Myth vs. fact

First: a few claims that aren’t true

Some genuine misinformation has circulated against the project. Repeating it only helps Edged, because it lets the real concerns be waved away. So set these aside:

✕ “The data center will drain Prichard’s water.” Not true, and the community’s own environmental experts have said so. The cooling is a closed glycol/water loop using about as much water as a building with a dozen people in it. MEJAC verified this first-hand on a tour of Edged’s Atlanta facility and concluded the water concerns here are largely unfounded.

✕ “They targeted Africatown because it’s Black and poor.” MEJAC analyzed the census tracts of all 7 of Edged’s U.S. facilities and found neighbors averaging about 65% White with a median income around $131,000, which is no pattern of targeting. The justice argument belongs in cumulative pollution burden, Prichard’s missing zoning, and Africatown’s history of industrial disinvestment, not in a targeting claim.

✕ “It will tank our property values.” The evidence does not support a blanket claim like this. The only formal study, from George Mason University in 2025, found that homes nearer to data centers actually sold for a little more, because data centers tend to go where infrastructure is already good. The narrow, real effect is on homes right next to a site, not on a whole community, so this point should be used carefully if at all.

“Waterless cooling: water is for drinking, not for data.”

Mostly true on the core claim. The cooling really is a closed glycol/water loop; on-site water use is minimal, and MEJAC confirmed it first-hand. Three honest caveats remain. First, the electricity to run it still consumes water upstream at the power plant. Second, the “23 million gallons saved” is measured against an evaporative-cooled data center no one is building here, so it is not water Prichard actually gets. Third, a glycol inventory sits near waterways, so a written spill-prevention plan and independent verification are reasonable asks.

“It’s a networking data center, not an AI data center.”

A transparency question, not a settled fact. Both MEJAC and NBC15 call it an AI data center. But the point that holds regardless is simple: an 8-megawatt load draws 8 megawatts, throws off 8 megawatts of heat, and needs the same backup generators whether you call it “networking” or “AI.” The label does not change the impact on the neighborhood.

“About 20 jobs paying more than $70,000 a year.”

A real promise, but nothing is signed. It is also worth knowing that 20 is the minimum number of jobs a data center needs to qualify for Alabama’s tax abatement under Act 2012-210. A resident named Mike Booker argued at the town hall that those roles are network, systems, and storage engineers, and that “there are no network engineers in Prichard.” That is his view rather than the last word, but it raises a fair point: without local training, the jobs go to people who already have them, from elsewhere, and the construction jobs are temporary. The real questions are where the promise is in writing, what share is guaranteed to Prichard residents, and what the claw-back is if Edged does not deliver.

“Low emissions, as quiet as a normal conversation.”

This is the most serious concern. The noise claim is largely true. But the site could require 15 to 25 diesel generator units plus on-site fuel storage, test-run every month, emitting NOx and fine particulate matter — likely enough to require an air permit. To be fair to the engineering, MEJAC judged the routine test-runs could emit fairly little with modern, well-controlled engines. That is the brochure case, not the worst case, and the worst case is the part missing from writing: 15 to 25 diesel units in an airshed already ringed by permitted polluters, running hardest and longest for days during the Gulf Coast hurricane outages that are a near-certainty here, near homes — with no binding cap on run-hours, no requirement for the cleanest (Tier 4) engines, and no independent monitoring yet committed to.

“Good corporate citizens, open to a community benefit agreement.”

Edged’s conduct so far has been better than the local norm: no NDAs, permits paused until after June 11, the Mayor and MEJAC welcomed to tour Atlanta. So a “ramming it through in secret” story is not supported. But “open to” is not a commitment. No CBA or HCA has been drafted, offered, or signed. Good faith is measured by what a company will put in writing. And the national track record is a warning: data-center “community benefit” agreements often end up non-binding, with vague language and no real penalties. The fixes that make one real are that the community itself is a named party who can enforce it, that the commitments come with penalties, and, because the building would be owned by a heavily financed company, that there is a decommissioning bond and that the deal binds any future owner.

“Africatown would not be negatively impacted.”

This is an assurance, not a finding. An Edged representative said it at the town hall, for a site that straddles a community already carrying a heavy pollution burden. The fair response is not to claim the opposite, but to ask for proof: a baseline of the air, water, and noise measured before construction, independent monitoring afterward, and a penalty if “no impact” turns out to be wrong. Africatown has heard “good neighbor” promises from industry for decades. The answer is verification, not trust.

The bottom line

Some of Edged’s pitch is true: minimal on-site water, real noise control, no secrecy, no targeting. What survives a fact-check on the other side is just as real: the diesel generators and cumulative air burden, the “networking vs. AI” honesty gap, jobs that will not stay local without a written guarantee, and a “community benefit” that does not exist until it is signed. Three things are worth holding onto. None of those promises — the jobs, the wage floor, the emissions limits, the “community benefit” — is in writing yet. The emissions and the airshed would stay in Prichard, while the servers serve Edged’s clients elsewhere. And a yes is hard to undo: once it is built it is built, for the length of the abatement and beyond, possibly under a different owner than the one making promises today. Those are the facts Prichard should weigh, and Prichard should be the one to weigh them.