Activists Kill Proposed Data Center Project
Left 33%
Center 0%
Right 67%
1 left · 0 center · 2 right
What happened
A proposed $5 billion data center complex at the former Landover Mall site in Prince George’s County, Maryland, has been put on hold after a local activist campaign prompted the county council to enact temporary moratoriums on new data centers. The campaign was led by resident Taylor Frazier McCollum, who launched a petition that gathered more than 25,000 signatures and argued the project would bring diesel generators, water risks, and industrial-scale facilities into a largely residential, majority‑Black community that already hosts FedEx Field. County officials have warned that blocking the project has implications for Prince George’s County’s weak economy, including a budget deficit reported at more than $130 million, recent business closures, and concerns over declining tax revenue and jobs. The dispute is part of a wider backlash, with roughly 40 communities reportedly voting in early November to restrict or ban data centers and New York State imposing a one‑year moratorium that halted a separate $2 billion project in Tonawanda. The Landover story was first reported on November 10 by WAMU, based on on‑record interviews with McCollum and County Council Member Wanika Fisher, and that outlet was credited as the origin of the story by the Daily Caller, which later covered the same sources on the record.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 3 articles
1 of 1 article cites a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to WAMU. Most articles credit WAMU rather than reporting it themselves.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 1
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Taylor Frazier McCollum, Council Member Wanika Fisher and Lacy McCollum Jr.
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 1
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 1 of 1
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: WAMU
- Unnamed sources 0 of 1
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Nov 10, 21:18 UTC by Daily Caller, crediting WAMU, naming its source.
- Not counted 2
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The biggest gap is that left-leaning coverage talks about counties needing revenue but never tells readers how much money or how many jobs the Landover project might bring, while right-leaning coverage gives the project’s $5 billion scale and the county’s $130 million deficit but offers no hard numbers for local health or environmental risks. A reader on one side hears only that rejecting a data center kills a vague “lifeline,” while a reader on the other hears big budget figures and activist quotes about “water-polluting, diesel-generating data centers” without any independent assessment of whether those harms are likely or how they would be regulated.
A secondary pattern is emphasis: left-leaning coverage collapses the story into a generic warning that “data centers [are] losing everywhere, just like crazy far left wants,” while right-leaning outlets spend their space detailing McCollum’s petition, 25,000 signatures, her eviction story, and her organizing with a Marxist-Leninist group. One side reduces the opposition to a label, the other personalizes it and foregrounds ideology.
None of the coverage answers a basic question: what do credible environmental and economic impact studies say about this specific Landover site compared with the available alternatives for the property and for the county’s budget.
Bottom line
Across these pieces, readers are asked to pick sides on a $5 billion data center in a county with a $130 million deficit without ever seeing basic, independent numbers on either the promised tax revenue and jobs or the likely pollution and health impacts at the Landover site.
The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The proposed Landover project is valued at $5 billion, a scale that would significantly affect Prince George’s County’s tax base.
- Prince George’s County is reported as facing a budget deficit of more than $130 million, alongside recent business closures and planned departures of major employers.
- McCollum has publicly collaborated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, described as a Marxist-Leninist organization with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
- A separate $2 billion data center proposed for a former coke plant site in Tonawanda, New York, was halted by a one-year state moratorium and a local moratorium vote.
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage frames the Landover dispute primarily as a cautionary tale about communities turning away critical economic opportunities. The Hill argues that counties need large tax‑generating projects such as data centers if they want to fund public services and infrastructure, and that saying no to this kind of investment is effectively "killing your lifeline," especially in places with few alternative revenue sources. Activists resisting the project are described as the "crazy far left," with the emphasis on how broad anti‑data‑center sentiment is making it "harder" to site facilities across the country. The focus stays on the fiscal tradeoff: left‑leaning commentary stresses that residents cannot simultaneously demand robust public spending and oppose major revenue‑producing development, but it provides little detail about specific environmental or siting concerns raised by local opponents.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets focus closely on McCollum, portraying her as an emblem of what they call ideologically driven and economically harmful activism. The Daily Caller recounts how her petition and protests stalled the $5 billion Landover project and helped trigger county moratoriums, while also highlighting her quotes about "water-polluting, diesel-generating data centers" and her call for a nationwide precedent to ban such facilities. These outlets stress the county’s fiscal distress, citing the more than $130 million budget deficit, recent closures such as Six Flags, planned departures of major employers, and the missed chance to redevelop an abandoned mall. National Review criticizes what it calls the "logic‑less crusade" against the project, contrasts McCollum’s demands for public spending on her grandfather’s home with efforts to block new tax revenue, and underscores her collaboration with the Marxist‑Leninist Party for Socialism and Liberation, which it notes has ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Right-leaning coverage also broadens the story into a national pattern, citing dozens of local restrictions on data centers and another blocked $2 billion project in New York.
Our Take (balanced)
The argument highlighted by left-leaning commentary is that distressed counties like Prince George’s have limited ways to stabilize budgets and fund services, and that very large, long‑term investments such as a $5 billion data center campus on an abandoned mall site can be a rare chance to build the tax base and jobs without displacing existing homes or businesses. The strongest case in the right-leaning pieces is that the Landover opposition is being driven less by specific, quantified environmental risks and more by a broader ideological movement against data centers, AI, and capitalism, and that this movement is willing to accept ongoing local underinvestment while still demanding more government support.
The central unresolved tension is whether projects like the Landover data center represent exploitative infrastructure imposed on already burdened communities, as activists contend, or lifeline redevelopment that fiscally struggling places can scarcely afford to lose, as critics of the opposition insist. Underneath that is a factual gap neither side resolves: the actual, site‑specific balance of environmental and health impacts versus concrete tax and job benefits for residents.
3 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.