Data center developer’s legal challenge pits bias against local government
Attorneys for the Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus developer, Cornell Realty Management LLC, have filed motions to compel six of seven Archbald Borough Council members to recuse themselves from decisions regarding the project. The developer alleges bias based on council members' public statements, social media activity, and independent research. Opponents and legal experts fear this challenge could set a dangerous precedent, discouraging local officials from scrutinizing large developments.
Attorneys representing the Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus, developed by Brooklyn-based Cornell Realty Management LLC, have filed unprecedented motions seeking to force six of the seven Archbald Borough Council members to recuse themselves from decisions regarding a proposed massive data center campus. The developer's legal challenge alleges bias from council members, citing remarks made during hearings, social media activity, and comments predating their time in office as evidence.
Opponents, including Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan and Scranton Mayor Paige Gebhardt Cognetti, argue that the developer's tactic is an attempt to silence local government officials and could have a chilling effect on their ability to represent their communities and ask critical questions about projects. Penn State University law professor Hannah Wiseman noted the challenge of local government bodies acting in both legislative and quasi-judicial capacities, questioning the applicability of judicial codes of conduct to elected officials who campaign on specific stances. If the council members do not recuse themselves, the developer's attorneys contend any decision could be voided by a court, and a failure to hold a hearing within state deadlines due to recusal could lead to automatic project approval.
The Wildcat Ridge project, which proposes 14 80-foot-tall data centers and 588 diesel generators, has faced significant local opposition due to its size, location, and substantial electricity and water demands. Residents and officials, including council members, have raised concerns about public health, safety, and environmental impacts. The motions for recusal are seen by critics as a desperate strategy by the developer to bypass rigorous scrutiny from elected representatives attempting to protect their community.