From Where I Sit Chris Gibbs Shelby County, Ohio, has found itself in a revealing split-screen moment. On the one side, township residents are packed into a county community hall to weigh in on the future of their farmland and to participate in a public process to testify that industrial wind and solar energy development threatens their soil, livelihoods, and the landscapes their families had tended for generations. On the other side, inside the City of Sidney, the view looks entirely different. A $3 billion Amazon data center project is advancing not because residents were meaningfully consulted, but because a majority of city council members approved a property tax abatement on over 200 acres of annexed farmland. Residents’ questions were heard only after decisions had essentially been made, and concerns were addressed only after the city had committed to Amazon’s most significant financial incentive. So why is it that landowners in the townships have a formal voice over wind and solar projects that create energy, while city residents have none over a sprawling data center campus that consumes that same energy? SB 52: A Voice in the Townships Senate Bill 52, passed in 2021, was a direct response to rural Ohioans’ demand for greater local control over utility-scale wind and solar farms. For the first time, county commissioners and township trustees could bar such projects within unincorporated areas. While in my view, SB 52 severely limits a farmland owner’s ability to maximize their asset’s potential, Shelby County’s commissioners did administer the law as intended. They held hearings, listened to residents, confirmed township support, and passed a resolution restricting wind and solar across 14 townships. To date, over 30 Ohio counties have imposed similar restrictions. Whether one agrees with the policy or not, the process was public and collaborative. Township residents heard a clear message that their land and neighborhoods matter, and their voices count. City Limits: A Different System, A Different Outcome Sidney residents, like most Ohioans living in incorporated municipalities, have little recourse other than the ballot box to influence their city’s land-use decisions. Under Ohio’s home-rule system, city councils can approve tax abatements, zoning changes, and megaproject agreements without public referendum or township-style veto power. In theory, this makes cities nimble, yet in practice, it often means residents learn about major deals only after they are largely complete. That is exactly what happened with Amazon. City council approved a tax package worth up to $350 million in foregone property taxes over 30 years. In exchange, Amazon will make a $50 million payment-in-lieu-of-taxes over 15 years. Residents raised concerns about environmental impacts, water usage, electric grid capacity, and the fairness of granting a multinational corporation a multi-decade tax holiday when many local businesses operate without such incentives. Their frustration was not only with Amazon’s footprint. It was with a system that asks residents to trust decisions they believe were not fully disclosed. The Uneven Geography of Public Power The contrast, where one part of the county is empowered while another is sidelined, raises an interesting question: Why do Ohioans have vastly different levels of control over land-use decisions based solely on which side of a city boundary they live on? If you own 200 acres of farmland in “Anytownship, Ohio,” SB 52 gives you legal standing to stop a solar project next door. But suppose you own a home near a proposed data center being built within city limits. In that case, you can speak at a council meeting for two or three minutes to voice your concerns, yet the city can still approve a project that may increase utility bills, strain water capacity, and change your neighborhood forever. Both decisions involve land. Both shape the county’s future. But only one involves robust public input. Toward a More Transparent Urban Process I concede that Ohio cities cannot and should not operate exactly like Ohio townships. Economic development often requires speed and confidentiality. But that reality does not excuse a process that leaves residents wanting. Local leaders still have the chance to close the trust gap. Upcoming agreements with Amazon covering infrastructure, water, and sewer, as well as ongoing development, give the council another opportunity to invite public engagement before votes. Amazon’s data center may ultimately prove a wise investment that invites yet more economic activity and jobs, or it may set precedents that residents regret for decades. Regardless of the outcome, if township residents can be trusted to help shape the future of their land and community, surely city residents deserve the same consideration. ~ And that’s the way I see it from where I sit. Gibbs is a farmer and lives in Maplewood, Ohio. He and his family own and operate 560 acres of crops, hay, and cattle. Gibbs is retired from the United States Department of Agriculture and currently serves as President of the Gateway Arts Council, Chairman of the Shelby County Democratic Party, and President of Rural Voices USA and Rural Voices Network.
https://miamivalleytoday.com/of-solar-and-data-centers/