A divided Ferguson City Council vote this week to block tax breaks for a proposed $1.8 billion data center highlighted divisions over incentives, environmental concerns and whether the project would benefit Ferguson residents.
After more than an hour of testimony Monday night, the council split 3-3, with one abstention, halting the plan led by SSL Investments to redevelop the former Emerson Electric headquarters site.
The proposal would have turned the more than 200-acre site into a mixed-use hub for technology, energy innovation and research anchored by a data center. Supporters said it offered a chance to redevelop a major industrial site, while critics questioned the tax incentives, environmental impact and potential cost to local schools.
Critics said the incentive package, valued at up to $1.5 billion, heavily favored the developer. Under the plan, the developer would pay no personal property taxes for 15 years but would instead provide payments in lieu of taxes starting at 25% of standard property taxes for the first 12 years, gradually increasing to 80% by the final year.
Critics warned the Ferguson-Florissant School District could lose $71 million over 15 years, while the Jennings School District could lose $6.2 million in the first six years. The city of Ferguson was projected to lose $5.2 million in the early phases of development.
The decision followed weeks of debate about transparency, tax abatements, environmental impact, water usage and power demands. While some council members acknowledged the project’s potential for economic development, others cited too many uncertainties.
“I know that we need development,” Councilwoman Naquitta Noah said. “I know that we need financial resources. Our city does need help but there are so many unknowns and uncertainties that I cannot support this!”
Dissent was evident even before testimony began. About 30 people lined up outside Ferguson City Hall after they were unable to enter the overcrowded meeting. Some said the meeting should have been held at a larger venue, as previous meetings had been.
“There was a whole line of people here before the meeting even started,” said Kourtney Huddleston, a 33-year resident. “Starting off by disenfranchising people who came here to speak on such an important topic is extremely upsetting. They should be heard.”
Inside City Hall, residents expressed concerns about the developer’s environmental plans, water usage and power demands.
“My concerns are about the cost of utilities. The utilities this company will be using are going to raise our costs. I’m a senior citizen and I’m already having problems with that,” Mary Baker said. “I’m also concerned about the grid, the noise level from their cooling systems, increased traffic. … The streets here are terrible. Why are they coming in here with all this grand stuff and we can’t even get a pothole fixed here in Ferguson.”
Ferguson resident Henry Iwenofu, CEO of Missouri American Energy Inc. USA in Nigeria, said the council had a “heavy burden” before sharply criticizing the proposal.
“Unfortunately, what is going on are some pressure tactics to get you to sign a contract that has nothing for us,” Iwenofu said. “Even if I accept that the health issues I’ve complained about don’t exist, it’s not required in that contract to use local labor and that’s just one of the pressures you’re under.”
Iwenofu also cited concerns about city responsibility if the project failed, water consumption, school revenue and the burden on residents.
“You need to reexamine this project. … It just doesn’t pass the smell test,” he said.
Christopher Sudlick said he and three friends canvassed neighborhoods over the weekend. After knocking on “thousands of doors” in 18 hours, he said he found only “two residents” who supported the plan.
“That’s awful. Nobody here wants this,” Sudlick said, before warning council members: “I don’t know how you’re gonna vote tonight but I do know how they’re going to vote in your recall elections; and that will be to remove you.”
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mayor Adrian Shropshire, who voted against the incentives, said the city would pursue other redevelopment options and opposed including a data center at the site.
The Post-Dispatch also reported that developer Jim Onder said the project would not be competitive without tax incentives. City officials are exploring alternative uses for the property, including mixed-use or housing development, according to the newspaper.
Neither city council members nor representatives from SSL Investments publicly outlined a strategy to restart or renegotiate the plan.
For residents like Iwenofu and Huddleston, the rejection was welcome news.
“If they were offering something that would have made our community more viable and help it move forward, I would support you,” Iwenofu said. “But if you’re coming to build something that’s going to give us cancer or asthma … keep your money!”
Sylvester Brown Jr. is the Deaconess Foundation Community Advocacy Fellow.
Mixed opportunity in my opinion. At a time when counties are competing for job opportunities for their youths.