Residents, parents urge Porter County officials to stop data center near Wheeler schools

Dozens of residents packed a Porter County Council meeting to oppose a proposed hyperscale data center proposed near Wheeler High School and Union Township Middle School.

The council allowed the public to comment on the data center even though it was not on the meeting agenda; residents used the opportunity to raise health, environmental and fiscal concerns and to urge county leaders to slow the process.

Why it matters: Speakers said the site, as discussed in recent meetings, is adjacent to schools and would be inside Union Township. Residents described potential long-term impacts on student health, property values, local planning and school revenue. Several asked the council to press the county commissioners — who, speakers said, hold the final authority for siting and approval — to ensure any decision is informed by updated planning documents and environmental analysis.

Parents and neighbors emphasized the schools’ proximity and the community’s lack of a modern plan. “I don’t want my kids to be the experiment,” said David Hyman, identifying himself as a parent whose children attend Union Township schools. Hyman thanked council members who had responded to constituent emails but said he wanted elected leaders to press the commissioners on the community’s concerns.

Kyle Duarte, who said he spoke at the previous meeting, urged the council not to allow a large industrial development where a comprehensive plan for the area has not been updated. “We still did not have any start or have not heard anything about a comprehensive plan,” Duarte said, referring to a local plan he said is out of date. He asked that a current plan be prepared before approving large projects.

Other speakers raised environmental questions. A speaker identifying himself as a business owner, Bert Barn, asked how the project would affect the Salt Creek watershed and whether changes to lake water levels or temperature could lead to costly dredging. Several commenters raised concerns about water use for cooling, increased emissions from mechanical systems, noise and “dead zone” effects on nearby residential areas.

Concerns about tax abatements and ownership also surfaced. One commenter described the corporate model of large developers that build and lease to subsidiaries; another speaker noted that Blackstone — an investor named by several speakers — holds ownership stakes in a variety of energy and infrastructure companies and pointed out ties between investors and local utilities. A speaker identified as Liz said, “Blackstone also owns 19.99% of [HIFS],” a point attendees mentioned while discussing utility and tax arrangements.

Multiple speakers asked why the county would site a large industrial campus adjacent to schools. One resident said the community is completing a roughly $30,000,000 pathway expansion and estimated Union Township’s area at about 30 square miles; speakers described the potential “dead zone” footprint from the project as roughly “just under 10 square miles.”

Not all comments were technical. Meredith White said unknown health effects and concerns about electromagnetic fields and other impacts could prompt families to move away. Natalia Dalvin, who said she lives in Porter Township, urged residents and elected leaders to “stand in solidarity” and told the council: “We vote. And we’re saying, not in our neighborhood, not in our water.”

Council role and next steps: At the meeting council members repeatedly emphasized that the Porter County Council handles fiscal authority while county commissioners hold legislative and land-use authority; several speakers and one council member explained that the council is one step in a longer process. The council allowed comments to register constituent concerns in the record but did not take a formal vote on the data center siting. Several speakers asked council members to communicate constituent concerns to the commissioners and to seek a comprehensive plan and environmental review before any final approvals.

Ending: Community opposition was unanimous among those who addressed the council during the public comment period; no speakers identified themselves in support of the project at the meeting. Residents said they will continue to attend meetings and contact county officials as the proposal moves forward.