OPINION: Timelines, Transparency, and Data Centers
Whether Fredericksburg gets data centers isn't the question; rather, by what process might the city get them?
By Matt Kelly
GUEST OPINION
The public was first made aware of the possibility of data centers in Celebrate VA when Mayor Devine added the topic to the July 9, 2024 Council agenda, giving the public no prior notice that the topic was to be discussed. Well before that announcement, council members had toured data centers in February, two at a time, to avoid public notice.
Also, prior to the July 9th meeting the City Manager initiated discussion with a developer to provide land for data centers.
In September the City Council supported the expenditure of $200,000 to study the infrastructure needs to provide power for data centers in Celebrate VA. A cost that should not be the responsibility of the city but by either Dominion Power or the developer. When questioned about this City Manager Tim Baroody confirmed it was not the city’s responsibility but explained that it was being done at the direction of the City Council.
And throughout this time, and up to today, the City Council has not made any effort to inform the public about data centers or explain the reasoning for the actions they have taken to date. Opportunities have been offered to explain their position, but they have been refused.
During staff’s presentation to City Council on setting a February 25 deadline for a vote on a technology zone to allow data centers, City Manager Tim Baroody stated: “I would like to just maybe point out the obvious. This is the most aggressive schedule that I have ever seen put to paper. That’s meant to meet a request by the landowner.”
No member of the council questioned the timeline, or the reason given for it. Mayor Devine stated that the aggressive timeline was necessary and councilor Gerlach believed it provided sufficient time to accommodate everyone. So why is this aggressive timeline necessary and is it in the best interest of the city?
The only reason provided was that it was made at the request of the landowner. The first question that needs to be asked is who does the City Council represent? Based on what little information that has been provided, the council does not look to be representing city residents.
The council has had a year to engage the public in a discussion on data centers, their impacts positive and negative, how these will be addressed, and a plan moving forward. The council’s comments and actions thus far make it clear that they intend to approve whatever zoning changes come forward before soliciting public comment. This speaks volumes about how they view their constituents.
As for the landowner, they informed me that while they would like the zoning changes to be made sooner rather than later, they are not controlling the pace of the project. That information is contrary to what is coming from the City Council and staff.
The City Council should be leading a robust community outreach effort on data centers. And this needs to be done before there are public hearings so there is something for the public to comment on. It cannot be done in a month and a half.
Another important factor is the state’s involvement going forward. The state JLARC study has just been released acknowledging the benefits and also concerns about data centers. Currently there is legislation before the General Assembly dealing with enhanced transparency, ratepayer protection, state oversight, and tax incentive reform. All these have an impact on future data center development.
This is not an issue of whether data centers should be allowed in the city. It’s an issue of transparency and whether the interests of the city are being represented going forward.
The City Council needs to provide answers regarding their lack of public outreach for the past year. And explain why they are rushing a zoning change under these circumstances. The current excuse of accommodating the landowner seems to be in question, and it does not explain the council’s lack of public engagement. That needs to change. And the first step is to abandon the “aggressive” timeline and allow more time to ensure a robust and informed community dialogue.
Matt Kelly is a former member of City Council and a Fredericksburg resident.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
Support Award-winning, Locally Focused Journalism
The FXBG Advance cuts through the talking points to deliver both incisive and informative news about the issues, people, and organizations that daily affect your life. And we do it in a multi-partisan format that has no equal in this region. Over the past year, our reporting was:
First to break the story of Stafford Board of Supervisors dismissing a citizen library board member for “misconduct,” without informing the citizen or explaining what the person allegedly did wrong.
First to explain falling water levels in the Rappahannock Canal.
First to detail controversial traffic numbers submitted by Stafford staff on the Buc-ee’s project
Our media group also offers the most-extensive election coverage in the region and regular columnists like:
And our newsroom is led by the most-experienced and most-awarded journalists in the region — Adele Uphaus (Managing Editor and multiple VPA award-winner) and Martin Davis (Editor-in-Chief, 2022 Opinion Writer of the Year in Virginia and more than 25 years reporting from around the country and the world).
For just $8 a month, you can help support top-flight journalism that puts people over policies.
Your contributions 100% support our journalists.
Help us as we continue to grow!
This article is published under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. It can be distributed for noncommercial purposes and must include the following: “Published with permission by FXBG Advance.”
Another City Council, on behalf of the property owner and at the recommendation of a city manager, made another significant land use decision for Celebrate Virginia without thinking through their process. The result was a 100% turnover of elected officials during the next election cycle. Some decided to quit, but those who tried for re-election lost. That's right, 100%. They too had visions of substantial tax revenues dancing in their heads.