By Josh Vasa | Birmingham City Council
I’ve received emails, phone calls, text messages, and comments regarding the City Council’s vote on the Data Center Ordinance. Some residents supported the vote. Others strongly opposed it. My goal in writing this is not to convince everyone to agree with me; it is to explain what the vote actually did — and why I voted the way I did.
On Tuesday, the Birmingham City Council voted on a data center ordinance developed by the Planning, Engineering & Permitting Department. I voted yes, along with five of my colleagues. My vote was not a vote for a specific data center project. It was a vote to establish regulations on data centers where none currently exist.
Here’s what this vote was not. One of the biggest misconceptions I’ve heard is that this vote approved the proposed Oxmoor Valley data center project. It did not. That project submitted applications before the Council enacted its moratorium. The ordinance before us created a citywide regulatory framework. It did not approve or deny any specific project.
Why did I vote yes? Much of the public discussion focused on the consequences of passing the ordinance. That is an important conversation. But Council also had to consider the alternative:
What happens if we passed nothing? Based on information presented to the Council — and this is the important part — existing data centers with valid permits may be able to expand under current regulations. Without additional rules in place, those expansions could occur with less oversight than many residents would prefer.
Several residents asked why the Council did not simply amend the ordinance to add additional protections. Under the required legal process, substantive amendments would have required the ordinance to be re-advertised and a new public hearing held, delaying consideration by approximately four weeks.
My concern was that during that delay, existing permitted data centers could request expansions under the current regulatory framework without the additional oversight and standards set forth in the ordinance before us.
In my view, having a regulatory framework in place — even one that can be improved — was better than leaving those gaps unaddressed. Simply put, some regulation was better than no regulation.
Is the ordinance perfect? No. In fact, one of the most consistent messages we heard from residents was that the ordinance should go further. I agree there is more work to do. The ordinance is a starting point, not an ending point.
Among the issues residents have raised:
- Stronger noise standards and enforcement, especially with low/inaudible frequencies
- Greater setbacks from neighborhoods
- Public hearing opportunities
- Ongoing environmental monitoring and compliance reviews
These are important concerns and should continue to be part of future discussions.
What comes next? The public hearing demonstrated something important: Birmingham residents care deeply about how our city grows. The emails, phone calls, public comments, and community conversations should continue to shape future revisions.
This vote was not a declaration that the work is finished. It was a recognition that the absence of regulation was not the better option.
Thank you to everyone who took the time to engage in this process. Even when we disagree, thoughtful civic engagement makes Birmingham stronger.
Councilor Josh Vasa represents District 3 on the Birmingham City Council. He was sworn into office last fall and now serves as Co-Chair of the Council’s Planning and Zoning Committee. Councilor Vasa has worked with numerous nonprofits and played a foundational role in Birmingham’s civic and cultural landscape.
