of Harrisburg Pike. It could include at least five warehouse-sized buildings and a new power substation, Headwaters Development representatives have said.
A 12-month pause would give residents and city officials time to thoroughly educate themselves about the pros and cons of data centers, skeptics have argued. Also, a temporary moratorium would allow officials to study how other Ohio municipalities have enacted — at the local level — regulations restricting possible pollution emanating from data centers, skeptics have said. The city might hire its own environmental engineer to recommend best-practices for regulating data centers.
Also, a 12-month moratorium would all but guarantee a vote on a data center re-zoning would be postponed for a full year. Under Smith’s scenario, the time frame would probably be less certain.
The author of In My Opinion is not an attorney. And In My Opinion realizes there are many nuances to zoning laws that a non-lawyer might find difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Also, In My Opinion does not impugn Smith’s integrity. But we are all human. Biases can creep unconsciously into one’s psyche, even for an attorney with an unblemished record like Smith’s, In My Opinion believes.
Smith is a partner in a national corporate-leaning law firm, FBT Gibbons. Companies that FBT Gibbons represents include the data, digital and technology industries, according to Chambers and Partners, a British analytics service that ranks large law firms. High-tech and digital companies like Amazon, OpenAI, Google and Microsoft are some of the biggest promoters of data centers.
Smith discounted any implication that his law firm’s other clients would sway advice he gives to Grove City officials. He works in FBT Gibbons’ Columbus office, Smith noted, but his firm has more than 20 offices throughout the country. He doesn’t have the “faintest clue” whether clients in other FBT Gibbons offices represent high-tech clients, Smith said. He doesn’t represent any of these types of clients, Smith emphasized.
Again, In My Opinion is not suggesting Smith has a potential conflict of interest. Large law firms like FBT Gibbons sometimes represent at the same time competing companies with competing interests. Fire walls are created within such law firms to guard against conflicts of interest.
But the proposed data-center complex in Grove City is expected to involve environmental, health, land use, home property values, legal, possible tax incentive and other public and economic issues. Questions are bound to crop up.
Skeptics further note that Smith is an appointee of Mayor Ike Stage, who was an ardent supporter of another data center that was unanimously rejected by Council three years ago. Smith told In My Opinion that he has not yet discussed the Headwaters Development project with Stage. Such a discussion would be improper at this point, he declared. Furthermore, his advice to City Council would never be influenced by Stage’s stand on data centers, Smith emphasized.
Also disconcerting to skeptics are remarks Smith has made outside the realm of legal opinions. In a conversation with residents after the May 4 Council meeting, Smith discounted fears that a data center would adversely affect home property values in the Grove City area. Similar centers in Dublin and New Albany haven’t affected values in those Franklin County cities, he argued. Supporters of data centers routinely make similar arguments. (In My Opinion plans to post an article later on this issue. Preliminary research indicates the property value issue is more nuanced than Smith and data-center proponents contend.)
Smith’s claims of neutrality also are undermined by his complaints that data center opponents disseminate misinformation, skeptics say. (Smith has not yet made such an accusation against In My Opinion.) While criticizing opponents, Smith has remained silent on comments by data center supporters. Critics have characterized these comments as false and highly biased. For instance, data center advocates phoo-phoo instances of massive data centers causing noise, air, water and other forms of pollution, that data centers have caused significant property value depressions and many other problems. Yet, Smith has not yet criticized pro-data center exaggerations.
And Smith has come up with another reason for locating data centers in Ohio. In a conversation after the May 4 Council meeting, Smith argued the following: If Grove City and other communities ban data centers, the State Legislature will simply override local governments. Under this scenario, the General Assembly would enact legislation to either eliminate or greatly limit cities’ authority to ban these massive complexes.
But Smith forgot to mention two caveats.
First: A citizens’ group is currently circulating signature-petitions for a state Constitutional amendment that would ban construction of new mega data centers in Ohio. If voters would approve such an amendment, the Legislature would be powerless to override it.
Second: Although state legislators usually cave into demands from well-heeled lobbyists like data-center developers, every now and then they surprise us. Case in Point: Tax incentives like Community Reinvestment Areas and Tax Increment Financing used to cost school districts and township fire departments millions of dollars in lost property tax revenue. But complaints from local officials convinced the Legislature to amend the law. Now, school districts and fire departments no longer lose money because of newly enacted CRAs and TIFs.
All of these developments raise another question: Do City Council members and Grove City residents deserve an in-depth written legal opinion from Smith on moratoriums? The city attorney discussed the legal issues in brief remarks May 4 to Council. He also mentioned the need to re-write the zoning code to accommodate data centers in a short letter to Council President Ted Berry.
Skeptics wonder whether a more detailed explanation would be appropriate. Such a comprehensive written opinion might cite specific sections of the Standard Industrial Classification, a manual on which much of the city’s zoning code is based, these skeptics argue. Also, a more comprehensive opinion might cite specific cases in which cities have successfully and unsuccessfully imposed moratoriums.
Cleveland is the latest large city in Ohio to tackle the issue. There, four Council members recently introduced an ordinance to impose a 12-month moratorium on approval of mega data centers, according to Channel 19, WOIO-TV.
Councilman Charles Slife, the ordinance’s chief sponsor, told WOIO-TV, “Right now, there’s a real concern that one of these large invasive data centers would be co-located within very close proximity of people’s houses.” And data centers “really don’t create jobs in a meaningful way,” Slife said. Centers also consume huge amounts of water and electricity that place “added stress on the city’s grid,” he added.
(The proposed data-center complex in Grove City would be too close to hundreds of homes, a 700-student middle school and major senior citizen housing complexes, skeptics contend. Headwaters’ reps argue their center will pose virtually no environmental and health problems.)
The Cleveland ordinance contends that the city’s chief zoning administrator believes data centers might automatically be allowed under Cleveland’s existing zoning code. Therefore, a temporary moratorium is needed, ordinance supporters say.
Again, comparing Cleveland’s zoning code to Grove City’s might be like comparing apples to oranges. But a more detailed explanation from Smith could be beneficial, skeptics say. In My Opinion spoke with Smith about the Cleveland moratorium nine days after the ordinance had received widespread publicity from the Cleveland news media. Smith said he had not heard of the ordinance.
