Inside the Qualified Data Center Task Force, Part 5: From Recommendations to Rules

From Diagnosis to Decision

Across this series, GCHIC has evaluated the Qualified Data Center Task Force’s work against a simple but demanding question: whether Prince George’s County can accommodate data center growth without sacrificing scarce land, overstressing public infrastructure, or eroding public trust.

In Part 1, we examined why the Task Force was created and what it set out to do. In Part 2, we assessed its siting recommendations and the risks of locking high‑opportunity land into single‑use infrastructure. Part 3 evaluated whether the Task Force’s proposed performance standards are strong enough to manage perpetual impacts. Part 4 asked whether added process improves public leverage—or merely visibility.

Taken together, the Task Force’s work largely succeeds at diagnosis. The harder question now is whether the County is prepared to make the legislative and regulatory choices required to act on that diagnosis.

The Fork in the Road: Rules or Discretion

Prince George’s County now faces a clear fork in the road.

One path relies on rule‑based governance: clear zoning, objective siting criteria, enforceable performance standards, and predictable outcomes. The other relies on discretion: overlays, Special Exceptions, negotiated conditions, and case‑by‑case approvals.

Discretion is often described as flexibility. In practice, it is not neutral. It shifts risk onto communities, concentrates pressure on staff and elected officials, and produces uneven outcomes that are difficult to defend over time. Rule‑based systems may be harder to adopt politically, but they distribute risk more fairly and reduce the need for ad hoc negotiation.

Why Base Zoning Is the Real Battleground

If the County intends to govern data centers responsibly, base zoning and subdivision standards are where that work must begin.

Those upstream rules determine where data centers can locate, how large they can be, and whether alternative land uses remain viable long before Detailed Site Plans or mitigation measures enter the conversation. By the time later‑stage reviews occur, the most consequential decisions have already been made.

Overlays and exceptions are often presented as solutions to these problems. In reality, they are symptoms of permissive base zoning that fails to do its job.

Overlays: The Temptation to Evade Real Rules

Data center–specific overlays are often sold as a pragmatic compromise: a way to impose controls without reopening base zoning or confronting difficult tradeoffs directly. In reality, they function as a means of avoiding the hard work of rulemaking.

Overlays centralize discretion and replace predictable standards with negotiated outcomes. They invite opaque, project‑by‑project decision‑making that weakens transparency and accountability. Rather than clarifying what is allowed and where, overlays shift power into closed‑door negotiations, increasing the risk of backroom dealing and uneven treatment.

This approach places the greatest burden on communities with the least capacity to navigate discretionary processes. Areas already experiencing disinvestment—such as Greater Capitol Heights—are systematically disadvantaged when outcomes depend on negotiating leverage rather than clear, enforceable rules applied uniformly across the County.

The Flagship Project Overlay Zone debate made these risks concrete—which is why GCHIC and the community fought against it so vociferously and, ultimately, successfully. Notably, the County’s new Zoning Ordinance moved deliberately away from overlay‑based governance for precisely these reasons. Reintroducing overlays for data centers would be a huge step backward, not an example of innovation or flexibility.

Put plainly, overlays are not a substitute for rule‑based planning. They are an unjustifiable retreat from it—and one the County has already decided it should not make.

Anticipating the Pushback: “They’ll Just Go Elsewhere”

Industry advocates often argue that stronger local standards will simply drive data centers to neighboring jurisdictions, costing Prince George’s County valuable tax revenue.

That argument overstates both the mobility of data centers and the fragility of rule‑based governance. Data centers are constrained by power availability, fiber networks, latency requirements, and geography. They do not locate wherever regulation is weakest; they locate where infrastructure and certainty align.

In fact, jurisdictions with the most mature data center markets are tightening standards, not abandoning them. Weak rules may accelerate approvals in the short term, but they often invite backlash, moratoria, and policy reversals that undermine long‑term growth.

The County’s goal should not be volume at any cost. It should be durable, compatible development that does not mortgage future land use, infrastructure capacity, or public trust.

What Policy Discipline Actually Looks Like

Translating the Task Force’s recommendations into effective governance does not require new overlays or bespoke approval pathways. It requires legislative follow‑through.

That includes:

• Amending base zoning to reflect a clear, priority‑based siting hierarchy.

• Codifying performance standards with measurable thresholds and enforceable consequences.

• Requiring community benefits as conditions of approval, not voluntary afterthoughts.

• Clarifying enforcement authority and compliance pathways so standards are more than aspirational.

None of these steps is easy. All are necessary if the County intends to govern data centers through rules rather than exceptions.

The Task Ahead

The Qualified Data Center Task Force report functions more as a gut check than an endpoint.

The ultimate measure of success will be whether future data center reviews and approvals are governed by clear rules applied consistently, rather than by negotiated exceptions justified one project at a time.

Throughout this series, GCHIC has measured the Task Force’s work against a simple governing principle: whether data centers can be accommodated in Prince George’s County in a way that serves and advances the interests of everyday residents. That principle is undergirded by our belief that clear rules, enforced standards, and transparent process produce better data center outcomes that are predictable, defensible, and fair.

Murkier rules, improvisation, and ineffectively cabined discretion, on the other hand, shift risk to communities and pressure to institutions least equipped to bear it. That distinction lies at the heart of Smart Digital Growth, which begins from the premise that where data centers go, how they operate, and how they are approved must be decided upfront and must be rooted in enforceable law.

Thus, Part 5 of this series ends where the real work begins: translating insight into rules that last. GCHIC will continue to engage in that work alongside the community, holding future decisions to the standards outlined here.