No More Data Centers in St. Louis

Recent signers:
WENDY SARNO and 19 others have signed recently.

The Issue

St. Louis is considering a $600 million data center at and around the Armory. 

Massive AI data centers are popping up throughout the country, devastating the local communities they're built in. They cause resident's electric bills to skyrocket, deplete the drinking water supply, emit air pollution, create noise pollution, strain power grids, and after construction they create very few jobs in return.

St. Louis has a legacy of rewarding polluting corporations with huge tax breaks in the name of 'development.'  We don't want to trade our clean water and air or pay higher electric bills to help tech companies get rich off of St. Louis.

Sign this petition to demand a year long moratorium on data centers in St. Louis. We believe a year long investigation of the impact of data centers on St. Louis would prove how harmful it would be to the region and help win enough support from the St. Louis Aldermen to pass a permanent ban.

We don't want partial regulations that only mitigate harm. We want 'No More Data Centers in St. Louis!' 

avatar of the starter
Eco-Socialist Green Party of Eastern MissouriPetition Starter
Media inquiries

13,503

Recent signers:
WENDY SARNO and 19 others have signed recently.

The Issue

St. Louis is considering a $600 million data center at and around the Armory. 

Massive AI data centers are popping up throughout the country, devastating the local communities they're built in. They cause resident's electric bills to skyrocket, deplete the drinking water supply, emit air pollution, create noise pollution, strain power grids, and after construction they create very few jobs in return.

St. Louis has a legacy of rewarding polluting corporations with huge tax breaks in the name of 'development.'  We don't want to trade our clean water and air or pay higher electric bills to help tech companies get rich off of St. Louis.

Sign this petition to demand a year long moratorium on data centers in St. Louis. We believe a year long investigation of the impact of data centers on St. Louis would prove how harmful it would be to the region and help win enough support from the St. Louis Aldermen to pass a permanent ban.

We don't want partial regulations that only mitigate harm. We want 'No More Data Centers in St. Louis!' 

avatar of the starter
Eco-Socialist Green Party of Eastern MissouriPetition Starter
Media inquiries

The Decision Makers

St. Louis City Council
7 Members
2 Responded
Thomas Oldenburg
Thomas Oldenburg
St. Louis City Council - Ward 2
“Thanks for the note. I hear you.”
Anne Schweitzer
Anne Schweitzer
St. Louis City Council - Ward 1
“Thank you for taking the time to reach out with these concerns. I share concerns around the environmental impacts, the strain on utility infrastructure, and the effect on local communities. That is why I supported Executive Order 92, and why I introduced Resolution 111 (below) which mirrors and supports that Executive Order. The Order and Resolution direct city departments to develop comprehensive regulations within the next 5 months, while also making sure any data center that is being considered in our city goes through the conditional use process. With that process and the information required by the Executive Order, a lot more information will be known about each proposal before a decision is made about each potential permit. It's important that the public has many opportunities to weigh in as regulations are considered. That's why the Board of Aldermen's Public Infrastructure and Utilities committee will hold a hearing this Wednesday, October 1st at 3:30pm in the Kennedy Hearing room located on the 2nd floor of City Hall. While the hearing is on Resolution 111, we invite individuals to attend and provide testimony relating to their concerns and thoughts around data centers in general. For those unable to attend, you can submit written testimony to boameetings@stlouis-mo.gov. Resolution 111: RESOLUTION NUMBER 111 AFFIRMING SUPPORT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 92 DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CLEAR REGULATIONS ON DATA CENTERS WHEREAS, data centers are specialized facilities that house the computing and networking systems needed to run applications and to store, process, and manage large amounts of data; and WHEREAS, the demand to develop new data centers has been rapidly increasing amidst the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom and has become increasingly more common nationwide and in the St. Louis region, and concerns have arisen around their environmental, economic, and community impacts; and WHEREAS, large-scale data centers can require tremendous amounts of water and energy to sustain, straining local utilities and potentially impacting residents’ utility bills; creating noise and heat pollution, and other nuisances that negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, regulations of data centers should include acceptable zoning districts, restrictions on distance from residential or other sensitive uses such as schools or transit stations, compatibility with surrounding uses, noise limitations, screening of cooling equipment, disclosure on anticipated energy and water use, plans for job creation, and community outreach requirements; and WHEREAS, on September 10th, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Aldermen to enact a moratorium on new data centers in the City of St. Louis, but subsequent discussions with a variety of stakeholders have illuminated the path of using the current Conditional Use process to both allow permit applications to continue while providing more adequate screening of data centers until zoning regulations can be established; and WHEREAS, Executive Order 92 has clearly outlined the information to be collected during the Conditional Use process, to further inform the establishment of data center regulations; and WHEREAS, it is crucial that the City establish a thoughtful and comprehensive framework regulating data centers in partnership with the Planning and Urban Design Agency, Zoning Section of the Building Division, other Building Division offices, Water Division, and Board of Public Service. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the City of St. Louis that we pause in our deliberations to affirm our support for Executive Order 92, and join Mayor Spencer in directing the creation of a thoughtful and comprehensive framework regulating data centers in the City of St. Louis, including at a minimum, the following: a. Acceptable zoning districts; b. Minimum separation requirements from residential areas, sensitive uses such as schools, parks, greenways, and transit stations; c. Building scale, height, orientation of primary faces, and compatibility with surrounding uses; d. Noise limitations and specific plans for noise mitigation; e. Screening and location of external cooling equipment, generators, substations, and loading docks; f. Disclosure of anticipated energy use, water use, infrastructure capacity, job creation, and energy sources; g. Disclosure of petitioner, owner, and parties associated with data centers; h. Levels of renewable energy use and the effects of data centers on electricity ratepayers; i. Building Energy Performance Standards; j. Public outreach and community engagement requirements before, during, and after development; and k. Other conditions, including but are not limited to those listed in Section 5C of Executive Order 92, as outlined below. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen our support for the expansion and clarification of the Conditional Use process to apply appropriate scrutiny to applications for new and expanded data center uses as the City of St. Louis promulgates thoughtful and comprehensive zoning regulations, to include at a minimum, the following as outlined in Section 5C of Executive Order 92, which would apply to data centers being considered in any zoning district which they could be conditionally permitted: a. Site and Context Information. i. Distance from residential zoned properties, both existing and in development. ii. Distance from all nearby schools, parks, greenways, and transit stations. iii. Distance from other existing facilities. iv. Whether and how the proposed facility building’s facade, height, massing, and orientation will be designed to be compatible with the context of adjacent properties and the surrounding area. v. Whether and how any large mechanical equipment located on the proposed facility’s property or roof will be screened from public view, and how noise will be mitigated. vi. The risk of natural disasters such as flooding, seismic events, or tornadoes at the proposed location, and what mitigation measures are included in the proposed facility design for those disasters. vii. Square footage of the proposed facility. b. Infrastructure and Utility Impact Information. i. How much power will be required to operate the proposed facility. ii. The proposed facility’s proposed sources of energy, and whether the facility plans provide its own energy through any renewable sources. iii. How the existing local utility grid will be able support the demand for power the proposed facility will create. iv. Whether the proposed facility has a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) rating. v. Whether new substations or transmission lines will be needed to support the proposed facility, and where needed infrastructure would be located. vi. The proposed facility’s plans for backup power systems in place (e.g. generators), and plans for regular testing to ensure reliability. vii. How the proposed facility’s HVAC systems will be configured. viii. The proposed facility’s plans for cooling aisle containment. ix. How the proposed facility’s adequate ventilation will be ensured. x. Network providers anticipated to be associated with the proposed facility. xi. The proposed facility’s security and redundancy plans for fiber connectivity. xii. How much water the proposed facility is anticipated to use daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. c. Community and Economic Impact Information. i. How many temporary construction jobs and permanent operational jobs the proposed facility expects to create. ii. How many of the jobs the proposed facility expects to create will be filled by local workers. iii. How much tax revenue the community is anticipated to receive from and as a result of the proposed facility. iv. In the event that tax benefits have been offered to the proposed facility, the net benefit of such tax incentives to the community. v. Any community benefits offered by the proposed facility or its operators. vi. Whether the proposed facility is anticipated to bring any expansion of broadband and utility services to the surrounding community. vii. Public outreach and community engagement that has occurred for the proposed facility so far, and any plans for public outreach and community engagement during and after proposed facility development. d. Safety and Security Information. i. Measures that will be in place to protect the proposed facility from physical intrusion, such as fencing, surveillance, and access controls. ii. Fire detection and suppression systems that will be installed at the proposed facility. iii. Measures that will be used to protect the proposed facility’s network from cyberattacks.iv. The proposed facility’s planned protocols for cybersecurity vulnerability assessments and incident response. v. The proposed facility’s plan for staff training on the above items and plans for mitigation of staff exposure to heat, electrical hazards, and chemical exposure within the proposed facility. e. Anticipated Consumer Impact Information. i. Anticipated effects of the proposed facility upon water and energy bills of City ratepayers. f. General Information. i. Whether any proposed facility or project details are subject to non-disclosure agreements such that they could not be fully disclosed as part of a permit process and, if so, the general nature of details that are unable to be disclosed for this reason. ii. The petitioner, beneficial owner, and companies associated with the proposed facility.iii. The purpose(s) for which the proposed facility is intended to be used, such as data storage, backup, and recovery; cloud computing; artificial intelligence; cryptocurrency mining; e-commerce; business applications; or other purposes. g. Environmental Impact Information. i. Water Quality Information. 1. How the proposed facility will mitigate any pollution or other negative impact to water quality and availability for nearby residents. ii. Air Quality Information. 1. Whether any backup generators for the proposed facility are operated using diesel or natural gas. 2. The proposed facility’s plans to limit emission of pollutants from backup generators during testing and power outages. 3. The proposed facility’s plans to mitigate particulate matter and emissions from any backup generators. iii. Waste Management Information. 1. The proposed facility’s plan for handling and disposing of electronic waste associated with the proposed facility, such as old servers and hardware. iv. Noise Information. 1. The expected noise level to be generated by the proposed facility’s cooling systems and generators. 2. The proposed facility’s planned sound attenuation and noise mitigation measures to limit the emission of noise and prevent disturbances to nearby residents. v. Lighting Information. 1. Whether the proposed facility will be illuminated all night, such as for security reasons. Introduced this 19th day of September, 2025 by: The Honorable Anne Schweitzer, Alderwoman 1st Ward Adopted this 19th day of September, 2025 as attested by: Terry Kennedy Megan Green Clerk, Board of Aldermen President, Board of Aldermen”
Daniela Velazquez
Daniela Velazquez
St. Louis City Council - Ward 6
Former St. Louis City Alderperson
2 Members
Rasheen Aldridge
Rasheen Aldridge
Former St. Louis City Alderperson
Alisha Sonnier
Alisha Sonnier
Former St. Louis City Alderperson
Cara Spencer
Cara Spencer
St. Louis City Mayor
Megan Green
Megan Green
St Louis City President of Board of Alderman
Jami Cox Antwi
Jami Cox Antwi
St. Louis City Alderman

Supporter Voices

Petition updates
Share this petition
Petition created on September 23, 2025