Midtown data center

Questioned the market claims, the 10-megawatt draw versus Walmart's use, cooling fluids, and data center job postings already listed before approval.

Said the project's messaging contradicted itself on whether it is an AI data center and accused the developer of talking in circles.

Opposed tying public goods like the library to the data center and doubted job claims given local education levels.

Described chronic flooding in his neighborhood near Capitol Drive, dangerous crossings, and said residents north of Capitol were never consulted.

Urged the commission to stick to its standards and send the plan back to the drawing board.

PSL Milwaukee member who said the community does not want the project and accused the alderman of ignoring residents.

Called the deal a bad bargain for the Black working class and vowed continued organizing.

Argued the facility is functionally a data center with industrial-level power and noise, and asked for a hold pending pending data center legislation.

Said West Side Plan public feedback never requested a data center and criticized the disrespectful engagement process.

Alderman who co-sponsored data center legislation and pressed staff on what happens if noise or permit conditions are violated.

Said the community clearly does not want the data center regardless of what it is called.

President of the Greater Milwaukee Board of Realtists who argued the graphics were misleading and the same proposal rejected in 2023 was being repackaged.

A planner living across from Midtown who questioned the DIZ deviation precedent and enforcement of conditions.

A lifelong resident and security contractor for the vacant site who supported the project as a fresh start ending blight and crime.

MPS teacher who called the siting inequitable and urged protection of water and investment in the existing library.

Asked why the site cannot be fully civic use and questioned the secrecy around the computing operator.

Longtime north side resident asking for community-centered development and a moratorium.

Sherman Park Community Association director who argued the zoning narrative deliberately avoids the term 'data center' and requested an environmental impact statement and 24-month moratorium.

Warned approval would be a 'foot in the door' for larger data centers and called the siting environmental racism.

Said residents' clear 'no' should be respected and asked the 3% data center space be replaced with a community benefit.

Criticized the open houses and lack of transparency, and called for a moratorium.

Healthy Climate Wisconsin advocate citing other Wisconsin moratoriums and pollution concerns.

Lifelong inner-city resident who said the community's 'no' must be respected.

Warned AI computing demands will outpace sustainability and cited the Foxconn/Mount Pleasant cautionary tale.

Metcalf Park Community Bridges director who warned approval would open other vulnerable communities to data centers.

Metcalf Park resident who disputed claims of engagement and criticized the last-minute addition of the data center.

IT professional who questioned security plans for the facility and the self-storage market claims.

Called in to oppose the data center and urged listening to Black and brown neighborhoods.

Healthy Climate Wisconsin health equity coordinator who demanded safeguards, transparency and a moratorium.

Milwaukee native who said the community needs to be heard and the data center would do more damage than good.

Registered to testify but could not be reached due to technical difficulties.

Testified in support of the project.

Testified in support of the project.

Testified in support of the project.

Testified in support of the project.

Testified in support of the project.

Retired public health nurse with a doctorate in environmental health who opposed the siting and requested a moratorium and full environmental review.

Testified in opposition, citing human capital and community impacts.