On Tuesday, the Memphis City Council joined other communities across the state and the nation in passing, on the first of three readings, a moratorium on data centers. Predictably, grassroots organizations that protested the SpaceX facility in Southwest Memphis cheered, and the business community fretted about the possibility of lost investment from tech companies whose projects won’t wait for the moratorium to expire.

Virtually everyone agrees that data centers are a necessary evil in today’s data-driven world, and the need is only expected to increase as AI becomes even more pervasive. A moratorium, if leveraged appropriately, has the potential to address some of the most significant concerns of proponents and opponents of data centers.

Here are 5 steps city leaders should take to legitimize the moratorium:

1.      Move swiftly, but thoroughly

The Council ordinance is surprisingly thorough in the listing of the issues the proposed study committee should address and flexible enough to allow for additional inquiries. The term of the moratorium is the earlier of 12 months or the “Adoption of comprehensive zoning regulations governing Data Centers and High-Density Computing Facilities by the Memphis City Council.” It should be the latter.

The longer the process takes, the more suspicious supporters of data centers become that opponents are “slow walking” the regulations to discourage more data center investment. For companies considering projects in the area, they need to know that the moratorium is a truly short-term pause, not a backhanded rejection. Mayor Young and the Office of Planning and Development should prioritize the committee’s work and operate from a timeline that substantially shortens the adopted time.

2.      Provide a seat at the table for the Chamber and the local opposition

The ordinance does not prescribe the size or composition of the committee. Grassroots opponents and the Greater Memphis Chamber have a lot at stake. As a matter of fairness, respect, and in an effort to establish a “peace” of sorts on the issue, both should have a single seat at the table.

3.      Rely on national experts unaffiliated with either side

 Clearly, local and regional entities like MLGW must be represented, but Memphis is not at the forefront of data center development and regulation. Academics and municipalities around the country have plowed this ground. In the 2000s, Loudon County, Virginia, passed the first zoning regulations for data centers, which have evolved over the last 25 years. There are lessons to be learned from Loudon County. Colorado Springs is considered by many to be an emerging model worthy of review. The point is to set aside the agendas of local institutions and craft something that is balanced and based on best practices.

 4.      Place limits on some types of public input

This is a red flag for some of you, but hear me out. Doing the work quickly is not possible if the next 6, 8, or 10 months become an ongoing protest. Critical time is used up on speeches and disruptions that could be used to assess the value and viability of certain policies and rules for regulating the centers.

On the other hand, the voices of the public, especially those directly affected by data centers in their communities or who benefit from them, should be heard. If there is no serious public input, then essential information is missed, and the process is delegitimized because it is not trusted.

One approach would be to open the committee with an initial public hearing, allowing anyone who wants to speak an opportunity. Then commit to closing the committee work with a similar public hearing to receive comments on the final product to be presented to the City Council. In between the beginning and the end, receive comments from the public via a data moratorium portal where upcoming agendas and relevant documents are published. Submitted comments would be made available to committee members and to the media and the public. All meetings would be open to the public, but comments during the meeting would be limited.

5.      Keep Council members away from the process

Council members, if the ordinance passes on three readings, will have established the moratorium and set the parameters. From that point, they should monitor but stay out of the process. The process needs to be as apolitical as possible to secure public confidence. However, the presence of council members can also stifle communication by committee participants whose organizations may be regulated by or receive funding from the Council. The process must be free-flowing and honest to achieve the best possible result.