Back on May 20, 2025, the Board of Commissioners approved the rezoning for the White Oak Technology Park, a massive, proposed data center complex off Morris Callaway Road in Appling. Since then, many residents have pushed back, worried about environmental impacts and rapid growth in Harlem/Appling areas.
While commissioners have sought to reassure residents that they won’t allow a large corporation to destroy the environment, many residents remain unconvinced. That skepticism comes from not only worries about data centers, but also how this project was brought forward. Many of the decisions seemed to be made outside of public view, which undermined public trust.
I attempted to obtain copy of the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to ensure an accurate timeline; however, they weren’t available through Open Records at the county, and the Economic Development Authority of Columbia County (EDACC) gave the copies to the company. However, through other records, we can still create an accurate timeline.
As early as July 11, 2024, emails show EDACC discussing the purchase of land for the project. Cheney Eldridge, EDACC’s executive director, told Board Chairman Rick Evans, “We have great momentum with the project and the county’s support at the moment, and I don’t want to lose that.” I followed up with Eldridge, and she confirmed that she first began discussions with commissioners in June 2024. By Dec. 18, 2024, the EDACC board emerged from a closed executive session and voted to secure funding to purchase 1,624.5 acres for “Phase III of White Oak Business Park.” Though The Augusta Press covered the meeting, unfortunately, this vote was not included in the reporting. The fact that a vote was held after the executive session and not reported at the time is troubling. (The Augusta Press first reported on the request to rezone the property on April 21, 2025.)
On Feb. 13, 2025, “Project Green Jacket” (the codename for this project) arrived in town for closed-door discussions. To avoid triggering Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, officials scheduled two separate meetings so a quorum of commissioners would not be present. Is this legal? Yes. Is it often done in this county? Probably. This approach makes sense if commissioners were under NDAs. However, secrecy in this instance did little to build trust with the constituents who will live next to these data centers for decades to come. Also, if it’s a common practice, it makes folks wonder if more lengthy discussions occur behind closed doors, while public discussions are brief. It gives one visions of shady deals in smoke-filled back rooms rather than up-front honest dealings.
When I recently asked why commissioners were asked to sign an NDA for this project, Chairman Doug Duncan responded:
“NDAs are commonplace when negotiating with developers. There are a variety of reasons, including concerns over competing developers, parent corporations’ desire to control timing of public announcements, and premature market impacts. Public disclosure of a project that is not solidified may potentially derail the deal.”
Duncan’s explanation is practical; however, for many residents, the problem was also one of timing. By the time the project was disclosed, the rezoning already felt like a done deal, and many community voices felt like this was thrust upon them without their input. Also, it’s funny how the county sometimes cites the “unique needs of our citizens” to defend departures from standard practice but then falls back on “that’s how it’s done everywhere” when it suits them.
Commissioner Alison Couch appears to have shared some of those concerns. On March 17 she wrote: “I haven’t yet toured a facility nor been presented with a clear path on how this will profoundly impact tax relief for citizens.” Twenty minutes later, she followed up: “I would like information on how to cancel my NDA on this project. It is very apparent to me that it is no longer relevant.” Those emails show that commissioners were still under NDAs less than two months before the Planning Commission vote. While Couch did not respond to a request for comment for this column, the record indicates she was asking for more information and more freedom to speak with her constituents in District 4, which would be the most directly affected by the project.
In April, county staff began preparing the rezoning application. On April 18, staff informed Couch that some information would soon be public through the Development Regional Impact (DRI). Almost as an afterthought, in late April, Eldridge recommended a public website, and by mid-May, draft language for that website was circulating among project partners, including commissioners. However, by then, it was already full steam ahead. The rezoning had already passed the Planning Commission on May 1, and on May 20, the Board of Commissioners approved the rezoning as well. Maybe the website would have been more effective if launched before the Planning Commission vote.
At the end of the Aug. 19 Board of Commissioners meeting, Duncan tried to reassure citizens directly: “We will not compromise, risk, or gamble the water table or the electric grid to pull this project off. Our vision is to generate enough revenue so that we offer a homestead exemption to eventually eliminate the property taxes folks pay… Our intent is we will achieve it, but we won’t compromise those.” This was a firm public pledge, but for many, it came too late. Confidence had already been eroded by months of secrecy, and many residents felt like their elected representatives didn’t care what they had to say, because they had already decided what to do.
This isn’t just about this project though. Personally, I’m not entirely opposed or in favor of data centers. I encourage our local environmental groups to engage actively with the commission and the developer about environmental concerns though. However, this issue is also about how Columbia County handles large projects. NDAs might be legal and common, but when they bind elected officials, they also cut off communication to the people those officials represent. At the same time, folks need to be careful not to get too paranoid every time they see an NDA on an agenda.
There are times, like at the Sept. 9 Management and Internal Services Committee Meeting, when the County proposed using an NDA with cybersecurity companies performing services on the County’s network. An NDA keeping Joe from XYZ Cyber Company spilling sensitive information about the County’s IT network over beers and wings on a Saturday night, is a good thing. I caution folks not to become so paranoid that every time they see those three letters, they freak out and blow-up social media.
However, our elected officials should reconsider how NDAs are used on projects of this scale. Developers can protect proprietary details, but the public’s representatives should never be silenced from discussing projects that will reshape the County. At a minimum, NDAs should expire well before zoning votes, giving officials time to build community buy-in.
Transparency is not a threat to economic development. It is the foundation of public trust. Without it, even the strongest promises of lower taxes and environmental safeguards will be met with skepticism. NDAs and secret meetings may protect negotiations, but when they silence the very people elected to represent us, they protect the business deal, not the public.
The next Columbia County Board of Commissioners meeting is Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025, at 6 p.m. at the Evans Government Center auditorium, located at 630 Ronald Reagan Drive. I hope to see you there.
