Judge sets hearing date for Columbus data center lawsuit. Read city's latest arguments
A judge in Muscogee County has scheduled a hearing for a lawsuit challenging the Columbus Council's process of enacting a technology overlay district ordinance. This ordinance, designed to allow a hyperscale data center known as Project Ruby, is being contested by Keep It Rural LLC and area landowners. The plaintiffs allege procedural violations in the ordinance's adoption.
Judge John Martin of the Superior Court in Muscogee County has set a hearing date for September 9 regarding a lawsuit filed by Keep It Rural LLC and eight landowners against the Columbus Council and Mayor Skip Henderson.
The lawsuit challenges the legality of the process used to create the technology overlay district ordinance, which was signed into law on June 16. This ordinance establishes rules for building a hyperscale data center, codenamed Project Ruby, on 865 acres in northeast Muscogee County, also known as Upatoi. The plaintiffs, who live near or abut the proposed site, are represented by attorney Jonathan Waters.
The defendants, represented by the Columbus law firm Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, filed a final motion requesting dismissal of all seven counts, arguing the ordinance does not rezone land or approve a data center, but merely sets a process for future applications. They contend the lawsuit is a premature attempt to block a hypothetical future data center and that all applicable laws, including the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law and Columbus Unified Development Ordinance, were followed. They also assert the ordinance's adoption was a legislative act, not subject to the same due process as individual zoning applications.
The plaintiffs allege violations of various statutes, including the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law, Columbus's own zoning and overlay procedures, the procedural and substantive due process guarantees of the US and Georgia Constitutions, and the Georgia Open Meetings Act. They further claim the process was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of zoning power, and that the ordinance unlawfully delegates legislative judgment and constitutes unlawful spot zoning. The lawsuit seeks to have the overlay ordinance declared void, invalid, and unenforceable.