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 centers and cryptocurrency-mining facilities above 25 megawatts. Starting soon, the same residents will also vote in a separate special election on whether to recall three sitting city commissioners and who should replace them if they are removed.
That means Piqua voters have two elections on the same day. They will have to check in twice and cast two separate ballots if they want to vote in both.
It is a messy arrangement for a very important election.
What has been surprising, though, is how quiet the campaign has looked. On my trips through Piqua, I have not seen many signs urging people to vote one way or the other on the charter amendment or the recalls.
Voting on the general-election ballot is already underway. The special-election ballots should be ready soon. Yet there has been little visible sign that Piqua is making decisions that could shape the city for years.
That may now be changing.
A group calling itself Safe Streets and Strong Schools for Piqua recently launched a website and sent unsolicited text messages to voters. At the time of this writing, the website was no longer working.
The message urged residents to vote no on the charter amendment. It warned that a yes vote could put $8 million for safety services and $1 million for schools at risk. It also claimed that the people behind the amendment were funded by outside interests in California.
Those are serious claims. They deserve serious scrutiny.
The group’s filing as a campaign committee states the group has a mailing address in Kent and a treasurer from East Liverpool. That does not prove there are no Piqua residents involved. It does mean voters deserve to know who formed the group, who is paying for its campaign and who approved its message.
It is also fair to ask for proof of the California claim. A campaign should not warn voters about outside interests while leaving its own local ties and funding unclear.
The money claims need context, too.
Meta’s $8 million for police, fire and emergency services was announced as a pledge in a letter and city news release. It is not the same thing as money already received by the city, and it is not written into any agreement. Voters should be told what the funding can be used for, when the money would arrive and whether the pledge is enforceable.
The $1 million school figure also needs an explanation. The city says higher land values from the project are expected to bring local school districts more than $1 million each year. But expected revenue is not the same as guaranteed revenue. The public should be shown the math, the assumptions and the agreement behind the number.
That does not mean the project offers no benefits. The city has identified an annual AES franchise payment, payments in place of taxes, school revenue, construction work and permanent jobs. Those benefits should be presented clearly, with the conditions attached.
The same standard should apply to opponents.
Warnings about noise, pollution, water use and other risks cannot rest on the worst possible outcome. Opponents should explain which concerns are supported by what is known, how those concerns can be reasonably mitigated, which conerns are based on experience elsewhere and which remain unknown.
That is where this debate has gone wrong.
Supporters have often presented projections as guaranteed promises. Opponents have sometimes presented possible harms as certain outcomes.
Both approaches make it harder for residents to separate what is known from what is feared.
Piqua deserves better than that.
This is no longer an academic debate. People are voting now on whether the city charter should prohibit a project of this size. Soon, they will also vote on whether three commissioners should remain in office. Later in February, they will vote on another ballot measure for the charter and the AES franchise agreement.
Both sides owe voters a full and honest case. Show the agreements. Show the assumptions. Show who is paying for the campaign. Explain what is guaranteed, what is projected and what remains unknown.
The decisions belong to Piqua’s voters. The least everyone else can do is give them actual facts they can trust and verify.
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.
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.