A city in Wisconsin has overwhelmingly approved a referendum on Tuesday to push back against future data center development.
The measure would require that any projects worth more than $10 million be approved by taxpayers before being added to a tax increment district. The initiative passed with 2,710 votes of approval compared to 1,371 in opposition. More than 50% of the city’s 8,257 registered voters participated.
The referendum was prompted by an $8 billion data center project that is expected to receive more than $450 million in property tax breaks and avoid paying state sales tax on construction, servers, and electricity. Once fully operational, the site would require as much electricity as the city of Los Angeles.
“Tonight, democracy worked the way it’s supposed to,” said Christine Le Jeune, a member of Great Lakes Neighbors Incorporated. “Over 1,000 residents signed the petition that put this measure on the ballot, and tonight Port Washington voters spoke with one clear voice. The people deserve a seat at the table when their tax dollars are on the line.”
A Marquette poll shows 69% of Wisconsin voters believe data center costs outweigh benefits. Republican candidate for governor and Congressman Tom Tiffany has vowed to “end subsidies for data centers in Wisconsin” if elected.
The project, announced in October 2025 as part of OpenAI’s Stargate expansion, is being developed by Oracle, OpenAI, and Vantage Data Centers.
While the referendum does not stop construction of the center, it mandates public approval for tax incentives on future multi-million or billion-dollar projects.
Brad Tietz, state policy director for the Data Center Coalition, stated he is “not aware of another ballot referendum” on this issue directly taken to voters. He warned that if such trends continue, they could have significant consequences for economic competitiveness and national security.
Carri Prom, a Port Washington mother who co-founded Great Lakes Neighbors United—the group behind the referendum—said: “None of us are specifically anti-development. We’re not even really anti-tech. It’s just that we want responsible development, and we want responsible tech moving forward.”