Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Paulding County to block data centers, fault process and transparency
Summary
At a June 9 work session, dozens of residents urged the Paulding County Board of Commissioners to ban or pause data‑center development and criticized a technology‑overlay text amendment they said was advanced without adequate public notice. Speakers raised concerns about water and power demand, land purchases, lighting, noise and potential NDAs.
Dozens of residents pressed the Paulding County Board of Commissioners on June 9 to stop or place a moratorium on data‑center development, arguing the county’s technology‑overlay zoning changes were advanced with inadequate public notice and would harm neighborhoods.
“Please reject data center development near homes and neighborhoods,” said Jeannie Richards, a resident who told the board she moved to the county for its character. Richards and other speakers asked the board to apply the same standards county‑wide that were used to remove a technology overlay in Post 4.
Speakers repeatedly raised environmental and quality‑of‑life concerns: high water and electricity consumption during a Level 1 drought, continuous low‑frequency noise, bright and expansive exterior lighting, and the risk of industrial spills tied to cooling systems. “Why would the county allocate scarce water resources to low‑employment industrial use instead of housing or diversified economic growth?” John Callus told commissioners.
Residents also questioned transparency around land acquisitions and the role of non‑disclosure agreements. Multiple commenters said they had learned only recently that large tracts of land near residential areas and North Paulding High School had been bought or optioned by developers. “Switch paid $32 million for land in Paulding County — how can that occur without clear public disclosures?” Michelle Wolvin asked.
Technical commenters raised additional objections. Jeffrey Barrett, who said he builds computers, warned that large data‑center demand has contributed to component shortages and rising consumer prices, and argued the county should weigh broader economic consequences.
County staff and commissioners listened without making policy decisions during the work session; staff noted that some items related to technology‑overlay policy remain under review and that specific approvals would be taken up in later meetings. Several speakers demanded concrete next steps, including a moratorium and independent environmental or public‑health reviews.
The public‑comment period at the June 9 work session included at least ten speakers representing neighborhood groups and ad hoc organizations. Commissioners did not take an immediate vote to ban data centers at the work session; multiple residents said they will continue to press the board in coming meetings.
