Setting the Record Straight
September 1, 2026 — Protect Grove City
After we had our signatures and our petition was filed, Councilman Mohamed Omar approached Protect Grove City. He explained some concerns the city had with the CCA, and asked whether there was a way to find a version of this amendment that met our primary goals and that Council could support.
Because we believe in the power of compromise building strong legislation, we agreed to try. What followed was weeks of meetings with Councilman Omar, with the City’s Law Director Mr. Smith, with Councilwoman Jodi Burroughs, who joined when she returned from vacation, and with our own attorney in between.
We have written several versions of this amendment. Each one was an attempt to clarify confusion or answer an objection someone in that room raised.
The latest version we delivered Saturday is five pages. The version the voters would see if nothing changes is seventeen.
We cut the acreage threshold and aggregation. We narrowed coverage to three numbers that anyone can read off a permit application: 20 megawatts of electrical capacity, 500,000 gallons a day of water, 750,000 square feet of floor area. We wrote in an automatic exemption for EVERYTHING already built here with NO hoops to jump through for ANY existing business. We tied the referendum to zoning only. We bent and bent and bent. And to their credit, those on the other side of the table did as well.
Every one of those changes was made because someone at the table asked for it. We did not get everything we wanted. That is what a negotiation is.
Just to be clear, what we would not give up is the part that matters:
I’m not sure people always understand that “the city” is a generic term consisting of two main groups. One is City Council. Those are the seven people that make the laws. The other is the mayor and his city employees, collectively referred to as “the administration.” They run the city according to the laws. Those two pieces operate together sometimes, but mostly they operate independently as different parts of the machine that makes our city go.
In this process both those pieces are impacted differently.
Council is required, because we got our signatures, to put our amendment on the ballot. They also have their own normal ability to put anything they agree to on the ballot as well without signatures. That is their role. It just has to be submitted by 9/4 so the Board of Elections has time to put it on the ballot.
On the other hand, the administration has no direct role in what goes on the ballot (outside of the Mayor being able to veto a 4-3 decision by Council to add something). This means that in this case they only have the ability to influence.
So while we were working with Council, a different conversation was going on in the administration. Public records show the City of Grove City has been billed by MurphyEpson, a Columbus advertising and public relations firm, for work described as “economic development messaging.” In June alone the City was billed $8,167.50. The itemized entries include strategy sessions on the Charter Amendment, work to identify “champions” and build awareness of its impacts before November, media monitoring, social media listening, and a line item for FOIA request response and “counter tactics.” Those are our tax dollars.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Then on August 28, the administration published a page on the City’s website opposing this amendment. It describes only our original filed version. It does not mention that a negotiation has been under way for weeks. It does not mention that City Council meets on September 3 to decide what goes on the ballot.
We have asked our attorney to look at whether public funds may be spent this way. That is a question for lawyers and we will let them answer it, but just know it is being looked at.
Set the legal question aside and just look at the sequence.
This amendment is not yet on the ballot. Council has not voted. We have worked on this compromise for weeks and our newest version has been in the Council’s hands for about 48 hours. And before any of that, the administration was being billed for strategy work on this amendment, for identifying “champions” ahead of November, and for counter tactics on records requests. Then the City stood up an opposition website.
That is a great deal of energy directed at something that does not yet exist, at a moment when a 300-acre data center campus is pending here.
At the last task force meeting, the Development Director referred to a development agreement.
We have asked what the City has agreed to, and with whom. We have not received an answer.
We are asking again, publicly. If there is a development agreement touching a project of this size, residents are entitled to read it before they are told that voting on such projects is unnecessary.
City Council has dealt with us in good faith throughout this. We want to be clear about that, because the last week has muddied who is doing what. The administration published that website. The administration hired that firm. The Mayor opposes this amendment. But the administration cannot put anything on a ballot.
Council can. That is the whole decision in front of them Thursday.
If Council places the compromise amendment on the November ballot, or a version of it that still meets the four conditions above, we withdraw our petition, as we have said publicly and in writing from the beginning. Voters get a shorter, narrower amendment that the City’s own feedback helped write.
This is not a promise anyone has to take on faith. The withdrawal of our petition has been signed and notarized, and our attorney is holding it in escrow. It releases the moment Council places a charter amendment meeting the four conditions listed above on the November ballot. Council does not have to trust us. The paperwork is already done.
If Council declines, our original amendment goes to the voters on November 3 exactly as filed, because 1,500+ of your neighbors signed to put it there.
Either way, this ends where it should have started. With the people who live here deciding what gets built here.
We would rather it be the version we built together.
Protect Grove City |
#PeopleOverPolitics
