Trenton voters approved Issue 17 with 3,541 votes in favor, or 79.68%, and 903 against, or 20.32%, according to the Butler County Board of Elections’ unofficial results. All eight precincts were reporting in the county’s Nov. 3, 11:39 p.m. update.
The charter amendment prohibits construction of data centers with an aggregate monthly demand or peak load greater than 25 megawatts. The limit covers facilities on one parcel or connected and aggregated parcels, according to the ballot language published by WVXU.
Residents put the restriction on the ballot
Woodsdale and Trenton Environmental Resistance, known as WATER, organized the petition effort. The Ohio Supreme Court required the city to put the proposal before voters following a legal dispute, WVXU reported in its pre-election explanation.
Supporters argued the restriction would protect residents from development’s environmental and utility costs. Opponents argued it would reduce business opportunities. Passage settles the ballot question, but does not by itself resolve every dispute over existing development.
Prologis project remains disputed
A 250-megawatt facility is already being developed in Trenton’s industrial park. A separate proposal envisioned a 1,000-megawatt Amazon facility on about 600 acres the city had sought to annex, WVXU reported after the vote. The amendment bars that larger development within the city under the new limit; it does not govern land outside Trenton’s jurisdiction.
Prologis told WCPO on Nov. 4 that the result would not affect its project. The developer said it intended to continue and cited anticipated jobs, tax revenue and support for public services.
Attorney Nick Owens, a Conserve Ohio co-founder who supported the restriction, disputed that position. He told WCPO the work completed so far might not establish a legal entitlement to finish the project at its proposed size.
The disagreement concerns vested rights: whether an existing development can proceed under earlier rules despite a later restriction. WCPO reported that the issue remained unsettled for this project and that the city had not responded to its request for comment by publication. The vote has therefore left the existing project’s legal position disputed, even as it establishes a clear limit for new development.
