A Response to Janet Garrison’s “Pause to Protect” Letter
Janet Garrison’s letter opposing the Mason County data center rezoning is well-written and clearly heartfelt. It’s also built on a foundation that doesn’t hold up when you look at it closely. Let’s go through it.
“We have no ill will” — but the lawsuit says otherwise
Ms. Garrison opens by insisting the plaintiffs bear no ill will toward the 35 landowners who signed on to sell or lease their land. That’s a nice sentiment. It’s also hard to square with the fact that those same 35 landowners were individually named in the lawsuit. KRS 100.347 may require listing signatories, but nothing required filing the suit in the first place. You don’t get to sue your neighbors, impede their ability to legally dispose of their own property, and then claim you’re only doing it to protect them from themselves.
The “mystery developer” complaint
The letter leans hard on the idea that an NDA-shielded, unnamed developer is somehow proof of bad faith. In reality, confidentiality agreements during the site-selection phase are standard practice for virtually every large economic development project — not just data centers, not just Mason County. Companies don’t want to tip off competitors, land speculators, or neighboring counties before a deal is finalized. If Mason County had insisted on public disclosure before other counties did, we simply wouldn’t have been in the running. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s how the process works everywhere.
If secrecy is the problem, here’s a question worth asking: who’s funding the legal bills for We Are Mason County KY Inc.’s lawsuit? Ms. Garrison is welcome to full disclosure — as long as it applies to her side too.
Ordinance 26-01 was already litigated — and lost
Ms. Garrison acknowledges this herself: the first complaint over Ordinance 26-01 was dismissed by Judge Schumacher on 6/23/26, because speculative harm can’t be used to block a lawfully passed ordinance. That’s not a technicality — that’s the legal standard working exactly as it should. You don’t get to lose on the merits and then file the same underlying objection again, dressed up in new plaintiffs and a new caption.
“We are not alone” — sure, but that’s not the argument
The letter cites moratoriums in roughly 15 states and a handful of Kentucky counties. That’s true, and also beside the point. Every community decides its own path based on its own economics and the specific project in front of it. Mason County has spent decades losing tobacco, dairy, and major employers — more than $62 million in annual agricultural sales and nearly 2,500 jobs gone. Counties with a thriving, diversified tax base can afford to evaluate a project and walk away. We are not one of those counties, and pretending otherwise doesn’t pay anyone’s property taxes or build a community young families can afford to stay in.
The real question nobody in the letter answers
Not one paragraph in this letter offers an alternative plan for replacing the jobs, tax base, and land income Mason County has lost over the past thirty years. “Pause to protect” sounds responsible right up until you ask: protect what, exactly, and at whose expense? The families who need this project to move forward don’t have the luxury of waiting for a better-sounding lawsuit to resolve itself.
The folks behind this lawsuit have deep pockets and can afford to base their future on yearning for a time before Mason County lost tobacco, dairy, and several major industries. This second lawsuit proves large legal bills don’t faze them as they yearn for an economic foundation that was — but is no more. Will you speak up and let them know not everyone in Mason County can afford to live in the past?