Two cities, two approaches to economic development

By Steve Stivers
President and CEO
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
 
As residents consider a proposed data center in Wilmington, they deserve a clear picture of what that investment could mean for their community. Two small American communities offer very different lessons about economic development.
 
Quincy, Washington, was once a rural farming town with a narrow tax base and limited economic opportunities. Then data centers arrived.
 
Lordstown, Ohio, knows the other side of economic change. For generations, manufacturing defined the community. General Motors operated its massive assembly plant there for more than 50 years before production ended in 2019, eliminating roughly 1,500 jobs.
 
Today, the two communities are taking markedly different approaches to a new generation of investment.
 
Quincy welcomed data centers and built an economy around them. Roughly 30 facilities now account for an estimated 57% of the city’s property taxes. The additional tax base has helped support a new high school, hospital, fire station, public safety facilities, sidewalks, water and wastewater infrastructure and other community improvements.
 
The benefits have reached taxpayers, too. Quincy’s property tax levy rate has fallen about 70% since 2006.
 
Quincy did not stop being an agricultural community. Farms and food processors remain important parts of its economy. Data centers simply added another industry and a powerful new source of tax revenue.
 
Quincy’s experience shows what can happen when a community makes room for new investment while maintaining clear standards. Local leaders can address concerns, establish expectations for developers and make sure the resulting investment strengthens the broader community.
 
Lordstown is considering a different path.
 
Village leaders have imposed and extended a temporary moratorium while they determine how to treat data centers under local zoning rules. Residents have raised questions about noise, electricity, water, emergency services and the effect large facilities can have on their community.
 
Those questions are real, but they already have straightforward answers. Communities have long used zoning, permitting and development agreements to establish expectations for new projects and protect local interests. Lordstown has those same tools at its disposal. The existence of concerns should lead to thoughtful rules for development, not an outright rejection of new investment.
 
Lordstown's own history should also inform its next steps. The community has already experienced the economic consequences of losing a major employer. Its residents know firsthand that when a major source of economic activity disappears, replacing those jobs and rebuilding that tax base can take years.
 
That makes the opportunity in front of Lordstown worth serious consideration. Rather than putting up barriers to a new industry, the community can establish reasonable standards, address legitimate concerns and create a framework that allows investment to move forward. It can pursue the safeguards its residents want while still competing for the jobs, tax revenue and economic activity that come with new investment.
 
Lordstown has already seen how difficult it can be to replace lost jobs and investment. Its next chapter should be about creating opportunities for new industries to fill that gap.