Special Edition 001: The Ordinance Is the Invitation

Current Conditions

Most data center site selection relies on the same market studies everyone else is reading: permit records, construction starts, delivered MW, absorption rates. That information is accurate. It is also a record of decisions that were made 12 to 24 months before the permit was pulled. By the time a facility shows up in a brokerage report as “delivered,” the land deal, the entitlement, the economic development agreement: all of it closed years earlier. Permit data tells you where data centers have been. It does not tell you where the next ones will get approved, or where they’ll get killed.

We analyzed 25,141 municipal meeting transcripts across 66 municipalities in five states (Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas) looking for a different class of signal: ordinances being drafted before applications arrive, comp plans being amended to designate data center uses, staff reports recommending approval or prohibition, opposition networks forming across jurisdictional lines, and economic development agreements moving through consent agendas. These are leading indicators from the political record. Every one of them is public. They just don’t appear in traditional market studies because nobody reads 25,000 meeting transcripts. The dataset returned 2,285 direct mentions of data centers, hyperscale facilities, colocation, and modular data centers. What it reveals is a market that is bifurcating, fast, between municipalities that are building permitting pathways and municipalities where the political environment will add years to your timeline.

Signals Observed

Signal 1: Purpose-built ordinances are the clearest leading indicator of approval.

Three municipalities have written or are writing data center-specific development standards before being forced to by an application: Chandler, AZ adopted a data center ordinance in 2022 and just approved a 422,877 square foot AI data center under it in December 2025, with enforceable noise baselines, five-year restudies, closed-loop cooling commitments, and an on-site community liaison. Morrisville, NC is amending its Unified Development Ordinance to add “Data Center” as a separately defined use in the BAC and IM zoning districts, carving it out of general manufacturing. Gilbert, AZ initiated a text amendment in February 2026 to establish data center standards before any formal application has arrived.

The contrast: Midlothian, TX has 50 data center mentions and cases that get tabled rather than voted on. Staff there recommended that future planned developments “revise or prohibit” data center uses. Forney, TX had a motion to deny that passed outright. High discussion volume with no regulatory framework is a warning sign, not a green light.

Signal 2: The procedural pathway tells you more than the vote count.

Lewisville, TX approved the First Amendment to a $470 million Economic Development Agreement with Wells Fargo for a 146,000 square foot data center, via consent agenda in February 2026. No discussion. No public opposition. No council debate. Red Oak, TX approved a 50,000 square foot accessory building for the existing Compass Data Center campus. Commissioners asked about jobs, lighting, and noise limits: operational questions, not existential ones.

Compare that to Fort Worth, where a data center rezoning near Weston Gardens generated emotional testimony about a facility 28 feet from residential backyards. Or Apex, NC, where the proposed 300-megawatt New Hill Digital Campus triggered cancer victim testimony read into the record, statewide energy policy debates, and organized citizen opposition linked to PFAS contamination concerns. In both cases, the projects may have technical merit. But the procedural environment (contested hearings, divided boards, tabled motions) adds 12-18 months and significant political risk to any timeline.

Signal 3: Opposition networks are forming across jurisdictional lines.

In Waxahachie, TX, citizens cited Texas Tribune reporting on MARA Holdings in Granbury and Cloudburst in Hays County. In Surprise, AZ, residents opposing a 700-megawatt facility in unincorporated Maricopa County organized testimony at Surprise city council meetings, a different jurisdiction entirely. In Apex, NC, opposition connected local data center proposals to NC Senate Bill 266 and statewide ratepayer cost-shifting.

This is not a municipality-by-municipality fight anymore. Opposition groups are sharing playbooks, citing each other’s media coverage, and framing data centers as a regional resource consumption issue rather than a local land use question. A VP of Land evaluating a site in one of these municipalities inherits the political history of every failed or controversial data center project in the state.

Signal 4: Infrastructure-first municipalities are positioning for mega-users.

Buckeye, AZ approved a 2,271-acre Community Master Plan rezoning that explicitly lists data centers as a primary employment use alongside manufacturing, logistics, and aerospace. The site has rail access. Buckeye’s city government identified “Data Centers” as a 2026 legislative theme. Pinal County’s La Osa Ranch, 3,677 acres with letters of support from Electrical District No. 4 and the Arizona Technology Council, projects over $1 billion in tax revenue over 25 years. Pearland, TX wrote “technology/data centers” into its 2040 Future Land Use Plan and is investing $340,000 in fiber optic backbone infrastructure.

These municipalities aren’t reacting to applications. They’re building the zoning designations, utility capacity, and political consensus ahead of demand. That is the difference between a 6-month entitlement and a 24-month fight.

Forecast

The entitlement landscape for data centers is bifurcating. On one side: municipalities with purpose-built ordinances, executed economic development agreements, and staff that recommends approval. Denton, Lewisville, Red Oak, Rockwall, Chandler, Goodyear, and Coolidge are in this category today. On the other: municipalities where data center discussion volume is high but the regulatory response is reactive, contested, or hostile. Apex, Waxahachie, Midlothian, Fort Worth, and Surprise fall here.

The middle tier (Buckeye, Pinal County, Pearland, Gilbert, Morrisville) is where the next 18 months will be determined. These municipalities are actively building frameworks. Whether those frameworks become permitting pathways or defensive moats depends on what applications arrive first and how they’re designed. A well-structured proposal in Morrisville or Buckeye today would likely set favorable precedent. A poorly positioned one could trigger the same opposition cascade that locked up Apex.

Watch Items

• Arizona water politics. Gilbert commissioners flagged it explicitly: “Right now our council is getting kicked in the teeth over water issues.” Closed-loop cooling commitments may become a de facto requirement statewide. Goodyear’s data shows six operating data centers consuming only 3.6% of the municipal water system: a useful data point, but one that hasn’t yet penetrated the broader narrative.

• Texas networked opposition. The Granbury and Hays County cases are becoming reference points for opponents across the DFW metro. Any new application in Ellis, Kaufman, or Denton counties will face citizens pre-loaded with statewide grievances.

• North Carolina energy cost-shifting. NC Senate Bill 266, which opponents claim shifts power infrastructure costs to residential ratepayers, adds a policy dimension to every data center proposal in the state. This is not a land use objection. It is an electricity ratepayer objection, and it is harder to mitigate at the site plan level.

• Chandler precedent. The Price Road Innovation Campus approval includes the most detailed conditions of any data center in our coverage: pre-construction noise baselines, five-year mandatory restudies, $200,000-$225,000 annual delay penalties, and a one-inch water meter cap. Other municipalities will study these conditions. Expect them to become a floor, not a ceiling.

• Buckeye CMP council action. The 2,271-acre Grand View Arizona Community Master Plan passed P&Z in February 2026. Council action follows. If approved, it becomes the largest single rezoning in the Sun Belt explicitly accommodating data center uses.

Confidence Level

Medium-High. The bifurcation pattern is supported by 2,285 direct mentions across 66 municipalities, with consistent behavioral differences between municipalities that codify and municipalities that discuss. The forecast for the middle tier carries more uncertainty, those outcomes depend on application-specific factors we cannot observe from the public record alone.

Aside: Coolidge, Arizona (population roughly 14,000) has a council member on record saying data centers are “much better than solar fields.” When the smallest municipality in your coverage area is actively recruiting your product type, the site selection map may need updating.

Why This Matters

Site selection for data centers typically starts with power availability, fiber proximity, and land cost. Entitlement risk enters the conversation late, usually after a letter of intent is signed and consultants are engaged. By that point, the political environment is a fixed condition: something to manage, not something that informed the site choice.

The public record suggests that entitlement risk should move upstream, to the same stage as power and fiber. Not because political sentiment is more important than infrastructure, but because it is discoverable earlier than most teams realize. Gilbert, AZ is writing data center standards today with zero applications on file. Morrisville, NC is amending its development ordinance to create a purpose-built regulatory category. Buckeye’s 2,271-acre industrial CMP just passed planning commission. None of these will appear in a permit-based market study for 18 months to three years. But they are in the public record right now, and they are telling you which municipalities have made the policy decision before you’ve made the site decision. The question is whether your team reads the hearing record before or after the letter of intent.