Rhode Island

Ban First, Study Later: Smithfield Outlaws Data Centers in Every Zone, and the Landowners Sue

Virtue Forge briefing · Based on WPRI 12 (Jusolyn Flower & Kysha Hancock, Oct 1, 2026), The Valley Breeze (Jacquelyn Moorehead, Oct 1, 2026), and Ocean State Media (Ian Donnis, May 13, 2026)

What happened

The owners of land on Smithfield’s Route 7/116 corridor, Hanton City Investments LLC and ROK LLC, have filed two Superior Court lawsuits against the town over a proposed business park that includes a data center. The site sits in Smithfield’s Planned Corporate (PC) zone and Economic Growth Overlay District (EGOD), areas the town’s own comprehensive plan calls “the keystone of local economic development efforts.”

The developers filed their application on May 4, 2026. One day later, on May 5, the Town Council voted 4–1 to define data centers as a separate land use and list them as “Not Permitted” in every zoning district. The ordinance took effect June 4. Its own text calls it a “precautionary, interim control” while the town studies the issue and says the council “expressly intends to revisit this matter” later. Council Vice President Michael Iannotti said in May that the ban “would keep control of this issue with the Town Council.”

Meanwhile, the town planning office twice ruled the application incomplete (May 29 and June 11), which kept it from reaching the Planning Board. According to the Valley Breeze, the suit alleges the Planning Department held up a sewer availability letter the developers didn’t receive until Sept. 1, and that the town has let other projects move through planning without such letters. The developers argue the ordinance is really an unlawful moratorium that skipped the requirements state law sets for moratoriums, that it conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and that it can’t be applied to an application filed before it took effect.

Councilwoman Rachel Toppi told WPRI that many residents and officials don’t think a data center fits Smithfield, citing historic character, wildlife, and natural resources. The lone “no” vote, Councilor Thomas Winfield, said he isn’t endorsing data centers but thought a formal moratorium “would have been the best option.” The Zoning Board of Appeals hears the incompleteness appeal on Oct. 7; the town has 60 days to answer in Superior Court.

Fact check: No court has ruled yet; the moratorium, delay, and comprehensive-plan claims are the developers’ allegations. The town’s planning director said in May the project would be reviewed under the pre-ban ordinance, but he also said it would need a use variance, a high bar, so this is not a case where the town simply ignored the filing date. The developer’s lawyer says the project could “stabilize electricity prices”; treat that as a sales pitch. Big data centers add large new demand to the grid, and whether that raises or lowers prices for everyone else depends on who pays for the power and transmission it needs. The developer’s own application projected about $59 million in town revenue over 30 years (about $42 million net), and Ocean State Media reported the company is also seeking state tax benefits.

Virtue Forge commentary

The town zoned this land for corporate and light-industrial growth, wrote that it was the “keystone” of its economic plan, and then, the day after a real investor showed up with an application, banned an entire lawful industry from every inch of town. By its own wording the ban is temporary “while we study it.” Rhode Island has rules for a pause like that, and the lawsuit says Smithfield didn’t follow them. Ban first, study later is not careful governance. It’s control for its own sake, and the council vice president said as much: the point was to keep control with the council.

Bias check: Residents’ worries about noise, water, and electricity use are real and deserve a fair hearing, and a town has every right to write sensible rules. Our objection is to the method: a blanket townwide ban instead of standards a project can meet, followed by repeated “incomplete” rulings the owners say were improper. We also aren’t cheering for corporate welfare. If this project only works with special state tax breaks, that’s a fair strike against it. A property owner should get a straight answer under the rules that existed when they applied, without needing a subsidy or a lawsuit to get it.

Rhode Island keeps saying it wants a bigger commercial tax base to take pressure off homeowners. When the state’s first major data-center proposal shows up in a district built for exactly this, the answer shouldn’t be a ban written after the application came in. Set clear limits on noise, water, and who pays for grid upgrades, then let the project live or die on them. Trustworthy government means the rules are known before you invest, and they don’t change once you do.

Original reporting

Read the underlying sources:

WPRI 12 — Smithfield faces legal action over data center ban, project review (Oct 1, 2026)

The Valley Breeze — Smithfield to defend decision to ban data center (Oct 1, 2026)

Ocean State Media — Proposed data center still looms over Smithfield, even after town council enacts ban (May 13, 2026)