Editorial: Data centers, rural development, & property rights: what to know before voting

Last week, the Chatham Superior Court ruled in favor of a Lee County data center development in a rural Moncure neighborhood only 6.8 miles from PointOne’s proposed data center business park.

The article, “Lee County Company, ECO TIP West wins Chatham County data center moratorium lawsuit,” explains the developer won largely because the data center was allowed “by right” and had already invested $11.3 million into the project. Read it here.

Chatham Superior Court lacks authority to set binding precedents for other data center lawsuits in North Carolina. As a trial court, its rulings apply only to the parties in that case.

Local government, planning boards and their attorneys probably know that other superior courts, district courts, or state agencies in North Carolina are not bound by the Chatham ruling.

Only the NC Court of Appeals or Supreme Court can establish a binding precedent from the Chatham County case.

Lee County Commissioners abandoned their vote for the proposed data center business park, instead placing the vote for an administrative decision on their planning board— because they can. The 428-acre tract on Lower Moncure Road has existing zoning for Light Industrial. The Lee County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) allows data centers “by right” within Light Industrial zones. When faced with a data center proposal, Lee County did not opt for a quasi-judicial hearing, which would have allowed testimonies from experts from both parties. Lee County chose “data center” under allowed uses by right.

It seems futile to argue against the Lee County proposed data center now, but there will be other proposals, perhaps more than ever before, because pushers have influenced legislation.

How can citizens prevent changes in geography?

Serve on economic development committees. Attend planning board meetings.

Concerning data centers, promote stronger UDOs, as referenced in Community Strategies to Address Data Center Development and Operation.

Demand a quasi-judicial hearing for development in rural areas.

Speak against annexations when they are not contiguous.

Before voting in the general election this Nov., question candidates and record their answers. North Carolina is a one-party consent state for recording conversations. Ask their stance on protecting personal property rights, how they define the peace and enjoyment of their land, and if they believe in protecting residents in rural areas where Democrat North Carolina Governor Josh Stein has pushed for light industrial projects.

Local development decisions are chiefly directed by policies established in the state capital and signed into law by the governor.

During Stein’s 2024 gubernatorial campaign, Stein began outlining and pushing policies to reward company relocation and industrial growth in rural areas.

In 2025, Stein pushed over $12.5 billion in infrastructure grants into rural areas in partnership with the Department of Commerce and the Rural Infrastructure Authority.

Dem. Gov. Stein has consistently said his push for industry in rural areas was to help create jobs. But he has offered no explanation for why industry needs to be in rural areas.

The Brookings Institution knows that developers’ lobbyists push for industrial projects in rural areas because land is cheaper in the country and there are fewer regulations.

In May 2026, Stein and the Department of Commerce launched the official “First in Opportunity” Strategic Economic Development Plan. This four-year plan focuses on preparing industrial sites, building the workforce, and promoting fair economic growth in all 78 rural counties.

In August 2026, Stein announced over $1 billion in state investments to enhance infrastructure and renovations for rural manufacturing growth.

Whether a specific municipality or county receives any of Gov. Stein’s grant funds seems irrelevant because the local economic development organizations that influence all local governments on development decisions are influenced by state government. They’ve read the “light industry into rural zones” memos and will push for development.

Now, North Carolina ranks number one in the nation for the rate of farmland loss due to low-density residential development, according to the NC Agricultural Extension.

Once developers eliminate rural areas, geography changes for decades.

Do people really want to live on smaller lots?

Council members and county commissioners have argued that lots are smaller because that is what people want in 2026. Developers want smaller lots because they can sell more housing units.

NC REALTORS shows buyers are forced to balance their new home search between lot size and budget. People buy what they can afford. Small lots are more affordable. But there are buyers who want a rural life, and those who have invested their life savings into a home in the country only to see the peace and enjoyment of their property trashed by light industry moving in next door.

What do citizens need to know about how development decisions are made?

The UNC School of Government offers guidelines and some case examples of citizens opposing development.

In 2021, the General Assembly enacted NC General Statute 160D-703. Local governments are prohibited from rejecting a project based on a “neighborhood harmony standard” if the project is designated for affordable housing and permits multifamily use.

In North Carolina land-use law, developers may threaten or initiate litigation when their projects are rejected. However, established legal cases demonstrate that municipalities and counties have defended against developer lawsuits when denying projects on the grounds of preserving neighborhood harmony, peace, and communal enjoyment.

Developers often lose these lawsuits because the local authorities have rigidly followed the legal parameters that regulate their decisions. Review the landmark cases and legal doctrines from North Carolina that set this precedent.

In matters of rezoning proposals, city councils or county commissioners use discretion under the “reasonably debatable” standard. Because courts employ the “Reasonably Debatable” standard, developers rarely achieve victory in lawsuits challenging rezoning denials. The court will not reverse a decision if the local government can present a rational basis related to public health, safety, or the common welfare of the neighborhood.

In Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, the developer sued after the town refused rezoning for denser multi-family housing. The North Carolina Court of Appeals sided with the town, affirming that safeguarding a quiet, low-density residential area is a valid government interest. The developer’s lawsuit failed as the town’s wish to preserve neighborhood peace was “reasonably debatable.” Unlike rezoning, a Special Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit is decided quasi-judicially, like a court case. Designating a use as a “special use” in a zoning district creates a legal presumption of harmony.

Some municipalities and counties do not like quasi-judicial hearings because they require so much time and ultimately force elected officials to publicly discuss issues, revealing their stance on issues, such as who they support.

Replacing local elected boards with a professional business team under contract would enable the replacement of officials when they broke contract agreements. Contract agreements may include abiding by land use regulations and ensuring they sync with the UDO to maintain zones and control growth. Read Editorial: North Carolina proposal would replace political management with professional local government.

In a different case that set a precedent, a county denied a special use permit for a 1,130-foot radio tower in a residential-agricultural zone in Davidson County Broadcasting Co. v. Iredell County. The developer sued, arguing the county lacked legal grounds to block it. The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the county’s denial because the neighbors presented more than mere complaints.

Citizens provided solid evidence: photos, height diagrams showing large visual differences, and testimony about aesthetic, lighting, and construction disruptions. The court found this sufficient to negate the presumption of harmony. The “Lay Witness” Exception for Aesthetic and Harmony Evidence is sued by developers who label neighborhood objections as “speculative” or “generalized opinions,” which are inadmissible in quasi-judicial hearings. This NC precedent established a key exception to protect neighborhood peace and harmony.

When municipal and county elected officials argue that neighborhood objections are speculative or generalized opinions and support “by right” development in rural areas, question who is being protected.

How can citizens protect rural agriculture?

Inform agricultural landowners about the conservation easement program that pays farmers who retain their land in active farming. The single payment equals the variance between the fair market value of a farm and its present use value as farmland.

If the fair-market value of a property stood at $1 million and its farm value at $600,000, the resulting payment would be $400,000.

The state or county does not buy the land, but stays in private ownership under the conservation easement, even if sold or inherited.

Many counties offer programs to help agricultural landowners keep their land.

Decisions made by individuals to sell or conserve land, voters and elected officials determine how rural communities develop in the years ahead.

Interview the truth out of those candidates before voting.

Sept. 20, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

Subscribe to Sandhills News and support this conservative journalism with advertising.

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.