Residents and developers clash over proposed "Project Ruby" data center as council weighs overlay rules

More than a dozen residents and business representatives addressed the Columbus City Council on March 10 about Project Ruby, a proposed hyperscale data‑center campus and the city's draft technology overlay district intended to set standards and guardrails for such projects.

Supporters and opponents spoke during a lengthy public‑comment period. "I've seen a lot of ridiculous reasons for opposing Project Ruby," said Gregory Foster, a Midtown resident who told council the site is about a mile from the closest homes and that, based on distance attenuation, noise would fall well below levels of concern. "It was necessary to convert mile...the sound level outside of the home is projected to be 41.55 decibels," Foster said.

Opponents pressed the council on several environmental and quality‑of‑life issues. "Building the data center in the middle of one of the few rural areas we have left will be a poor decision," said Kim Hicks, a long‑time resident, who cited potential habitat loss, light and noise, and increased utility prices. Residents also raised concerns about water consumption, citing public comments that data centers can use hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons per day, potential impacts to creeks and wetlands, and risks to sensitive species such as gopher tortoises.

Developers and technology proponents urged council to focus on negotiable conditions. "You can put stipulations on this thing," said Joshua Ferguson, a technology consultant and remote‑worker who said guardrails on noise, water and construction practice could mitigate many concerns. "It's how you negotiate this deal," he said.

Missy Kendrick, representing Choose Columbus (the Development Authority), told council "permits have not been issued yet" and that key environmental permits — including air permits for backup generators — are issued through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and will become public records. Kendrick said the conceptual site plan under discussion would use "about 15% of the property," and that there is no intent to "clear cut 900 acres." She added that the city and developers should include enforceable remedies in the overlay approach, and noted the draft overlay already contemplates fines and possible stop work orders for violations.

Council members repeatedly asked staff and Choose Columbus to collect technical experts and to publish a public Q&A. "We need subject matter experts — Columbus Water Works, Flint Energies, Georgia Power, the developer — in one meeting," Councilor (name on record) said; council asked staff to prepare a consolidated FAQ and to convene a larger public forum with experts in the coming weeks.

What happens next: Council is developing an overlay district (a zoning tool and standards template) rather than approving a specific permit. Council members and staff said any overlay approval would be followed by a site‑specific rezoning and development‑of‑regional‑impact (DRI) process that requires additional technical studies and public review before permits could be issued. Choose Columbus and staff committed to posting available permits and technical materials as they become public records.

Note on attributions: Quotes and attributions are drawn from speakers who self‑identified or were introduced on the public record.