Archive

Residents in Goochland are still pushing back over a proposed data center project in the West Creek area, while a judge considers whether to dismiss the related TOD lawsuit. The filing points to an ongoing siting and legal dispute; it does not say whether the project has secured power, water, tax, or land commitments.

The piece is about Geronimo Power contesting a proposed moratorium before a vote in Harmony Township. It is a local siting and zoning fight, but the excerpt does not say what commitments the project makes on land, power, water, or taxes, only that the developer is pushing back.

Loudoun County ended plans for a proposed Amazon data center after community opposition. The filing, as described here, does not say what power, water, tax, or land commitments were tied to the project or what specific concessions were under discussion.

The piece is about Memphis residents pushing back against a proposed data center buildout and the pollution concerns tied to it. It focuses on local opposition and the city’s debate over whether to pause or limit that development.

Parkland’s local government is lining up against a proposed data center sited across from a high school. The filing points to community opposition and a zoning or siting dispute, but it does not say the project has been approved or built, and it does not mention any power, water, tax, or land commitment terms.

Ormond Beach has turned a data center ban into formal local policy. The piece concerns land use rules and local regulation, not a project buildout or utility commitment.

Taunton has adopted a one-year ban on data centers, and the story centers on the public pushback that led to it. The excerpt also raises the question of whether an exception could still be made for a project tied to an industrial park, but it does not say any exception has been approved.

Lawmakers are pushing back on a utility claim tied to a data center proposal. The piece appears to focus on how the project would affect power planning and what the utility has said, rather than on construction itself.

The piece is about a Little Rock ordinance that would have paused data center projects and failed again, so the immediate issue is local opposition and city-level regulation, not a specific build. It does not say which project or projects are affected, nor does it identify any power, water, tax, or land commitment tied to a particular site.

Residents are moving from opposition to legal action over a proposed 1.5 million-square-foot data center in East Whiteland. The filing appears to concern local approval and the project’s siting, but the excerpt does not say what commitments the developer has made on power, water, taxes, or land beyond the project size and location.

Umatilla is weighing an emergency response to a projected loss of revenue tied to Oregon’s pause on a data center permit. The piece is about how a local government is reacting to a project-level permitting change and the money it expects to lose, not about the operator’s business plans.

The proposed Wayne County data center was withdrawn after residents turned out at City Hall. The filing does not say whether the project had specific power, water, tax, or land commitments beyond the planned site and cost.

Residents in Walls are objecting to a proposed data center at a public listening session. The excerpt points to local community pushback and a siting dispute; it does not say whether the project has approvals, what power or water commitments it would make, or what the developer offered.

The story says protests are continuing over a proposed Utah data center because of concern about water use tied to the Great Salt Lake. It is about a project’s local water burden and the community response, not about the operator’s business or the broader cloud market.

Lowndes County approved a 20-year data center tax abatement, and the piece centers on calls for clearer public disclosure and more local control over that decision. It points to the money side of the project and the local process around it, not to the site’s power or water buildout.

The piece appears to compare Spartanburg leaders with Virginia’s data center experience, with the source label pointing to tax abatements and incentives. On the face of the headline and excerpt, it is about what a local market might learn about hosting data centers, not about a specific approved project or a new build.

The piece says data center growth is affecting a school bond estimate and shaping funding on both sides of the river. It points to local tax and public-finance effects tied to new data center development, not to the project’s power, water, or land commitments.

Archbald council is scheduled to vote on a proposed data center campus, which puts the project’s local siting and approval process in focus. The excerpt does not say what commitments, if any, the developer has made on power, water, tax treatment, or land use terms beyond the vote itself.

A local group held a protest outside the Somerset County courthouse against a proposed data center. The excerpt does not say which project is involved, what site changes are proposed, or whether the county is considering any approval, permit, or utility commitment.

The piece is about the public comment process for a proposed data center in Eastport and the federal permit tied to it. It centers on local opposition and the regulatory step that must be cleared before the project can move ahead.

Residents in Coweta County are organizing a petition to force a vote on a ban tied to data centers. The piece is about local opposition and land-use control, not a project approval or power deal.

New Jersey towns are using local bans to block data center development, and the piece tracks how that opposition is spreading across the state. It is about siting and community pushback, with a clear local land-use and zoning angle; it does not say anything about a specific project’s power draw, water use, tax terms, or a permit decision for one named site.