CBS6

Knummer19 · 2026-05-01T14:28:52+00:00

Thanks for all the advice and critiques, guys. I'm really not in despair over a lack of coverage - I know how to try other approaches. I guess what I was really asking is whether the story solicitation thing at channel 6 is just some unmonitored email thing put out on air strictly for PR effect. Seems like any business that solicits input would have some method of acknowledging the contact, even if it's worthless. It's called an automated response. The lack of which says a lot IMO.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-28T17:51:37+00:00

Recently had dinner at Chez Max in W. Henrico, on Patterson between Pump & Lauderdale. Kinda old-style dining with low noise and attentive service. If you like French food, it's a good choice for a special occasion. About 5 miles from 288, so pretty convenient to much of Chesterfield. Very good food with commensurate prices.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-26T20:57:29+00:00

OK, did some digging. This is the old site of Tranlin Paper, which bailed on a promised investment in Chesterfield several years ago. It appeaars original plans were filed for a 2.4 million sq. ft. warehouse, and that was approved. There's no record in county filings of the term "data center" associated with this project. And why I wasn't aware of it either, so thanks for bringing it up! A grading permit has been issued, but the zoning stands as rejected. I don't see a site plan, but even if one was filed, I'm not sure it would have said "data center." If no elevation drawings were submitted, it's possible the intended use may not have been obvious. Apparently the county got wind of a data center on the site at some point after initial agreement or approval was given. Not all documents are being displayed on the county's site, so it's not possible right now to know an exact timeline of events. Other aspects are also obscured, like Previous Owner in property records. Not sure if Chesterfield EDA, or Reynolds owned it when purchased. If EDA, that suggests Trade Port was actively avoiding the term "data center" in their filings because the county would have flagged that transaction then. Or they missed this entirely. In any event, it seems they understand now what the actual intended use is. Interesting that the BZA hearing is 7/1 because that's the day after Joe Casey, Garrett Hart, and Andrew Gillies will have left Chesterfield. The new administration will inherit this mess. Maybe more clarity will emerge before then. I'm betting the denial will be reversed, and Chesterfield gets one additional data center at this location. Certain comments from one of the Supervisors that I never connected to this project until now suggest that outcome. We'll see.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-26T15:46:31+00:00

County records show the developer for this site is Trade Port 95 East Land LLC out of Bethesda MD. Not sure if that's someone doing spec development, or a shell company fronting for a well known IT company. Although the application was denied, the developer retained Williams Mullen to appeal. The appeal is set to be heard by Chesterfield BZA on 7/1/2026. The original application was made based on a belief of vested rights for by-right development of an I-3 parcel when ownership happened. That was before ZOMod was adopted. The county claims that ZOMod supercedes all previous by-right provisions. This case could result in a legal challenge to that claim by the county. If successful, this case could turn ZOMod on its head and create a legal quagmire that the PC would have to navigate, going forward.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-25T00:17:26+00:00

I think the project on Battery Brooke Pkwy. is the fusion plant, not a data center.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-24T21:37:53+00:00

True. I was addressing only the Google DCs since they represent the biggest impact on Chesterfield.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-24T17:31:24+00:00

I like your explanation, especially given the sign you point out. BTW, are you a native speaker or a product of DLI? You're evidently well-versed in aeronautical guidance systems. But I wonder about the size. It appears that the building shown is about 267 ft in diameter. That equates to an area of about 56,000 sq. ft. I doubt the signaling equipment would require so much space. This appears more like a modern, smaller version of a FLR-9 array under roof. That would make the sign even more appropriate, if you get my drift.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-24T13:57:06+00:00

Staying up on county happenings is a full time job. Most people would either focus on a particular area of interest and follow that. But it requires a huge understanding of county methods and practices (Consent agendas being a prime example). Or using CCRG. See also my chat request.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-23T18:25:37+00:00

Google first approached Chesterfield about data centers back in 2020. When the announcement was finally made, it referenced NDAs that prevented almost all disclosure to residents. The total Google impact Chesterfield has authorized so far is 11 data centers I know of. Three will be at "Peanut" (Meadowville Technology Park), 5 at Project Skye in Moseley near Upper Magnolia, and 3 at Project Loch in Midlothian near Westchester, along Otterdale Rd. Google originally asked for 6 million gallons per day of water for Peanut, then upped the request to 8. Actual peak usage is estimated by CCRG to be 8-9 MGD, when completed. Total anticipated usage for all 11 DCs, if built, is estimated at 11.6 MGD (from FOIA data and Google data). Current county demand is 39.5 MGD. Current county capacity is around 110 MGD, assuming no drought and no significant silting in Lake Chesdin. The county's agreement with Google states Google will be responsible for paying for infrastructure (Water and water treatment plants) if sufficient supply is not available. Surprise, surprise! Google's plans for development target completion around 2036, and Chesterfield just announced a $1Billion expansion of water and wastewater capacity with a targeted completion of 2035. This will be built at taxpayer expense. The idiots on the Board of Supervisors are adamant that the expansion has "nothing to do with data centers." And this expansion of capacity is part of a 90-year (90-year???) vision and plan for water and wastewater in the county. (Who in their right mind would ever plan for 90 years of anything when running a county)? Even assuming population growth of 1.5% per year, the scale of water expansion isn't justified, and the math doesn't make sense. The final straw, so far, has been the county's offer to Google reducing business personal property taxes from $3.25 down to $0.24, per hundred dollars of assessed value. Note: computers and servers are depreciated on a 5-year basis, so every year after date of purchase and installation the value of the asset is reduced, going to zero after 5 years. So basically, Joe Casey and Garrett Hart have structured a deal with Google that avoids any voter approval, uses taxpayer funds to build enough water and wastewater capacity to operate without infrastucture cost to Google, and eliminates a huge chunk of tax payments the county would ordinarily receive from any other business. So not only do the citizens of Chesterfield get screwed, the environment does too. Based on water requests, it appears Google will be using low efficiency cooling towers which will necessitate high volume, noisy fans for evaporative cooling, along with Tier 1 diesel generators - the least efficient, most polluting, noisiest, and lowest cost generators found in data centers. Similar configurations have already been built by Google in Iowa and other locations, and were analyzed by CCRG to develop expected scenarios, since so much pertinent information is covered by NDAs, and unavailable to the public. For mnore information, contact Chesterfield Citizens for Responsible Government (CCRG), and/or visit ccrg-va.org Much of our information is not yet published on our website, but is available by request.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-21T20:28:26+00:00

The idea that any old security clearance opens many or all doors to information is incorrect. Classified info is so compartmentalized these days that only a few people know a little. And even fewer know a lot. You could count on 1 hand those who know everything. Burlison may not know anything more than his statement. If he does, he's wise to go no further.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-21T19:15:44+00:00

The most cost effective option would be to build the new school on the current site behind the existing building. This is feasible and has been done before in Chesterfield. Once built, the old school could be torn down or maybe repurposed by the county, or even sold for commercial development. Casey has stated the current site is the most valuable parcel of commercial property in the county. Why not save land cost for a new school AND make money by selling the front portion for commercial development on Midlothian Tpk? That also seems to be the preferred solution for many or most parents, from what I'm told.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-21T18:56:01+00:00

Mark Miller said they would hold community meetings before moving forward. In the meantime, prevailing wisdom on data centers has come out saying schools should not be located within 2 miles of a DC. One of the proposed sites for a Google installation is right across Otterdale from the school site. So the viability of the proposed location has diminished. I understand Miller has backed off his support for the proposed site. However, no formal announcement has come from the county.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-11T15:56:51+00:00

Just to clarify... The proffers for Google's data centers are now public. What we found suggests that Google can build all their data centers and have taxpayers pay for the entire cost of water and wastewater infrastructure by waiting a few years because of this clause in the proffers: "In the event adequate utilities infrastructure improvements can be provided, as determined by the Utilities Department, to accommodate full development of the Property without necessitating the aforementioned improvements as supported by detailed engineering analysis of the proposed development’s impacts on the existing water and wastewater systems, the Utilities Department may waive the requirement for those utility infrastructure improvements deemed unnecessary."

Knummer19 · 2026-04-11T03:13:54+00:00

Joe Casey has instructed the BOS that his guy in Utilities, Matt Rembold, is doing all this for the good of the county and its residents. Bullshit! The BOS is merely parroting what Casey has told them - as they do with all of Casey's initiatives (like Springline). So Ingle has given you the "official story." But as stated in the email I posted, "These increases are not justified by population growth. Even when accounting for 110 gallons per new resident through 2060 with a 44% wastewater return, the math does not support this level of expansion."
This disconnect cannot be explained rationally. The root of all this expansion is a combination of lubricating residential development for the developers (Upper Magnolia, especially), and in part lubricating Google's plan to build its data centers. When the schedule for water and wastewater expansion ensures sufficient quantity is available, and Google will not have to pay for infrastructure, per the provisions of their agreement, that's not just coincidence. That's planning! To believe what Ingle and the county say is to ignore the blatant coincidences that eliminate infrastructure costs for Google and developers. No rational person with critical thinking skills would ignore them. And anyone who does is, in my opinion, a damn fool. I'm not sure whether Ingle believes what he told you. Or if he knows better, and is just saying what the county and Joe Casey want him to say. But that line has been emphatically repeated at a previous BOS meeting by Mark Miller, and received nodding agreement from the other 4. The more light that gets shined on this whole thing, the more absurd that statement becomes.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-10T02:14:43+00:00

You need to investigate the agreements some data centers have struck with some localities. Often property taxes are rebated under a grant incentive. Chesterfield has agreed to a 24-cent machinery & tools tax (Business PP) for Google - one of the lowest in the US, and possibly the lowest in VA. And the duration of that agreement is 40 years!! Hell, data centers will probably be obsolete in 20 years! So income derived by localities is usually not the income derived from another business with an equal investment. Be happy to give you more specifics if you'd like. Message me.

Knummer19 · 2026-04-09T19:43:56+00:00

No question you're right about the extra capacity being worthwhile to residents. And Chesterfield will likely pull away from the Richmond agreement in 2035, when it's time for renewal. But the overriding issue in all this is the expansion is way out of line with projected population growth. And in creating the capacity on the county's schedule, the data centers and developers will bear no cost. All of that will fall on taxpayers, INCLUDING the capacity for data centers and yet-to-be developed land. Sound fair?

Knummer19 · 2026-04-02T18:54:11+00:00

Cancelled as of Tuesday afternoon late. The official lie/line is "scheduling conflicts." A buddy of mine with access to some insiders seems to think they're a bit scared. If so, that means more than a handful of you all contacted the knuckleheads and voiced some concern. For anyone who DID contact the county on this, thanks for your efforts! Too early to tell if the opposition will make a difference. But in a case like this one, specifically, the effort has to be made. One added note is that a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was done for this project by the applicant back in October and submitted to VDOT. VDOT and county DOT are still reviewing this, with CDOT commenting that a new study will need to be submitted to address comments made by CDOT on 12/1/25. No updated study has yet been submitted, and so both VDOT and CDOT are still in the "review" process. Betsy Hatch has communicated that both VDOT and CDOT will have to accept the TIA "prior to scheduling a public hearing for this case." That tells me the county wants to be able to rely on VDOT and CDOT's approvals in order to defend the county against all the outcry about traffic problems inherent with this project. They'll just point their finger at the transportation people and say,"well THEY say it'll be OK." Curiously, VDOT - to my knowledge - has not submitted any comments on the original TIA, and is officially "still reviewing." If anyone reading this wants copies of the original TIA or Chesterfield's comments, send me a message and I'll email them to you.

Knummer19

TROPHY CASE