Three local votes put different limits on data center development

Voters in Trenton, Ohio, Alhambra, California, and Wells, Maine, backed data-center restrictions on November 3, with results ranging from unofficial reporting to a town clerk’s certified return.

The votes address the same type of development in different ways. Trenton’s measure uses a capacity threshold in the account of local station WVXU; Alhambra’s question concerns a ban across city zones; and Wells adopted a temporary moratorium tied to a defined area and an earlier applicability date. Those choices affect which proposals the measures address and how long the restrictions are written to last.

Trenton: a capacity-based restriction

In Trenton, WVXU reported that Issue 17 won about 80% support in unofficial results. The Butler County ballot list identifies it as a city charter amendment concerning construction of a data center.

WVXU described the restriction as applying to large data centers over 25 megawatts. The station’s account also says developers would need to keep projects under 25 megawatts. The capacity measure is distinct from a limit based on land or building area.

Barry Blankenship, who helps lead Woodsdale and Trenton Environmental Resistance, told WVXU of concerns about electricity and water demand and local communities’ control. WVXU reported that the Trenton Community Alliance opposed the measure on economic-opportunity grounds. The city had promoted potential benefits including tax relief and support for schools and community services, according to the station.

Alhambra: a citywide zoning question

Alhambra’s Measure DB asked voters to affirm a council-adopted ban by amending the city code to define data centers and prohibit them in all city zones. The Los Angeles County results page showed 15,927 yes votes and 3,209 no votes, or 83.23% and 16.77%, in its preliminary November 6 snapshot at 9:24:30 a.m.; the page did not specify a time zone.

The county’s election-results information says results are preliminary and continue to be updated during the canvass until certification. The ballot question describes an all-zone prohibition rather than the megawatt boundary described in Trenton.

Wells: a retroactive temporary moratorium

In Wells, the town clerk’s certified return records 5,818 yes votes, 1,282 no votes and 459 blank ballots on Article 5 at the November 3 Special Town Meeting. Town Clerk Michele Stivaletta-Noble signed the certificate on November 4.

The adopted Article 5 ordinance, contained in the town meeting warrant, defines the covered facilities by both their activities and an aggregate Data Center Area of at least 100,000 square feet. That area includes space occupied by computing equipment and its related infrastructure, as well as associated impervious surfaces such as access ways, parking and transmission corridors. The figure is therefore broader than computing floor space alone.

The ordinance covers specified siting, construction and operation of defined data centers, as well as certain applications and municipal approvals for new or expanded facilities. Its applicability reaches proceedings and applications pending on or after June 16, 2026. It took effect upon Town Meeting enactment and specifies 180 days from that June 16 applicability date, unless extended, repealed or modified under applicable law. The vote did not start a new 180-day period on November 3.

The Wells ordinance says the town needs time to study possible land-use, infrastructure and environmental effects and consider regulations. That stated purpose differs from Alhambra’s question to affirm a zoning ban. Trenton’s reported megawatt threshold and Wells’ defined square-foot area also measure different things; neither figure can be converted directly into the other to rank the measures.

The possible tradeoffs extend beyond the rules’ wording. Dan Diorio, an official with the Data Center Coalition, told the Associated Press that restrictions could mean host communities miss tax revenue or company payments, and he pointed to investment linked to the industry. His comments describe a potential cost; Blankenship’s concerns describe the resources and local decisions he wants protected.