Data Centers and Double Standards: Is Frederick County Picking Tech Winners While Punishing Growth?

By Michael Phillips

Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater made headlines this week by touting a new “comprehensive plan amendment” aimed at tightly restricting data center development across the county. The announcement, framed as a response to citizen concerns, paints a picture of measured stewardship—limiting data centers to less than 1% of county land and concentrating them near the old Eastalco site. On the surface, it may seem like smart planning. But scratch the surface, and it starts to look more like a calculated appeal to anti-growth sentiment and a political ploy that favors one set of interests while freezing out innovation and opportunity.

Let’s break it down.

A Solution in Search of a Problem?

While Northern Virginia’s rapid growth of data centers has raised legitimate questions about energy, aesthetics, and noise, Frederick County isn’t Loudoun County. The Eastalco site is one of the most viable tech development zones in the region—a brownfield ripe for investment and industrial use. Yet Fitzwater’s new plan treats data centers as if they are toxic landfills that must be kept at bay. Limiting development to a tiny fraction of the county’s land—less than 1%—isn’t planning, it’s rationing. And rationing based on fear of “unchecked sprawl” is a dog whistle for anti-growth NIMBYism, not sound economic policy.

Tech Industry = Tax Base = Services

Data centers aren’t glamorous, but they’re vital. They anchor the digital economy and bring substantial tax revenue with minimal demand on public services like schools or policing. With property taxes from homeowners already rising and inflation driving up the cost of public operations, why would Frederick deliberately limit one of the few sectors that could stabilize local budgets?

More troubling: If tech infrastructure is choked out now, the county will be forced to either raise taxes further or cut services when the budget belt tightens. Is that really the “smart growth” Fitzwater claims to support?

Who Gets to Grow?

Let’s be honest. This is about control. Fitzwater’s proposal picks winners and losers—favoring traditional agriculture and green space over tech development and modern jobs. There’s nothing wrong with farmland preservation, but the arbitrary five-to-one acre rule (preserve five for every one developed) feels more symbolic than strategic. It’s environmental virtue signaling, not serious policy.

It also raises a fundamental question: Why are we so quick to tie the hands of tech-related industries but not residential developers, who consume far more land, demand more public services, and strain infrastructure in ways data centers do not?

Energy and Infrastructure Hypocrisy

The Eastalco area already has infrastructure that makes it ideal for this kind of development. If the concern is energy consumption, why not work with developers to require sustainability standards or co-location with clean energy sources? Instead, the county is sending a message that it will regulate innovation into submission while ignoring its own energy use in other sectors.

The Bigger Picture

Frederick County is part of a regional economy, not an island. When local leaders grandstand with restrictive policies, they don’t just prevent data centers from being built—they signal that Frederick is closed for business. That sends a chilling message to other potential investors who may be looking for consistency, reliability, and a pro-growth mindset.

In the end, Jessica Fitzwater’s plan looks less like leadership and more like political theater—a carefully packaged blend of progressive planning buzzwords, anti-tech fearmongering, and symbolic environmentalism. The residents of Frederick deserve better than regulatory red tape disguised as vision.

If we want Maryland to compete, grow, and modernize—especially outside the I-95 corridor—we need policies that encourage responsible innovation, not choke it off with one-size-fits-all restrictions.