WHP LLC's Track Record
WHP LLC - the developer proposing the AI data center super cluster in Pekin - has proposed data center projects in several rural communities, and some of these proposals have faced resistance and setbacks.
Oldham County, Kentucky
WHP's proposed $6 billion data center in Oldham County was withdrawn after sustained community pushback. Residents organized under the banner "We Are Oldham County" and mounted a sustained campaign against the project. The county passed a 150-day moratorium on data center development, giving the community time to develop protective regulations. Facing overwhelming opposition, WHP ultimately abandoned the project.[2]
Key lesson: Organized community groups with a clear identity and message can stop even billion-dollar projects. A moratorium buys critical time for the community to act.
New Carlisle, Indiana
Operating as "New Carlisle 25 Developer LLC," WHP sought rezoning for a massive 1,057-acre data center in St. Joseph County. The St. Joseph County Area Plan Commission voted 7-2 against the rezoning request, delivering a decisive defeat for the project. Residents and farmers organized against the loss of prime agricultural land to the proposed $12 billion facility.[3][4]
Key lesson: Plan commissions can and do vote against developers. When residents show up with clear evidence about agricultural land loss and community impact, these bodies listen.
Braidwood, Illinois
WHP's planned data center 53 miles southwest of Chicago in Braidwood was paused due to transmission infrastructure issues. The project stalled because the existing energy grid could not support the enormous power demands of the proposed facility, highlighting the strain these developments place on regional infrastructure.[5]
Key lesson: Energy infrastructure constraints are a real barrier to data center development. Communities should demand thorough infrastructure assessments before any approvals.
Communities That Fought Back
Prince William County, Virginia
The $24.7 billion PW Digital Gateway - backed by data center giants QTS and Compass - was one of the largest data center rezoning proposals in U.S. history, covering thousands of acres in Prince William County. Despite initial approval by the Board of County Supervisors, Oak Valley homeowners sued and prevailed. In August 2025, a Circuit Court judge voided the rezoning entirely, ruling that the process was flawed.[6]
In November 2025, the Virginia Court of Appeals barred any construction while the case continued. Separately, the Board of Supervisors shelved a proposed Amazon data center indefinitely after continued community pressure.[7]
Key lesson: Even approved projects can be overturned through legal action. Courts have voided data center rezonings when the approval process was flawed. Persistent legal challenges work.
Chandler, Arizona
The Chandler City Council voted 7-0 to reject a proposed $2 billion data center after a four-hour public comment period in which over 250 comments were submitted in opposition. Chandler became the first municipality in Arizona to formally regulate data center development, setting a precedent for other communities in the state.[8]
Key lesson: Unanimous opposition is achievable. When hundreds of residents speak against a project, elected officials get the message. Being a "first" to regulate is a badge of honor, not a risk.
Peculiar, Missouri
The Board of Aldermen in Peculiar, Missouri took the extraordinary step of removing the "data center" definition from their zoning ordinance entirely, effectively blocking the proposed $1.5 billion Diode data center project. By eliminating the zoning category, the community ensured no data center could be built without a complete overhaul of local law.[9]
Key lesson: Communities are not limited to saying "no" to individual projects. They can rewrite the rules entirely to prevent an entire class of development.
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Residents of Chesterfield County organized against a proposed large-scale data center development near residential neighborhoods. The community cited concerns about noise, property values, water usage, and the industrialization of agricultural land. Through public comment campaigns and organized attendance at planning commission and board of supervisors meetings, residents successfully influenced the conditions under which data centers could be approved.[10]
Key lesson: Communities can win concessions even when they cannot stop a project entirely. Noise limits, setback requirements, landscaping buffers, and operational restrictions are all achievable through persistent advocacy.
Warrenton, Virginia
The town of Warrenton rejected a major data center proposal after residents raised concerns about impacts on the town's historic character, water supply, and quality of life. The town council voted against the rezoning request, citing community opposition and inadequate infrastructure to support the facility.[11]
Key lesson: Zoning is the community's most powerful tool. If a project requires a rezoning, the community has the legal right to oppose it and elected officials have the authority to deny it.
Illinois Communities Fighting Back
The fight against data centers is not just a national issue - communities across Illinois are pushing back against proposals that threaten farmland, water supplies, and quality of life.
Yorkville, Kendall County
Over 1,300 residents signed a petition opposing data center development in Yorkville. Despite overwhelming public opposition, the city council approved the project, prompting residents to file a lawsuit against the city. The case highlights the growing tension between municipal governments courting tax revenue and residents demanding a voice in land use decisions.[12]
Key lesson: Petitions build public momentum, and lawsuits remain an option when elected officials ignore constituent concerns. Document everything and be prepared to escalate.
Joliet
A proposed 795-acre data center development in Joliet was tabled indefinitely after residents raised the alarm about the project's scale and impact. Community members organized rapidly, attending hearings and submitting objections that forced city officials to pause the approval process.[13]
Key lesson: "Tabled indefinitely" is often the first step toward a project dying. Early, organized opposition can derail even large-scale proposals before they gain momentum.
Lisle
More than 300 residents overflowed the Lisle Village Hall to oppose a proposed data center, with over 250 emails submitted in opposition. The public hearing was postponed due to the sheer volume of community response. The turnout demonstrated the depth of opposition that data center proposals can generate in suburban communities.[14]
Key lesson: Showing up matters. When 300 people fill a hearing room and 250 emails flood the inbox, officials cannot pretend there is no opposition. Volume and visibility are powerful tools.
Communities Living With the Consequences
Loudoun County, Virginia
Loudoun County hosts over 300 data centers - the largest concentration in the world. While the county has benefited from tax revenue, residents living near data center clusters have reported persistent noise complaints, declining quality of life, and a feeling that their community has been transformed from a residential area into an industrial zone. Property values near data center clusters have been negatively affected, and the county has struggled to balance growth with resident quality of life.[15]
Key lesson: Once data centers are built, the impacts are permanent. Loudoun County's experience shows that even significant tax revenue does not compensate residents for the loss of quality of life.
The Dalles, Oregon
Google built a massive data center campus in The Dalles (population ~15,000) beginning in 2006. By 2022, the facility was consuming more than a quarter of the city's water supply. During drought conditions, residents faced water restrictions while Google's facility continued operating. The city was forced to renegotiate water agreements and the case became a national flashpoint for data center water consumption.[16]
Key lesson: Water agreements negotiated before construction often fail to protect communities during drought. Once a facility is built, the operator has enormous leverage over the community.
Chandler and Mesa, Arizona
Multiple data center operators in the Phoenix metropolitan area have come under scrutiny for their water consumption during the worst drought in 1,200 years in the Colorado River basin. Communities have begun requiring data centers to secure independent water supplies rather than drawing from municipal systems.[17]
Key lesson: Water-intensive industries should not be allowed to draw from municipal water supplies without independent assessments of long-term availability and impact on existing users.
Legal Tools Available to Communities
Communities have several legal and regulatory tools available to influence or stop data center development:[18]
- Zoning denials: If a project requires rezoning, the local government can deny the application. This is the most direct way to stop a project.
- Moratoria: A temporary moratorium on new data center development gives the community time to study impacts and develop appropriate regulations before any approvals are granted. At least 19 Michigan communities have passed data center moratoriums, demonstrating the widespread use of this tool.[19]
- Zoning changes: Communities can proactively change their zoning codes to restrict data centers. Loudoun County, Virginia - the data center capital of the world - eliminated by-right data center development in March 2025, requiring all new facilities to go through the full public review process.[20]
- Comprehensive plan amendments: Updating the community's comprehensive land use plan to exclude industrial data center development from agricultural and residential areas.
- Environmental impact requirements: Requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before any development approvals, covering water, air, noise, traffic, and ecological impacts.
- Conditional use permits: Rather than outright rezoning, requiring a conditional use permit with enforceable conditions around noise limits, water usage caps, setbacks, and operational restrictions.
- Water use agreements: Requiring binding water use limits with penalties for exceedance, and priority clauses that protect residential water access during shortages.
- Noise ordinances: Adopting or strengthening local noise ordinances with specific decibel limits at property boundaries, measured during nighttime hours.
- State legislation: Virginia currently has 27 data center bills under consideration. In Illinois, SB 2181 would require data centers to report their energy and water consumption, bringing needed transparency to the industry.[21]
What Pekin Can Do Right Now
The experience of other communities shows that the most effective actions are:
- Show up. Pack every city council meeting, zoning hearing, and public forum. Numbers matter. Elected officials cannot ignore a room full of constituents.
- Demand transparency. Insist on full public disclosure of the project's water requirements, power demands, noise projections, and environmental impacts before any vote.
- Require an environmental impact study. No approvals should be granted without a comprehensive, independent environmental review.
- Engage legal counsel. Communities that engage environmental attorneys early in the process are more successful at protecting their interests.
- Build coalitions. Connect with other communities that have faced similar proposals. Share strategies, legal resources, and public messaging.
- Use media. Local and national media attention raises the stakes for elected officials and developers. Contact journalists, share your story, and make sure the public record is clear.