Unidentified images of three of the 5,00o data centers now in operation across the U.S. – screenshot
By Alison Quennoz-Felts
I’ve spent the last few days listening, reading, and trying to understand the many perspectives around the proposed data center. Our community is clearly expressing both support and concern, and I respect that people come to this issue with different hopes and priorities.
I wrote this to help re-center the conversation around transparency, process, and public trust, regardless of where you personally land on the project. Emotional truth is valid, but procedural action is powerful.
Much of what residents are expressing reflects emotional truth that is real and deeply felt. However, emotional truth alone is not procedurally actionable, and process is where communities either protect themselves or lose their voice. That is why I am writing.
I am not writing as an outsider, but as a fourth generation Pacific resident. My grandpa was, and still is, the longest serving elected official in this town’s history. My grandma served as city collector for over twenty years. The area where this data center is now being proposed was near my great grandfather’s hundred acre turkey farm. This is not abstract to me. It is personal, historical, and deeply rooted in this community.
Asking hard questions and insisting on transparency is not anti-progress. It is an expression of care for Pacific and the people who live here.
I was raised in a family that believed good governance meant planning for what we do not yet know, not just what is immediately visible. As mayor, my grandpa helped guide Pacific through the worst flood in its history in 1982, working alongside Public Works leadership to develop debris cleanup and recovery practices that are still used today. Those decisions were not made because all the data was perfect, but because caution and responsibility mattered when long-term consequences were uncertain.
Large industrial projects permanently change land use, infrastructure, and neighboring property values. Once approved, those impacts cannot be undone, which alone warrants a careful, public, and well-documented review before any decisions move forward.
Many residents first learned of this proposal through social media rather than early public notice or meetings. While discussions may have occurred privately, meaningful community input must happen before decisions are made, not after momentum has already formed.
A responsible process includes publicly available studies, clear zoning explanations, independent environmental, water, noise, and infrastructure analyses, and adequate time for public review. Much of that information has not yet been shared.
It is also important to acknowledge the limits of existing data. Even with environmental surveys and regulatory review, there is not sufficient long-term data to fully understand the cumulative environmental impacts of large-scale data centers, particularly over decades. Regulatory approval does not equal certainty, and the absence of proven harm is not the same as proof of long-term safety. When long-term effects remain uncertain, caution and time are not obstacles. They are responsibility.
There are legitimate questions about whether a large industrial data center is compatible with land directly bordering homes, farms, and long-standing family properties. Whether something can be approved is not the same as whether it should be approved.
Public trust also matters. Anyone who remembers Kenny Quennoz knows he placed the integrity of the process above personal interest, even when it was uncomfortable. When individuals connected to a proposed project serve on planning or zoning bodies involved in its review, full disclosure and complete recusal are essential to protect fairness and public confidence.
Pacific has always been shaped by people who care deeply about their land, their neighbors, and their legacy. Protecting that legacy means making sure decisions of this scale are made openly, carefully, and with the full community at the table before anything irreversible occurs.
I agree with what you’ve written here. Without solid information none of us can really make a valid decision.
The problem lies in what seems to be an all too common problem in Pacific in particular but also in the county and politics in general; our representatives forgetting that they represent us and absolutely owe us transparency in all government endeavors.
So much seems to be done behind closed doors, or, quite often, doors that have some form of semi-transparent glass in them. This invariably results in explosions of half formed and highly emotional reactions on the part of the public.
If Bill and Linda sell their land to a data center it will effect my family in some way. Without solid facts there is no way for us to determine whether that effect will be harmful or beneficial for us. The same could be said if they sold the land to a subdivision developer. 700 acres would make for a huge subdivision and that would have serious consequences regarding energy and water, along with noise, traffic and a general diminishment in the quality of life most of us enjoy out here.
The Hwy. O corridor is going to be developed and there isn’t much most of us can do about it. We can’t, and shouldn’t be able to, stop a private land owner from doing what he considers best for his family and the property he owns, outside of narrowly defined and agreed upon land use restrictions.
Our family is opposed to data centers in the broadest of terms. That being said, I think that growth and development are coming to rural Franklin County, whether we like it or not. Is a data center the very worst thing that could be built here? Probably not. Is it the best use of land in our area? Absolutely not.
I do believe that we are being manipulated in some way, perhaps with a Hobson’s Choice of sorts. If I were of a conspiracy mindset I might find it somewhat odd that we went from no data centers to two competing data centers, all within a very short window of time, perhaps forcing a choice between one or the other, a choice that is really no choice at all.
I watched the meeting in Union last week on YouTube and I must say that the emotional outbursts that occurred were absolutely pointless. Emotion isn’t going to win the day. We need facts, cold hard facts that are irrefutable. Those facts might support the data centers. They might not. At least, however, we will know if the argument is worth having or if it’s better to accept the choice given and try to put proper controls in place to protect our properties and way of life.
I suspect that even though the problem at the county level was “tabled”, meetings are going on behind the scene between the developers and our representatives. I also suspect that Pacific will do something shady to push this thing through, mostly because of their history of back room dealing.
In the end, we need to lose the emotion and rely on the facts. We also need to accept the fact that the O corridor is not going to remain a bucolic pastoral setting much longer. It will be developed. Perhaps we should be thinking a bit more long term here and get ahead of the curve, regardless of whether or not a data center comes to town. That is a fight for the county, at the moment. But that could change based on Pacific’s expansion plans. I also suspect that the Bend Road area could see an annexation attempt, too. There is a lot of land in that area that is ripe for development.
In the end, big changes are coming and we have limited power to control them. Emotion might be a fine way to get people riled up but emotion is much easier to manipulate than cold facts. The game seems to be afoot now and I suspect that a data center in our county will be the end result. If we lose this battle then it means that we were and are unprepared to fight. That can’t happen again.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and well reasoned response. I agree with much of what you’ve shared, especially the importance of moving beyond emotional reaction and grounding this conversation in verifiable facts, long term thinking, and appropriate safeguards. Emotion can draw attention to an issue, but it is process and evidence that ultimately protect a community.
I also want to acknowledge that the land involved is privately owned and that the families connected to it have long histories and deep roots in this town. Many people have contributed to Pacific in meaningful ways over the years, and that history deserves respect. This conversation is not about assigning blame or questioning anyone’s intentions.
You and I are in agreement with what I believe concern has grown around is how this proposal unfolded. When a private land decision has permanent public consequences for water, infrastructure, neighboring properties, and land use, the process by which information is shared becomes critically important. Limited public notice and learning about a project only after significant momentum has formed can undermine public trust, even if all actions are technically legal.
Transparency does not take away anyone’s rights. It strengthens outcomes by ensuring questions are asked early, assumptions are tested, and long term impacts are examined before decisions become irreversible.
Yes, growth is coming to this corridor whether we welcome it or not. That reality makes it even more important that we get the process right now, so future development of any kind is guided by foresight, accountability, and public confidence rather than reaction. That is the conversation I am trying to help center.
I hope the meeting tomorrow answers many of the questions citizens have, and that the conversation can be rooted in facts and respect. At the end of the day, we are all neighbors. In my humble opinion, the loss of a shared sense of community is what has contributed most to the harsh divide we are seeing, not only in our small town, but across the country. Holding space for facts, accountability, and mutual respect is how we begin to repair that.
Hi Allison,
Your article was very well written and I really appreciate you taking the time to get your thoughts down. I’ve found some articles with information giving an alternative view on how these data centers work and the need (or NOT) for them. If you have the time look into Fractal Computing. Here is a link to an article from substack if it will open. It speaks to some things that didn’t make sense to me…why do these centers have to be so huge when all other tech is getting smaller? How fast do they become obsolete?
https://open.substack.com/pub/fractalcomputing/p/ai-will-doom-large-data-centers?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/fractalcomputing/p/data-centers-abandoned-jc-penney?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
I hope this information is helpful and will get to the people that need to learn more…namely ALL of us.
Thank you!