Nashville attempts to block controversial data center near zoo with eminent domain — city could force developer to sell the land for public use, rather than $700 million installation

a red panda at the Nashville Zoo
(Image credit: Getty Images)

The Nashville Metro Council just gave the go-signal to Mayor Freddie O’Connell's plan to use eminent domain to block a planned 23-acre data center campus sitting right beside the Nashville Zoo at Grassmere. According to real estate news platform CoStar, the city council approved the measure by a 27-5 vote last Wednesday, meaning the city government can now take the next steps to proceed with the legal process that will force the purchase of the property.

“I’m glad Metro Council passed our legislation that gives us the option to acquire property next to the zoo for a number of public needs,” Mayor O’Connell said in a statement. “We’re working closely with our Finance and General Services departments to plan for the site.”

The developer of the property, DC Blox, wanted to put up a 69,220-square-foot single-story data center on the site that was expected to cost more than $700 million to build. It would sit right beside the 188-acre Nashville Zoo at Grassmere, which opened in 1990 as the Grassmere Wildlife Park. This zoo is one of the biggest attractions in Tennessee, expecting to receive two million visitors annually by 2027. Aside from that, it also participates in more than 50 conservation programs with institutions across the world.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

Nashville Zoo and the proposed data center at the upper right corner of the map

(Image credit: Google Maps)

Zoo officials objected to the development, raising concerns about disruptions like noise and light pollution, among others. They even started an online petition that garnered more than 500,000 signatures by the end of July, even getting support from celebrities like Brad Paisley, Sheryl Crow, and Jack White.

DC Blox argues that 648 Grassmere Park used to provide data center functions, so putting up a newer one on the site would not necessarily disrupt the community, including its neighboring zoo. However, there have already been several widely reported incidents from across the U.S. that highlighted the noise and light pollution that zoo officials have been concerned about.

Residents in a town in Michigan have been complaining for about two years now after their neighboring data centers started emitting noise 24/7, comparing it to the sound that a vacuum makes in your living room. Aside from that, some people complain about infrasound, high- and low-frequency vibrations that do not register on decibel meters but could sometimes be felt coming from data centers and potentially cause adverse health effects. A Microsoft data center in Wisconsin is also facing a lawsuit due to noise and extreme light pollution.

While this does not mean that the proposed Nashville data center will cause a similar issue, it seems that city officials do not want to take this risk. Light and noise pollution could have adverse effects on the animals housed by the zoo, potentially disrupting their habitats and behavior.

The city council vote would allow the local government to negotiate with DC Blox for the acquisition of the property. However, this does not automatically mean that Nashville would automatically have the right to own the property. It will first have to negotiate with the owner to determine that property’s fair market value, and if the two parties cannot agree, then a judge or jury will have to determine the final amount. The company could also challenge the eminent domain claim.

There have been fears that the government will use eminent domain to advance data center projects, which was further spurred by Georgia Power’s use of the power to acquire 30 residential properties to expand the power grid. Although the utility company said that it wasn’t in the data center business, the move was made to connect a substation to a power plant, with 70% to 80% of the electricity traveling through it expected to serve data centers. But, as Nashville showed, this authority can also be used to block data center projects.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • writingwriter
    Admin said:
    The Nashville Metro Council just gave the go ahead for the mayor's plan to buy the land that a proposed data center will sit on through eminent domain. This will force the developer to give up the land, which sits beside the Nashville Zoo, although there is still a legal avenue that it can take to stop the action.

    Nashville attempts to block controversial data center near zoo with eminent domain — city could force developer to sell the land for public use, ra... : Read more
    Why can't the government be this smart and for the people all the time?

    A good fluke, but a fluke nonetheless.
    Reply
  • daworstplaya
    writingwriter said:
    Why can't the government be this smart and for the people all the time?

    A good fluke, but a fluke nonetheless.
    If you want a government to be FOR THE PEOPLE, vote the right people into governement. Aka the ones that aren't taking PAC money and beholden to the ones funding their campaigns.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    writingwriter said:
    Why can't the government be this smart and for the people all the time?

    A good fluke, but a fluke nonetheless.
    When you vote for 1 of 2 sides you really don't have a choice. Without getting political, George Washington's farewell address is worth a read on the subject, you just have to get past the rambling about the British, who he really didn't like.
    Reply
  • blppt
    JamesJones44 said:
    When you vote for 1 of 2 sides you really don't have a choice. Without getting political, George Washington's farewell address is worth a read on the subject, you just have to get past the rambling about the British, who he really didn't like.
    The Founding Fathers were not quite as brilliant as they are portrayed. For example, they never even considered that a convicted felon could possibly be a threat to be elected into the highest office in the land.

    Forget about the polarizing guy currently there who fits that description; that there were no basic guardrails in place to prevent anybody, from any party, being able to do that is an astonishingly stupid omission.
    Reply
  • GenericUser2001
    blppt said:
    The Founding Fathers were not quite as brilliant as they are portrayed. For example, they never even considered that a convicted felon could possibly be a threat to be elected into the highest office in the land.

    Forget about the polarizing guy currently there who fits that description; that there were no basic guardrails in place to prevent anybody, from any party, being able to do that is an astonishingly stupid omission.
    No guardrails on that was intentional; as the founding fathers knew, throughout history many, many regimes throughout history have gone after political opponents with all sorts of well, trumped up (sorry had to make that pun) nonsense criminal charges. Heck, that is part of what lead to the revolutionary war, and most of them would have been considered felons by the British government. The system intentionally makes the voters the final decision makers on if the current government's criminal charges against someone were valid.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    blppt said:
    The Founding Fathers were not quite as brilliant as they are portrayed. For example, they never even considered that a convicted felon could possibly be a threat to be elected into the highest office in the land.
    Invalidating 200+ years of success simply because they couldn't see 200+ years into the future with Social Media influence driving elections feels parochial.

    As a counter argument, had people listened way back then, things would be different. They were smarter than the credit given, people have just messed it up.
    Reply
  • blppt
    JamesJones44 said:
    Invalidating 200+ years of success simply because they couldn't see 200+ years into the future with Social Media influence driving elections feels parochial.
    Social Media has nothing to do with it. Its a basic guardrail that should have been in place from day 1, no matter how unlikely the FF ever thought it would be necessary.
    Reply
  • blppt
    GenericUser2001 said:
    No guardrails on that was intentional; as the founding fathers knew, throughout history many, many regimes throughout history have gone after political opponents with all sorts of well, trumped up (sorry had to make that pun) nonsense criminal charges. Heck, that is part of what lead to the revolutionary war, and most of them would have been considered felons by the British government. The system intentionally makes the voters the final decision makers on if the current government's criminal charges against someone were valid.
    So basically your theory is that they went with "Well, if the voters are stupid enough to elect a felon, they deserve what they get"?

    As far as prior regimes framing and convicting their opponents on baseless charges, simply allowing a convicted felon to run and win doesn't solve that problem. Authoritarian governments have any number of tools available at their disposal to take out their opponents, but it is far more likely that a convicted felon ascending to the highest post in the land would bring down the grand experiment.
    Reply