Baltimore residents voice opposition to data centers at City Planning Commission hearing
The Baltimore City Planning Commission held a hearing on City Council Bill 26-0174, which proposes establishing data centers as a conditional use requiring a health equity assessment. Planning staff recommended disapproval, citing an existing moratorium and the health department's lack of capacity for the assessment. Councilwoman Felicia Porter, the bill's sponsor, argued it is vital for creating a permanent regulatory framework and legal protection against challenges to the moratorium. However, residents and advocates largely opposed the bill, fearing it would create a pathway for data centers and undermine the existing ban, expressing concerns about environmental impacts and resource consumption. The core conflict is between the sponsor's intent for stronger regulation and the public's perception of it as enabling data center development.
The Baltimore City Planning Commission convened a hearing to discuss City Council Bill 26-0174, introduced by Councilwoman Felicia Porter. The bill proposes classifying data centers as a conditional use, mandating a full City Council vote for approval in industrial mixed-use districts (IMU 1, 2, and I1) and requiring a health equity assessment (HA). This assessment would cover potential impacts on air quality, water, noise, and environmental justice within a 1.5-mile radius of a proposed facility.
Austin Davis, representing the planning staff, presented an analysis recommending disapproval. Staff identified two primary structural issues: Bill 26-0174 would have no operative effect while a citywide moratorium on data centers (established by Bill 26-0158) remains in effect. Additionally, the Health Department currently lacks the necessary staff, technical methodology, and regulatory framework to effectively review the proposed health equity assessments, raising concerns that the mechanism would offer perceived rather than substantive protection.
Councilwoman Porter vigorously defended the bill, arguing it is an essential component of a legally sound strategy to regulate data center development. She emphasized that a standalone moratorium is vulnerable to legal challenges, referencing cases in other jurisdictions like Hill County, Texas, which faced federal lawsuits after enacting a moratorium. Porter asserted that Bill 26-0174 does not promote data centers but instead creates a publicly accountable process for evaluating projects, providing a permanent framework that works in tandem with the moratorium and ensures environmental justice considerations are central to decision-making.
Public testimony largely reflected opposition to Bill 26-0174. Residents, including Green Party candidate Andy Ellis and community association presidents, urged the commission to reject the bill. They expressed fears that, despite the sponsor's intentions, the bill would create loopholes or pathways for data centers to enter Baltimore, thereby undermining the existing moratorium. Testimonies highlighted concerns about significant electricity and water consumption, constant noise pollution, heat generation contributing to urban heat island effects, and the potential for disproportionate impacts on already environmentally burdened communities.
Ultimately, there was a clear divergence between the sponsor's view of the bill as a protective measure and the public's perception of it as a facilitator for data center development. The planning staff reiterated their recommendation for disapproval, suggesting that the City Council defer action on data center zoning regulations until the comprehensive impact study, mandated by the moratorium and anticipated by March 2027, is completed. This study is expected to provide the necessary framework for future companion legislation.