Neighbors sue Columbus in data center fight
A group of landowners in the Upatoi area has filed a lawsuit against the City of Columbus, its mayor, and city council, seeking to block a new zoning ordinance. The ordinance, passed in June, would allow large-scale data centers on land currently zoned for farming and rural residential use, specifically enabling a project known as "Project Ruby." Plaintiffs allege concerns about the process, public input, and potential environmental impacts from alternative energy facilities if diesel generators are banned.
A group of Upatoi-area landowners, organized as Keep It Rural LLC and including eight individual property owners, has filed a lawsuit in Muscogee County Superior Court against the City of Columbus, Mayor B.H. “Skip” Henderson III, and all 10 members of the Columbus City Council. The suit challenges Ordinance No. 26-034, known as the Technology Overlay District law, which was passed by the council on June 16 and signed by the Mayor on June 18.
The ordinance re-zones land currently designated for farming and rural residential use, including large estate-lot classifications, to permit the construction of massive data centers on sites of 75 acres or more. The plaintiffs contend that this law was specifically crafted to facilitate "Project Ruby," an approximately 900-acre data center development planned for the Upatoi area, despite existing industrial zoning elsewhere in the county.
The lawsuit raises seven legal claims, including allegations of a closed committee review process involving Georgia Power and the local water utility without public comment, limited public input opportunities at council meetings where pro-project speakers were prioritized, and concerns over the ordinance's ban on diesel backup generators. Plaintiffs argue this ban could lead to the construction of onsite natural gas or small modular nuclear generation facilities, creating unaddressed risks.
The landowners are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the ordinance from taking effect on June 28 and, ultimately, to have the court void the ordinance or send the matter back to the council for a process compliant with state law.