Baltimore residents push back on proposed data center bill
Baltimore residents and some council members are actively opposing a proposed data center bill before the City Council. The bill, introduced by Councilwoman Phylicia Porter, would require conditional use permits and health equity assessments for data centers. Opponents argue it creates a "back door" for data centers and fails to adequately protect communities, with a petition calling for a full ban garnering nearly 8,500 signatures.
Baltimore residents are actively pushing back against Council Bill 26-0174, a proposed data center bill currently before the City Council. During a recent hearing, numerous residents voiced concerns about potential health, heat, and noise pollution impacts from data centers, with one stating that "AI data centers will threaten the lives of our children."
Introduced by Councilwoman Phylicia Porter, the bill would mandate conditional use permits and establish a health equity assessment for proposed data centers, examining impacts within a 1.5-mile radius. Porter announced amendments to the bill, including updating the definition of a data center and assigning the Office of Sustainability to review health assessments. She emphasized the bill's potential to shift the burden of disclosure onto developers.
However, the bill faces strong opposition from both residents and Councilman Mark Conway. Conway criticized the bill, asserting it "creates a back door for data centers" and that its approval requirements "fall far short of protecting Baltimore residents." He specifically questioned language allowing projects to proceed if a "compelling public interest" outweighs negative public health impacts. Hillary Gonzalez, founder of the People's Green Liberation Coalition, highlighted a petition with nearly 8,500 signatures from Baltimore voters demanding a full ban on data centers in the city. Gonzalez also urged the council to extend any existing moratorium, citing industry pressure to build quickly before more regulations are established. The bill was not voted on at the Thursday hearing.