Residents press council to pause 'Project Ruby' data‑center plans amid environmental and health concerns

Hundreds of residents packed the March 24 Columbus City Council meeting to press elected officials for a halt or stricter conditions on a proposed hyperscale data center development known in public discussion as “Project Ruby.” Speakers from Uptown and northeast Muscogee County described fears about groundwater and surface‑water impacts, air emissions from backup generators, long‑term decommissioning liabilities, and whether the project would deliver the jobs and community benefits promised.

The concerns came during the meeting's public comment period, where a string of speakers — including Lesie Landy, Paul Olsen and Mick Edcherson — questioned the speed of the city's review and the adequacy of the draft overlay that would govern large data center siting. Landy said residents lack reliable answers from project proponents and called for more thorough, independent study of water and soil risks. “This is the Aaron Brockovich of 2026,” she said, summing up the stakes her neighbors see.

Critics flagged several technical and economic points raised repeatedly in testimony: whether a closed cooling loop can fail and leach contaminants into nearby creeks and the Chattahoochee River; whether long‑duration low‑frequency sound (infrasound) from large HVAC fans and continuous power plant operations could create community health effects; and whether the likely number of permanent technical jobs (often cited by proponents) materially offsets rising electricity bills, reduced property values near the site, and large tax incentives the state may offer. Paul Olsen, a nearby resident, told the council he expects household electric bills to rise and called tax exemptions under state law potentially large and opaque.

Supporters of careful development urged the council to design stronger local rules rather than an outright ban. Ernie Washington, a local land‑use advocate, proposed a hybrid approach that would combine a well‑planned campus with preserved natural buffers and public recreational uses to spread economic benefits and reduce long‑term risk. Other speakers urged a moratorium until the city and independent experts could complete environmental, hydrologic and noise studies.

Council members repeatedly told citizens they were hearing the concerns. Mayor Skip Henderson said the city would not skip public review and noted the Planning Advisory Commission's overlay recommendation will still come back for council amendment and votes. A councilor told the chamber the earliest final vote on any overlay amendment would likely fall weeks away and that further public hearings and a committee of experts and residents were under discussion.

What happens next: Councilors said the Planning Advisory Commission's overlay will come back as a first reading and then to subsequent meetings for public comment and possible amendment. Several councilors asked staff for more technical briefings — on water, power, noise and jobs — and at least one called for a negotiated community benefits agreement so the city can protect residents if the development proceeds.