Jefferson Forum Testimony to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors: “Loudoun must keep its word”

Key Takeaways:

• Government credibility is the central issue. Loudoun County explicitly grandfathered a limited number of data center projects after changing its zoning rules. Revoking that protection now would mean changing the terms after companies relied on the County’s commitment and invested millions of dollars.
• Future restrictions should apply prospectively, not retroactively. Loudoun can legitimately debate tougher standards for future data centers involving noise, setbacks, water, energy use and land use. But businesses that complied with the rules in effect when they invested should not be subjected to a new approval process after the fact.
• Breaking the commitment could damage Loudoun far beyond data centers. The broader risk is to the County’s reputation as a predictable place to invest. Data centers have delivered substantial tax revenue with comparatively limited demands on schools and other services, but the larger economic-development principle is that businesses must be able to trust government commitments.

Key Quote:

“Economic development requires more than low taxes and good infrastructure. It requires trust. If Loudoun wants businesses to invest billions of dollars here, create jobs here and put down roots here, then Loudoun must demonstrate that its promises mean something.”

9/2/2026 – Loudoun County avoided breaking its word last night, but only for now. The Board of Supervisors declined to immediately revoke grandfathering protections it passed last year for data center projects already moving through the development process – protecting them from the new demands and restrictions the Board had just placed on the data center industry. As the crusade against data centers has intensified, several Board members were seeking to revoke the grandfathering resolution in hopes of killing the seventeen grandfathered data centers already approved and in the development process.

Instead of voting to keep their word to an industry that has spent millions based on their “by-right approval” to move forward, the Board deferred action by seeking additional legal analysis. That decision was clearly a political compromise designed to give Supervisor’s cover for their newfound desire to slow the growth, if not reduce the number, of data centers in the county.

These data center companies did not ask for special treatment after the fact. They followed the rules Loudoun established, invested substantial sums based on those rules, and relied on a grandfathering resolution adopted by the County itself. To reverse that decision now would be more than a change in land-use policy. It would be a breach of trust by the government that made the commitment in the first place.

The anti-data-center movement is entitled to argue for stricter rules on future development. What it should not be entitled to do is persuade government to move the goalposts after businesses have already acted in good faith. If Loudoun County decides that its promises can be discarded whenever political sentiment shifts, the damage will extend far beyond the data center industry. Every employer, developer and investor considering Loudoun will have reason to ask whether today’s approval, agreement or assurance will still mean anything tomorrow.

Data centers have generated enormous economic benefits for Loudoun and helped build the tax base that supports county services. But even if they had not, the principle would be the same: government should keep its word. That was the central message I delivered to the Board last night.

My testimony follows:

Derrick Max is Vice President of Policy at the Jefferson Forum and may be reached at dmax@jeffersonforum.org