To the Editor of the Luther Register,
The January 18, 2026, Community Voices piece, “Patrice Christy Keeps Choosing Luther,” characterizes citizen concerns about the proposed AI data center as “fear-mongering.” That framing is incorrect, and it is not accepted.
Residents asking direct questions about an estimated 620.97 acres (the proposed site, plus state school land, and other possible acres) for the industrial land use tied to the Redbud Energy Facility are not required to justify themselves. This is not a debate about emotions—it is a proposal about land use, industrial scale, and permanent consequences.
The proposed site is not isolated; it is surrounded by homes, working rural land, and agricultural operations. Within one mile of the site, there are 16.5% of the 1,774 residential mail route addresses for the 73054 zip code. There are approximately 293 households, representing over $86 million in county assessed property value, along with pastureland, livestock, and privately stewarded acreage that support livelihoods and long-term land investment. Rural land is not vacant—it is productive, lived-on, and cannot simply “relocate” when industrial zoning arrives at its boundary—across their fence or road.
Industrial data centers bring continuous operations, heavy infrastructure, constant cooling systems ever hungry for water, high-voltage electrical equipment, large-scale lighting, and round-the-clock activity. These impacts do not stop at the fence line. Traffic, air emissions, noise, vibration, and visual intrusion disperse outward into neighboring properties and agricultural areas. Rural residents, livestock, and wildlife all experience these conditions differently—and often more intensely—than the urban or commercial zones, for which such segregated facilities are typically designed.
Labeling these realities as “fear-mongering” misrepresents the point: this project imposes a permanent industrial footprint on an established rural and residential landscape. This is not hypothetical—it is a factual change in zoning and land use with measurable effects on property value, health, agricultural viability, and quality of life.
“What is best for our hometown?” cannot be determined by sidelining 16.5%, who will bear the greatest impact. It cannot mean requiring rural landowners and nearby residents to shoulder the risks while others reap the benefits. Concentrating the burden on a significant portion of the population is not “Community-minded”, especially when corporate leverage overrides local voices. True community interest protects all residents, not just those with influence.
Open communication is not obstructed by citizen input. It is obstructed when concerns are minimized, reframed as “emotional,” or treated as obstacles instead of information. Residents do not need to prove that their opinions, homes, land, animals, and health matter to be taken seriously.
“What is best for our hometown” cannot be decided by corporate power; it is decided by standing up for the residents who will live with the consequences. This is not about being for or against progress—it is about acknowledging reality: industrial development of this scale changes rural land forever. Recognizing that fact is not “fear-mongering”; it is honoring your responsibility to the current and future residents. Especially those on the other side of the fence.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Valuikas
A Luther Resident
Read more Community Voices contributions. To submit yours, use this form. Thank you.
Discover more from Luther Register News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
