Viral Uproar Freezes $5B Tech Deal

David Givens at a large protest outside a neoclassical courthouse — Photo: 3000ad / Shutterstock

A viral activist campaign helped stall a $5 billion data center on a long-empty Maryland mall site, and now some boosters are floating a trampoline park instead.

Story Highlights

Petition drive gathered more than 25,000 signatures against the Landover data center.
County imposed a moratorium and added new approval hurdles for the project.
Supporters projected tens of millions in annual tax revenue from the campus.
Opposition messaging drew amplification from a socialist group’s viral video.

What Sparked The Fight At The Former Landover Mall

Local activist Taylor Frazier McCollum organized a petition that topped 25,000 signatures to oppose a large data center at the old Landover Mall site in Prince George’s County, Maryland. She lived less than a mile from the property, which has sat empty for decades. The petition argued the project could change the area’s look and bring environmental and social costs. National coverage framed the effort as a grassroots win that helped stall a $5 billion plan.

County leaders responded with process changes. Officials set up a data center task force to study effects on power, water, noise, and traffic. They also passed a moratorium to pause new approvals while they updated rules. The County Council later closed a 2021 pathway that had allowed the proposal to avoid another vote. Those moves forced the Brightseat Park plan back for more council review, creating a real hurdle but not a final kill shot.

The Economic Pitch Supporters Say The County Walked Away From

Developers Lerner Enterprises and The Tower Companies pitched Brightseat Tech Park as a major investment on a dead site. Reporting on the plan said the buildout could reach about $5 billion. Backers said the campus would generate large tax revenue for the county and state each year. Some accounts cited about $53.5 million local and $88.6 million state at full buildout, while another report put county revenue around $13.7 million per year, showing uncertainty in the projections.

Supporters argued the grayfield site was ideal. They said a data center would reuse an eyesore and bring jobs without the school crowding and massive traffic tied to other projects. One advocacy testimony also claimed the urban location could cut driving for workers and suppliers compared with far-out sites. The county’s own economic development office promoted the campus as part of a technology shift in the local economy.

How The Opposition Grew So Fast, And What It Did Not Prove

Coverage shows the petition gained speed after a viral video from the Party for Socialism and Liberation promoted the cause online. That push raised awareness but also raised fairness questions about who signed and whether the signatures reflected local residents. The reporting does not provide a verified poll of neighbors or a detailed profile of signers, so the count shows reach, not a clean sample of affected households.

Opponents warned of heat, noise, water use, and property damage. But the record identified in coverage does not show a completed, site-specific analysis of air, water, traffic, or home values for the Landover plan. That gap matters. If the county is weighing a high-tax-value reuse of a long-dead mall, leaders and residents should see real numbers on power demand, backup emissions, cooling water, stormwater, and night lighting before closing the door.

National Trend: Data Centers Face Growing Local Pushback

The Landover fight is part of a broader wave. Across the country, cities and counties have passed pauses or bans on new data centers. Researchers at Harvard found that residents are often less supportive than officials, mainly due to utility costs, local control, and community character. A national tracker counted dozens of local moratorium attempts, with a majority succeeding, as communities try to slow projects until rules catch up.

For conservatives, this is a warning about process and priorities. Communities deserve a say. But pausing high-value redevelopment on a 90-acre vacant site without clear, public, site-specific facts risks wasting a rare chance to grow the tax base and pay for core services without raising family taxes. Leaders should demand thorough environmental and infrastructure studies and then hold an up-or-down vote, in public, on the full record—no backroom shortcuts and no viral-video vetoes.

What Needs To Happen Next In Prince George’s County

County officials should release the project’s fiscal model, local hiring plan, and all environmental studies, plus utility and traffic demand. They should publish plain-language summaries so residents can judge benefits and costs. Developers should commit to tight noise limits, strict generator rules, and water-saving designs, with real enforcement. If the data shows net gains for taxpayers with strong protections for neighbors, the project should get a fair vote. If not, offer a serious alternative, not a trampoline park slogan.