Ohioans Won't Decide on Data Centers This Fall
Vol. IV, No. 31 - The Big Decisions on Data Centers Will Still Be Had on the Local Level
Ohioans won’t be voting on a statewide ban of large data centers this fall, but that doesn’t mean the data center debate is going away. While Columbus stalls, local codes like our proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) here in Troy, are quietly deciding what kinds of data centers, if any, belong in communities like ours.
Two parallel news stories tell the statewide story. In Youngstown, the Vindicator reported that Conserve Ohio—an organization trying to amend the Ohio Constitution to ban construction of data centers using more than 25 megawatts of power—has fallen far short of the signatures needed for the November 2026 ballot. Their own numbers show they’ve collected less than one-fifth of the roughly 413,000 valid signatures they would need to qualify, so they are resetting their sights on the 2027 general election instead. In Columbus, the Dispatch told readers essentially the same thing in a statewide context: Ohioans will not see a data center ban on this fall’s ballot, because Conserve Ohio has decided not to submit signatures by the July 1 deadline. The group is adamant that it will keep circulating petitions, but the earliest this question could realistically go before voters is now 2027.
Both pieces make clear that this is not a dead idea; it is a delayed one. The proposal they are pushing would write into the Ohio Constitution a prohibition on new data centers that consume more than 25 megawatts of electricity, a threshold they argue separates modest, community-scale facilities from industrial-scale projects that can use as much power as a small town. In practical terms, if you build a big data center in Ohio after such an amendment passes, it would likely be illegal regardless of what your local zoning code says.
The Dispatch also connects this citizen-led amendment to another Columbus storyline: the legislature’s failure to pass a data center bill before lawmakers left town for a long recess. In recent months, legislators tried to craft a statutory middle ground for data centers by developing a framework that would change how these projects are treated under state law, especially around electric rates and tax incentives. That effort collapsed in the final days of session. Lawmakers could not agree on whether to trim tax breaks, overhaul them, or scrap them entirely. The result is that the state has neither a new regulatory framework nor a clear path forward on incentives.
At the statewide level, we are in an awkward position. The constitutional ban is delayed until at least 2027. The legislative compromise is dead for now. The governor has already shown a willingness to pause or scrutinize tax exemptions for data centers, but that remains executive action, not durable law.
In the background of all this is a political coalition that does not look like the usual left-versus-right fight. Environmentalists and farmland preservation advocates have found themselves on the same side as many rural residents who worry about high power consumption, the potential to drive up electric rates, heavy water use, wastewater impacts, and the loss of farmland and open space. Many of these issues will drive up costs for typical Ohio families.
On the other side are business groups and labor unions who see billions of dollars in capital investment, construction and trades jobs, and long-term tax base benefits, combined with a belief that Ohio must compete aggressively for data infrastructure. The real divide is less about ideology and more about whether you prioritize local control and risk management or statewide competitiveness and large capital projects.
That framing should sound familiar to anyone who has watched fights over pipelines, wind and solar farms, or other large industrial proposals. Data centers are simply the latest version of the same argument. The difference now is that the statewide tools—constitutional amendments and new statutes—are stalled. The practical decisions are being made somewhere else, usually in township buildings and city halls across the Buckeye State.
Which brings us back to Troy. While Columbus argues and delays, Troy is in the midst of a comprehensive rewrite of its development rules, and data centers are explicitly addressed in that draft. In the proposed UDC, a “Data Center” is a defined use allowed in heavy industrial zoning, but only under a specific set of conditions. The facility must sit on a parcel of at least 10 acres. It must be at least 1,000 feet away from hospitals and rehabilitative care facilities, public and private parks, indoor places of public assembly, and public or private schools. It must be screened with what the code calls a “Type 3 – Heavy Bufferyard,” a higher-level buffer meant to soften the visual and noise impact of intensive uses. And the City Engineer must determine that the facility will not have an adverse impact on water quantity for existing water customers in both the City of Troy and Miami County.
In other words, Troy is not proposing to ban data centers. The proposed code would channel them into specific parts of the city with a technical check on water capacity. During the Planning Commission’s review, one member remarked that it appears the new code “has more regulations for tree houses than it does data centers.” That quip tells you a lot about how some local officials are seeing this draft. They are not convinced the standards for such a large, potentially disruptive land use are as robust as they could or should be. Compared to the scrutiny that sometimes falls on much smaller projects—like accessory structures in backyards or small home-based businesses—a 10‑acre data center with massive electric and water demands and the potential light and noise pollution that it creates, raises a different order of questions.
Taken together, the Vindicator and Dispatch stories on Conserve Ohio and the legislature’s failed bill make a simple point: for at least the foreseeable future, most of the meaningful decision-making around data centers will happen on zoning maps and in local codes, not on statewide ballots. If the constitutional ban ultimately makes the 2027 ballot, voters will be asked a very blunt question: do we want to allow large data centers in Ohio at all?
By contrast, Troy’s draft Unified Development Code represents a more targeted, local approach. City leaders are deciding where, if anywhere, data centers belong; what minimum parcel sizes and separation distances from sensitive uses should be; what level of buffering is appropriate; and how to account for infrastructure demands like water supply. Those decisions can be revisited as technology, markets, or community expectations change.
The risk, of course, is that if the local standards are too lax, Troy could be surprised by a proposal that meets the letter of the code but clashes with residents’ expectations of what a “heavy industrial” site should look and feel like. On the other hand, if the standards are too restrictive, Troy could effectively zone out a class of investment that neighboring communities are willing to accept.
In the final analysis, the key takeaway is that the big fights in Columbus over bans and tax breaks may grab the headlines, but they are moving slowly and unpredictably. Right now, the rules that will actually govern whether a data center can come to Troy—or Tipp City, or Bethel Township—are being written in local zoning codes and comprehensive plans. Residents who care about how these projects affect power, water, noise, and land use have far more immediate leverage in those local hearings than in a distant, delayed statewide referendum.
If you have ever felt like major projects just appear and your first notice is a bulldozer or a headline, the ongoing review of Troy’s Unified Development Code is one of those moments when the decisions are still being made in the open. It’s time to get involved.
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.
This Month, we are doing something different! We are partnering with the Troy-Miami County Public Library by using this platform to raise funds for the Dolly Partin Imagination Library locally here in Miami County! Through the Dolly Partin Imagination Library, children from birth to Kindergarten, can get a book delivered every month to their home at no cost.
And while Dolly is a huge help, she picks out the stories and she works with the publishers, there is still a local cost to the program. Your donations through our “Buy Me A Coffee Page” will help get these youngsters on the right track to a life-long love of reading!
Thanks to John And Kim, Rachelle. Loraine S., Loraine W., and a special anonymous donor, for your recent donations to this effort. So far this month — 71 books have been purchased! Thank you!