A Detroit advocacy group is raising concerns over the makeup and meeting structure of an informal working group on data center development, arguing it lacks transparency.
Theo Pride, an organizer for the Detroit People’s Platform, told City Council members during Tuesday’s formal session that the existing composition of the newly formed group, which began meeting last month, presents “equity issues.”
“It’s not balanced with enough community leaders,” Pride said during public comment, adding “especially those in historically overburdened neighborhoods must be centered.”
Pride said without stronger transparency and accountability, there’s a risk that decisions could be made without proper input.
“Detroit has the opportunity to set a strong, equitable precedent here,” he said. “Let’s make sure the process is led by the will of the people and not tech lobbyists.”
Detroit City Councilman Scott Benson convened the cross-sector workgroup last month to share feedback on zoning policy for future data center developments in Detroit amid an explosion of interest and concern nationally.
The District 3 Councilman said that he organized the working group to gain consensus and support for an aggressive Dec. 31 timeline for Detroit to establish a comprehensive “community-informed” data center-focused zoning policy.
The 40-person group’s first virtual meeting, attended by BridgeDetroit, included representatives from environmental groups, DTE Energy, the city’s planning commission, building and safety offices, health and water departments and the council and mayor’s administration, the Detroit Economic Development Corporation as well as unions and tech officials. It has met twice so far.
In response to concerns raised Tuesday, Benson said he disagrees that the process isn’t inclusive. There have been notes shared from the conversations and participants are also encouraged to disseminate talking points in their networks outside of the working group talks.
“We’ve sent this out, it’s in the ecosystem. We make sure that anybody who has requested to come has access to do that,” Benson told BridgeDetroit. “What we are not trying to do is slow down because this is about the health, safety and welfare of our residents.”
Benson told BridgeDetroit that the conversation in the working group’s meeting on Friday centered on the potential to restrict certain tiers of data centers in Detroit.
“Primarily because we do not have the energy to support them or the contiguous parcels of land big enough to support them,” he said.
Benson’s push aligns with strategies being pursued in multiple Michigan municipalities to set parameters for data centers. The hyperscale data centers have been proposed for at least 11 Michigan counties. Some have secured key approvals; others have faced pushback from residents and legislators. Late in 2024, Michigan lawmakers narrowly approved tax breaks to lure the industry to the state.
Benson’s “data center stakeholder working group” came together after the City Council in March passed a resolution urging Mayor Mary Sheffield to establish a two-year moratorium on data center developments in the city.
The mayor has not made a determination yet on the moratorium request, but Benson noted Tuesday that numerous members of Sheffield’s administration are part of the group and that Detroit’s Chief Public Health Officer Ali Abazeed has “weighed in heavily.”
Benson said the working group is aiming to assess the potential footprint of data centers in the city, how peer cities are responding to similar development proposals and to advise on recommendations for city zoning policies.
Benson said the workgroup has formed four subcommittees; one run by a retired member of the Sierra Club, organized labor, DTE Energy and the City Planning Commission staff.
“This is the information gathering process. The actual ordinance will be written by the City Planning Commission staff, which is a legislative process and there will be public hearings, there will be a community engagement process – all of that will take place after this when the actual ordinance is being written,” he said.
Separately, residents on Detroit’s east side also convened discussions on ways to slow the development or minimize the potential harm associated with data centers to city neighborhoods already overburdened with industry. Beginning this month, the Eastside Community Network will host a biweekly data center study group to educate east side residents on the economic, environmental, and health impacts of the facilities. ECN also plans to facilitate the development of a set of community recommendations for city and state officials by the end of the summer.
“We know we have two parallel tracks going on,” Benson added Tuesday of the ECN working group. He said that the efforts will encompass a broad range of perspectives and it will be well-informed.
Erma Leaphart, a retired conservation organizer for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, is using the ECN process to inform her recommendations to the city planning commission, Benson said. Leaphart previously stressed the importance of “robust community engagement” in the process.
District 4 resident Eden Bloom, who also works with the Detroit People’s Platform, called in Tuesday to offer public comment, joining Pride in a call to turn the working group into a formal City Council task force.
“We deserve a seat at the table. The current working group structure contains DTE, developers and department heads – these entities that stand to benefit financially from data center development in Detroit. They are being asked to write the rules that will govern that same developer. That seems to be a conflict of interest.”
Bloom argued that a working group carries no formal obligation nor public notice, no requirement of accessible records and no binding accountability to residents. A task force, he said, would be different. But Benson said that assertion isn’t correct – a task force wouldn’t provide anything additional to the public than what the working group is providing now.
“A task force is not answerable to anybody but the council member. There’s nothing official when it comes to a task force,” he said. “There’s no smoke and mirrors here. We want to be public and transparent. This is a learning process for us all.”
Bloom said the task force request is informed by the City Council’s Rules of Order.
Unlike Benson’s working group, which does not require a resolution and allows for a single council member to assemble experts or stakeholders on a specific topic, a task force would be created by a council resolution and must report to the full council and city clerk annually. Also, depending on its configuration – including how many council members are serving on it and how the resolution is written – a task force could be subject to the Open Meetings Act. But the Rules of Order do not outline a standing rule that requires it for all task forces, according to the rules and council’s policy office.
When asked to weigh in on the advocacy organization’s argument that the task force would bring more transparency to the discussions over the existing working group, Benson added in a text message to BridgeDetroit: “My door is away open to listen to resident concerns and take them under consideration.”
The full working group will meet again in June.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the differences between a working group and an official task force.
