Project Blue: Why I Voted No and What This Moment Means for Our Community

I approached this decision with a deep understanding of its significance for our community. For me, it was essential to turn over every stone and give equal weight to what saying yes would mean and what saying no would mean. Both paths carried potential risks and rewards, and I wanted to be confident that I had evaluated each at the level a decision of this magnitude requires. That meant asking hard questions, digging into the details, and sharing what I learned, even when it was not popular to do so. Some of the risks I raised were not well received, but I believe that as a council member, my responsibility is to be transparent and ensure the community has access to the same information I have. That is how we navigate big decisions together.

I voted no because after months of research, countless phone calls to Ward 4 community members, three community meetings, and opportunities to engage, it was clear that large-scale data centers, even those presented as a more sustainable alternative, are not the type of development Ward 4 residents want in their backyard. From the beginning, the project suffered from a lack of transparency, which eroded trust and made it difficult to recover.

Beneath the surface, there was a strong sentiment of distrust. Distrust in the project itself, distrust in government, distrust in corporations, and distrust specifically in tech companies. People shared real fears about artificial intelligence, how rapidly things are evolving, and the impact these changes are having on our society. There is a growing sense that control is slipping away from everyday people, and this vote felt like one of those rare moments where the community could take some of that power back.

I know many are happy with this decision. There are also supporters of the project who are disappointed and are concerned about the very real possibility that Project Blue could still be built outside city limits, with the City receiving none of the potential benefits. 

I want to acknowledge those who are disappointed in my vote. 

I cannot turn my back on what the community is saying, and it is not their fault they feel this way. A project of this scale, requiring this much trust, should have had deep engagement with the community from the start. That did not happen. By the time the community and my council colleagues had the details, land had already been sold, Pima County approved the rezoning to allow a data center development, things were already in motion, and trust had already been broken.

The idea of bringing a water-intensive, energy-intensive industry into this environment, even with the proposed “water positivity” and other sustainability measures that have not yet been proven to Tucsonans, created a strong sense of concern. In a community that values sustainability and understands the limits of our natural resources, those concerns carry weight. When you combine these environmental realities with today’s climate of distrust in government and big tech, and add fears about artificial intelligence and its rapid impact on society, it becomes too much, too fast for the community to accept. This reinforces why trust, time, and transparency are essential in decisions of this scale.

We must also recognize the bigger picture. Both the Biden and Trump administrations have publicly framed AI infrastructure as a strategic national priority. If that is true, we need a coordinated national strategy for where and how this infrastructure is built, with sustainability at its core. The demand for computing power is growing so quickly that by 2045 it could match the total base power the planet generates today if things don’t change. Doubling Earth’s power grid to meet that demand is not sustainable.

The only place this infrastructure can truly exist at scale without causing environmental harm is in space, and that work is already happening. Private companies are developing orbital data centers, and the University of Arizona has funded a project called “Making Space for Off-Earth Scalable Cloud Computing & Data Infrastructure,” which explores this exact idea. In space, solar energy is constant and uninterrupted, there are no weather disruptions, and the cold of deep space can dissipate waste heat without using Earth’s freshwater. We need federal investment in research and development to accelerate this path because communities across the country are at a breaking point and saying no to hosting this infrastructure.

In making this decision, I spoke with Ward 4 residents from across the political spectrum, as well as with residents from across the entire city. While the reasons for opposing this project varied, what stood out was how united the community was in its opposition. At a time when our world, and especially our politics, often feels deeply divided, seeing our community come together around a shared concern was both powerful and inspiring. It showed what is possible when people set aside differences to work toward a common goal. Let’s look for more opportunities to do that, put aside our differences, and work together to improve our community and make Tucson an even better place for all of us to live.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to attend meetings, send emails, sign petitions, and share your thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree with my vote, my commitment is to always stand with our community and work hard to be a leader you can trust to act with integrity, transparency, and accountability.