Residents urge pause on Project Raspberry (Google data center), demand analyses and public meeting
Loading...
Summary
Dozens of Botetourt County residents told the board they oppose the proposed Project Raspberry/Google data center, raising concerns about noise, water usage, health impacts, property values, and transparency; petitioners demanded a 6:00 p.m. special meeting and detailed cash‑flow and utility impact analyses.
Dozens of residents used the three‑minute public‑comment slots to press the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors for more information and an opportunity for fuller public input on Project Raspberry, the proposed hyperscale Google data center planned near Daleville.
Danny Goad, who said he lives in the Valley District, asked the county to provide a cash‑flow analysis that lists anticipated real‑estate and machinery tax revenues, business personal property and depreciation schedules, and the estimated utility demands (water, electric, gas) and the cost to the county and nearby localities. "I request a copy of the cash flow analysis for the data centers that includes the real anticipated real estate taxes... and the utility development cost," he said.
Other speakers focused on health, noise and environmental impacts. Laura Newton said diesel generators and day‑to‑day operations at data centers have caused noise and air concerns elsewhere, and warned of proximity to Greenfield Elementary School. "Diesel generators are the source of horrible air pollution that causes cancer and triggers asthma," she said. Frank Lucia, who said his property adjoins the proposed site, called for stricter resident protections in the county's agreement documents and questioned whether expedited permitting language in the county's economic development performance agreement could be used to ease rules for the project.
Several speakers also complained about limited public disclosure during early negotiations and the use of nondisclosure agreements. Petition circulators presented signatures demanding a 6:00 p.m. special meeting dedicated solely to the Google project so more residents can attend and comment. Christine Liana and others urged the board to publicly advertise and hold a dedicated forum before any decisive board action. "This meeting should be held at least a week prior to the April 28 regular board meeting," she said, reading from a petition.
Why it matters: commenters said the project's scale and proximity to schools, parks and established neighborhoods make additional analysis, public outreach and formal scrutiny necessary to understand long‑term impacts on water supply, traffic, noise and public health.
County response and next steps: board members acknowledged the volume of comments and several asked staff to consider scheduling a separate evening meeting to accommodate residents. Staff also noted ongoing technical and permitting steps with outside agencies and said some site plans and EDA/EDA‑related agreements remain under review; board members asked for more detailed financial and utility analyses to be provided to the public when available.
The board did not take a vote on the data‑center project during the meeting; residents said they will continue to press for a special session and formal responses on the issues raised.
Representative claims raised in public comment: petitioners and speakers asked for public disclosure of cash‑flow and tax projections, questioned whether county protections (indemnification, utility indemnities) were adequate, requested assurances on noise limits and water usage, and called for delay or moratorium to permit fuller public review.
