There is a question beneath many of our arguments about growth that rarely gets a clear answer. When people oppose a new development, are they saying it belongs somewhere else? Or are they saying it should not exist at all? We spend a great deal of time arguing about the proposal without first settling that point.

Most people know the term NIMBY: “Not In My Back Yard.” Its less famous cousin is BANANA: “Build Absolutely Nothing, Anywhere, Near Anyone.” The names are amusing, at least until someone applies one to you. But the distinction behind them is worth more than the joke.

One position concerns where something belongs. The other concerns whether it belongs anywhere. These are not the same argument, and frankly, we should stop treating them as though they are.

A person who opposes an industrial plant near a neighborhood may have sound reasons. The road may be too narrow for trucks. The proposed buildings may be too close to homes. Noise may be a concern. None of this means the person opposes industry, jobs or the general idea of a working economy.

But “put it somewhere else” is only the start of an answer. Somewhere else should mean a place with features that make it better suited to the use. Otherwise, we have not solved the problem. We have simply nominated a different set of neighbors to have it and more than likely, fight against it.

The person who opposes the same plant at every possible location is making a broader claim. That person may also have a case. But it requires a broader explanation: Why should the use be ruled out, and what would follow from that choice?

There is nothing wrong with saying no. The trouble starts when we pretend that every no means the same thing, or that saying no removes the need to explain it.

It would also be a mistake to treat resistance to development as a habit found only among residents at a crowded council meeting. Indeed, a zoning code is a rather lengthy account of what may go where, under what conditions, and sometimes not at all.

That is not, by itself, a bug in the system. Few people would want a large industrial plant placed beside their home simply because the land was available. The point of good land use planning is to make choices before those choices become costly mistakes.

But an arbitrary line on a zoning map is not an argument. Officials should be able to explain why a use belongs in one area and not another. If they want to prohibit it across the whole community, they should explain what that ban would accomplish.

The same duty applies when officials favor a project. “We need growth” is no more a complete answer than “we don’t want change.” One names a goal. The other names a concern. Neither tells us whether the proposal has any tangible benefit for the community.

This brings us to data centers, where several different arguments can find themselves packed into the same public meeting. One resident may oppose the location. Another may question the demand on utilities. A third may object to a tax agreement. A fourth may believe the community should not allow data centers under any terms.

Those people might cast the same vote on one proposal. That does not mean they share a position on the next one. A different location might answer the first concern. A clear account of public costs might answer another. Neither would settle the question for someone who opposes the use itself.

We would gain something by asking each person to state the objection plainly. Is there a location where this use would be acceptable? Are there conditions that would make a difference? If the answer is no, what makes this a use the community should exclude?

These are fair questions, not traps. But they become traps if officials ask them only of residents while allowing developers to speak in promises.

A developer should explain why the site is suitable, what public services the project would require, and who would pay for them. If the case rests on jobs, tax revenue or other gains, those claims deserve close review. An opponent should not have to prove that a project would be a disaster merely to ask whether it is a good deal.

The purpose of a robust public review should not be to wear people down until they agree. Nor should it be to give a decision already made the appearance of public debate. A useful process must leave room for approval, rejection and meaningful change.

That means asking clear questions at each stage. Does the use fit the site? Can the roads and utilities serve it? What costs would fall on the public? What conditions are needed, and who would enforce them? Holding three meetings instead of one does little good if all three leave the same questions unanswered.

Residents have duties in that process, too. They should distinguish between a concern that can be addressed and a firm position that no change would satisfy. Both deserve a hearing. But they call for different responses.

Of course, Piqua foreclosed on an open and transparent process when discussing a potential data center for their community. There was not a clear and sober discussion of benefits and drawbacks of what this development means for the community now and into the future.

And in large part, the community’s failure to have such a discussion has largely created the acrimonious enviornment we have now. If there was no room for a nuanced debate back last November, there certainly isn’t room for one now and in that environment the entire community lost.

The data center debate will not end on Election Day. Whatever voters decide, communities will still face choices about land, growth, public costs and the rights of nearby residents. Those choices will not become easier because one side calls the other anti-growth, or because the reply is that City Hall has sold out.

Opening the door to every project is not a development policy. Closing it to every project is not much of one either. The real work lies in deciding what belongs where, under which terms, and for whose benefit.

Before the next argument begins, then, let us establish what the argument is about. Is this the wrong proposal for this place? Or is there no place where it would be right? The answer may not settle the dispute, but at least we would finally be talking about the same issue.

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Subscribe now

Share

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.

Buy Me A Cold Beverage

This publication has spent a considerable amount of time, effort and energy discussing the Piqua Data Center and have attempted to do so in a manner than has been mature, factual and honest. This project could have one of the largest economic development impacts in the county’s history and it deserves a robust discussion.

And as this publication has pointed out, a robust discussion is far from what many proponents and opponents of this project are actually wanting. From the beginning, this project has been shrouded in secrecy and the benefits have been touted as forgone conclusions. On the flip side, opponents have stated that the data center has no redeeming value for the community. Regardless, the political propoganda on this issue has been northing short of disgusting and demeaning.

This publication has searched to provide readers with a more objective and sober view of this development by providing a clear discussion of both the benefits and tradeoffs. All in a manner that has been more accessible than scholarly. This work is designed to provoke conversations around the kitchen table and the counter at the local diner - not a debate in a grad school classroom.

But one aspect of the discussion that has been missing is a real study of these data centers looking through a local lens. And while that discussion has been missing, we now have something. Earlier this month, Scioto Analysis, a public policy consultant provided a cost-benefit analysis for data centers in Ohio. You can read the report here:

Scioto Analysis Data Center Report

1.84MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This comes on the back of other national research from the Georgia Instutite of Technology, written by Daniel Yue and Yiyang Zeng, and the Brookings Institute research led by Dany Bahar and Greg Wright.

Today, we are going to take some of this work and try to create some sense of a cost-beneift analysis to the proposed data center in Piqua for the community and the larger Miami County community.

First, the team at Scioto Analysis made it clear that Ohio’s first big group of data centers did a lot of good for the Buckeye State. The Scioto Analysis report studied them from 2013 to 2026. It found about 96,000 jobs and a net benefit of about $62 billion. Each dollar of cost brought back about five dollars of benefit.

However, as time moves forward, that benefit looks very different. For projects planned from 2027 to 2034, Scioto finds a net benefit of only about $2.4 billion, with benefits barely beating costs. The report says counties see most of their job gains from their first data centers, so added data centers add few new benefits while adding large costs. It’s an open question on whether Piqua’s project belongs to the first wave (being the first data center in the county) or the second wave, knowing that jobs don’t necessarily care about county boundaries. What we do know is that the big job gains came earlier, while the power use and pollution keep growing.

The clearest gain for Piqua is city revenue. Under the reported deal, the city gets payments in place of property taxes, starting at $735,000 per building and reaching about $1.47 million a year for two buildings, along with receiving $200,000 right off the bat. Meta also promises $8 million for emergency services and about $80 million in roads, water, and sewer work. The state sales tax break for data centers is gone, so construction tax dollars can stay in Ohio. Meta says it will use closed-loop cooling that needs almost no water.

Jobs are a smaller gain. Meta promises at least 100 permanent jobs. Georgia Tech research found employment gains are strongest in big metro areas and weaker in rural ones, where sites often hire fewer than 100 people, which is exactly where Piqua is expected to be. Brookings research found typical gains of 100 to 200 jobs and no rise in wages. Construction would need about 1,000 workers at the peak, but those jobs end when the building does.

The studies say less about home values than residents might hope, because they look at whole counties, not at the houses next to a site. The Brookings work found home prices rose about 2% to 5% in counties that got a data center. Scioto cites another study finding that county home prices rise as data center activity grows. Scioto also points out that this cuts two ways. Current owners gain equity, but buyers and renters face higher costs, especially if land used for data centers is no longer available for housing. A 2% to 5% rise on a $200,000 home is $4,000 to $10,000. That is only an example, not a Miami County figure. Homeowners could gain on paper, while young families and renters could find housing harder to afford.

The studies do not measure what happens to homes right next to a site. Scioto notes that data center noise can be heard or felt up to a mile away, and residents elsewhere have reported sleep and health problems. Scioto decided noise did not change its overall results. For neighbors, though, it could matter more. Nothing that was reviewed shows whether nearby homes lose value, so that is not a claim that can be made.

The biggest worry on the cost side is the power bill. Georgia Tech found local electricity prices rise about 5% after a data center opens. Scioto expects Ohio ratepayers to pay about $16 billion more between 2027 and 2034 if rules stay the same. Piqua’s own power costs already rose about $1 million in 2026 from higher transmission charges, before any data center was built. AES Ohio says they will cut a check for $1 million a year for the next thiry years, but with inflation, the buying power of that $1 million turns into about half that much thirty years from how. Meta says it will pay full costs for the energy it uses, but that does not say who pays for wider grid upgrades.

Pollution is another cost. Using Scioto’s data, a rough estimate could be made that a project this size could cause hundreds of millions of dollars a year in health costs, spread across the region. Treat that as a warning sign, not a forecast.

The key problem is that Piqua’s payments are mostly fixed, but the costs are not. When the announcement that $80 million in water, stormwater and other infrasturcutre improvements were annonuced, some residents might get nervous. Roads need repaving, pipes burst. Today’s $80 million investment might look like an asset today, but it could easily turn into a $120 million liability in the future.

If the project grows, power use and grid costs grow with it, while the payments to the city and the schools stay about the same. That matters because the Scioto report’s benefits depend heavily on one assumption: how much local pay rises when a data center arrives. The report uses 5%, from Georgia Tech research. When Scioto tested a low estimate of 1%, the benefits shrank but the costs did not. The result was a net loss under all three policies Scioto tested in that scenario, including current rules, which lost about $45 billion statewide for 2027 to 2034.

This does not mean 1% will happen, and a 7% gain would make the picture much brighter. But Georgia Tech also found that rural counties see smaller gains than metro counties, which puts a place like Piqua closer to the cautious end. If the jobs and pay fall short, the community could carry costs it did not plan for. Scioto studied Ohio as a whole, not Piqua, so these results show how fragile the statewide math is, not what will happen in Miami County.

The franchise that lets AES Ohio serve the site will be going to a referendum vote in February. That gives residents a real chance to ask hard questions. Will payments grow if the project grows? Will Piqua’s power customers be protected in writing? Are the 100 jobs a promise with penalties? What will nearby home values and noise levels look like?

Piqua likely gets a decent short-term deal for its city budget, but those gains look less attractive the longer the time horizon moves out. Whether the data center is a net benefit to the community is still an open question.

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Subscribe now

Share

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.

Buy Me A Cold Beverage

Back in 2017, Council Member Todd Severt and I ran for City Council with a desire to improve communications between city hall and the residents we serve. As part of that effort was the establishment of the quarterly “Ask-A-Council Member” workshops. These workshops weren’t designed to discuss pending legislation, but were a more general discussion to bring the citizens residents and council members closer together in a way to facilitate open discussions on those items that residents wanted to bring forward.

And with the exception of a few of these events being cancelled throughout 2020, these gatherings have continued to inform residents and give them access to elected ofifcials in a way that is rarely seen.

Many of the issues that are brought up at these events are the bread and butter concerns that make up local government — everything from faded stop signs to parks that needed attention to mailboxes. But many of these fruitful discussions also focused on how the government works. There have been questions about what departments were responsible for certain functions. Other questions have often dived into the role of council in the decision-making process.

There have also been opportunities to discuss certain themes during these meetings. For example this past Spring, the meeting was co-hosted with the Miami County Commissioners and the County Sheriff to talk about corrections and the need for a new jail. With the topic of homelessness that has dominated public discourse the last few weeks, it may become a major topic that is discussed during this meeting as well. Regardless of what is discussed, these discussions are always informal and informative.

The format allowed for a free-flowing discussion of our community without having to navigate a city council meeting and waiting until the very end to have an opportunity to discuss issues. And while city council meetings are opportunities to for residents to express their concerns, these meetings aren’t necessarily the best format to have an open dialogue between residents and elected officials.

One of the reasons that makes these events so unique is that as residents, we get to hear directly from our elected officials. Sometimes, it is a sharp departure from what residents see at a council meeting, where elected officials are traditionally tight-lipped and often have nothing to say. At these events, it’s elected officials that lead and participate into the discussion; as someone in the audience, we get a refreshing look at the thoughts and ideas of our elected officials.

The next “Ask-A-Council Member” workshop will take place this coming Saturday, November 14 at 9:00 a.m. at the Bravo Room in Hobart Arena. Coffee, donuts and juice are always provided.

I plan to be in attendance and if you have a question that you want asked, please feel free to send me your question to pinnaclestrategiesltd@gmail.com or leave your question in the comment thread. I’ll ask your question and follow up with you on the answer.

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Subscribe now

Share

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.

Buy Me A Cold Beverage

An outside group plans to put more than $280,000 in Piqua. At first glance, that might sound like good news. any community of Piqua’s size can use new investment, especially when it comes from the outside.

But this money is not being pledged to a new shop, a road, or a place to work. It is backing a campaign to shape how people vote.

That is a different kind of investment and it calls for a different set of questions.

Safe Streets and Strong Schools for Piqua reported $280,700 in support in its recent campaign finance filing. This publication explore this group in an earlier newsletter.

The committee lists an address in Kent, Ohio, and a treasurer in East Liverpool. All four reported gifts came from one source: Centera, which lists an address in Alexandria, Virginia.

To grasp the scale of this invenstement consider this: 5,514 Piqua residents voted in the last election for governor four years ago, the same type of election this year. If about the same number vote this year, the reported support works out to just over $50 for each voter.

That is not a claim that the group has spent $50 on each person. It is a way to show how much money stands behind this campaign. Especially when a competitive, robust local campaign can expect to spend around $8 to $10 per voter.

There is another point worth making clear. The full $280,700 did not arrive as cash. The report lists a $232,500 cash gift. It also lists three gifts of services: $10,000 for a website (that as of this writing, the webiste www.strongpiqua.com is still not operational), $3,200 for text messages, and $35,000 for digital ad work and placement. These are called in-kind gifts. The donor provides or pays for a service instead of handing over money.

Those services count because they help a campaign reach voters just as cash does. The cash could help pay for more ads, mail, signs, or other campaign costs. Some of that work might go to local firms. Sadly, most will not. The amount raised tells us nothing, by itself, about how much will stay in Piqua.

Then there is the donor.

Centera lists its address as 2308 Mount Vernon Avenue in Alexandria. That is a UPS Store that offers private mailboxes with a street address. A mailbox is not proof of wrongdoing. It is not proof that the donor is fake. But it does not tell voters who runs the group or where its money comes from.

But it does lead to questions that deserve straight answers.

Knowing the donor’s names is a start. Knowing who stands behind the donor would tell voters much more. Who leads Centera? Who funds it? What does it hope will happen in Piqua? Does it have a stake in the choices on the ballot?

These are fair questions. They would be fair if the donor were based in Troy, Toledo, or right down the street.

Being from outside Ohio does not make an argument false. Being from Piqua does not make one true. A claim should stand or fall on the facts.

But voters should know who is paying to put that claim in front of them.

A group can buy more ads without having better facts. It can repeat a message without answering the questions behind it. And a polished campaign name is not a substitute for a clear account of who is involved.

This publication has clearly stated in the past that proponents of the city’s data center, in which this recall and referendum elections are linked, have declared that any potential benefit will occur with guanranteed certainty. Just as every opponent has made claims that enviornmental catastrophe is just around the corner. Neither claim is correct and needs a better community discussion.

And an outside group spending over a quarter-million dollars in a community that they probably couldn’t find on a map a year ago is sadly not going to get us any more honest and open answers that would actually help residents discern the best option for the community at the ballot box.

And that is where the community will truly lose, no matter the outcome.

There is no basis yet to say how much this committee will spend in that election. But voters should not assume the questions about its funding end when this election does. More ballot issues will be facing voters in February. And sadly, it’s more likely that more hyperbolic campaigning that strives to influence voters, rather than encouarge thoughtful discourse between neighbors will be on offer.

Piqua does not need to shut out outside voices. It needs to know whose voices they are. If someone wants to spend more than a quarter-million dollars shaping a local vote, asking who they are is not an attack. It is a reasonable fact to ask questions about.

This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.

Subscribe now

Share

Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.

Buy Me A Cold Beverage

Read more

Early voting started this week for the Piqua special election, the vote on whether to recall three sitting city commissioners. The numbers from the first two days tell us something, but not everything.

Read more

Few acronyms show up in local government more than CDBG. Few are less understood. The letters stand for the Community Development Block Grant program. It began in the 1970s, during the Nixon years, a…

Read more

One of my favorite paintings is Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech. A man stands up at a town meeting in Vermont and speaks against a plan to build a new school.

Look closely at him. He’s younger tha…

Read more

The City of Troy and the Ohio Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting about the roundabout proposed at West Main Street, Experiment Farm Road and South Stanfield Road. It is scheduled…

Read more

Through the first eight days of early voting, 4,665 people have cast a ballot in person at the Miami County Courthouse. In 2022, the same stretch drew 2,235. That is more than double. It is nearly fo…

Read more

Watching Piqua’s election unfold has been a fascinating lesson in local democracy.

Right now, voters are deciding whether to add a new section to the city charter that would prohibit large data center…

Read more

On Thursday, the Miami County Commissioners formally objected to a Huber Heights plan to set aside 30 years of new property taxes from a large housing project. The project is called Carriage Trails I…

Read more

This past weekend I learned a new word: Yandex. It is a Russian technology company, often described as that country’s version of Google. Like other tech giants, it also owns and operates data centers. Between Oct. 8 and Oct. 11, Ukrainian drones hit three of them, and the effects reached into everyday Russian life, including taxis, payments and cloud services.

Read more

Troy is close to getting a new set of rules for how land can be used. On Monday night, City Council’s Community and Economic Development Committee recommended that city council adopt the Unified Deve…

Read more

Late last week, this publication discussed how City Staff wanted to raise water rates 7% a year for the next five starting, staring in 2027.

On Monday night, the council…

Read more

Last week, this publication reported what many in Troy had already heard. Mayor Robin Oda will not run again next year. And Patrick Titterington, the Director of Public Service and Safety, will retir…

Read more

Troy residents may see water rates rise 7% every year for five years, starting in January. The Finance Committee of City Council takes this up Monday, October …

Read more

On October 5, The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Piqua it can’t get out of a lawsuit yet. Residents who say they were harmed by battery burning at a city-owned site can keep p…

Read more

Early in-person voting in Miami County is running far ahead of any recent governor’s race. In the first three days this year, 1,711 people voted at the board of elections office in Troy. In 2022, the…

Read more

Earlier this week, this publication broke the news that Troy’s Mayor told City Council she will not seek a third four-year term. She also announced that Service and Safety Director Patrick Titterington will retire in early February. In other words, it’s lame duck season at City Hall. More broadly, those announcements open the door for a new leadership in the city, including a new candidate to be the elected cheif executive officer of the city.

Read more