How to Use This Page
Mayor Whipple has characterized statements from this website as "false" and offered his rebuttals. We quote his statements directly, then respond with analysis grounded in the City's own ordinances, FAQs, and Master Plan.
All quotes from the Mayor are verbatim. Our responses are our own analysis and interpretation of publicly available City documents.
Primary Sources
- City of Mason M-1 Ordinance (Light Manufacturing District)
- City of Mason M-2 Ordinance (General Manufacturing District)
- City of Mason: "M-3 Zoning District Considerations" FAQ (Jan 26, 2026)
- Mason Master Plan (Adopted Sept 2023)
- Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3203, MCL 125.3501)
These documents are available in the Legal Documents & Resources section on the homepage.
Point-by-Point Responses
On Whether This Is "Heavy Industrial"
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The proposed ordinance is referred to as 'M3 Heavy Industrial'."
The Mayor's Response:
"The ordinance would create a zoning district called M3-Technology Innovation District. Every single use allowed by right is not a 'heavy industry'. All are considered light industry uses. It is true that as a special use, all uses allowed in the other two City industrial zoning districts (M1, M2) could also be built in M3 and some of those uses would be considered 'heavy industry'. But they are only allowed as special uses which allow flexibility by the City in the approval process. Contrary to what is being said, data centers are not considered 'heavy' by the customary characteristics used to define 'heavy industry' such as noise, pollution, traffic, and other considerations used to determine impacts."
Our Response:
The Mayor claims data centers don't meet the "customary characteristics" of heavy industry (noise, pollution, traffic, and other impacts). However, Mason's own ordinances define what qualifies as "light industrial," and the City's own FAQs for M-3 acknowledge that data centers produce exactly the impacts that disqualify them from that classification.
Mason's M-1 ordinance (Light Manufacturing District) states that light industrial uses are characterized by "the absence of objectionable external affects [sic] such as noise, fumes, vibrations, odors and traffic patterns."
Mason's M-2 ordinance (General Manufacturing District) describes light manufacturing as activity that is "to a considerable extent clean, quiet, and free from any objectionable or dangerous nuisance or hazard."
Yet the City's own M-3 FAQs acknowledge all of the following impacts from data centers:
- Noise: The FAQs mention noise at least seven times, including "noise management," "enforceable performance standards, such as noise limits," and "noise transfer to adjacent properties." (City FAQs, pp. 8-9, 13, 17-20)
- Fumes: The FAQs state that diesel backup generators "can emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)" and that "The World Health Organization (WHO), the EPA, and other health authorities classify diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen." (City FAQs, p. 5)
- Traffic: The FAQs acknowledge that citizens have "identified prolonged construction timelines as a significant impact." (City FAQs, p. 18)
If data centers were truly "light industrial" under Mason's own definitions (quiet, clean, and free from objectionable impacts), the City wouldn't need extensive noise limits, emissions standards, and traffic management provisions in the M-3 ordinance.
On Master Plan Compliance
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The proposed ordinance is not in compliance with the City Master Plan."
The Mayor's Response:
"This apparently comes from the contention by some that in order to create a new zoning district, that district must be noted in the Master Plan. I have personally asked critics of the proposed ordinance for the citation in state law of this requirement and, after weeks of waiting, that information has not been provided. A data center does meet the primary objectives of the Master Plan for industrial developments. Those objectives are to encourage developments which are high value (tax revenue) and low impact (limit demands for city services, traffic, housing pressure, etc.)."
Our Response:
The Mayor's response mischaracterizes the legal argument. The issue isn't whether every new zoning district must be "noted" in the Master Plan. The real issue is whether the M-3 ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan's guiding principles, as required by Michigan law.
The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3203(1)) requires that zoning ordinances "be made with reasonable consideration of the character of each district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values and natural resources, and the general and appropriate trend and character of land, building, and population development."
The City's FAQs argue that M-3 aligns with the Master Plan because it would "diversify the tax base." But this cherry-picks one element from the "Safe" guiding principle while ignoring the Plan's other criteria:
- The Master Plan identifies three overarching principles: promoting Mason as "welcoming," preserving "small-town charm," and providing "safe" infrastructure. (Master Plan, p. 99)
- The Plan emphasizes that community members "enjoy the rural context of the city" and that the "green ring of farms surrounding the community is an asset which should be maintained by the Future Land Use plan via lighter uses at the city fringes." (Master Plan, p. 76)
- The Plan recommends focusing development where infrastructure exists: "There is presently vacant or underutilized land within Mason's service boundary that can be served by public water and sewer. By focusing new development and infill in these areas first, the city can more efficiently provide the necessary infrastructure." (Master Plan, p. 69)
The City cannot isolate one factor ("tax base diversity") and place undue weight on it while ignoring the 16 other criteria under "Welcoming," "Charming," and "Safe" that the Master Plan requires be considered.
On Whether M-3 "Enables" Data Centers
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The proposed M3 ordinance would 'enable these facilities', referring to data centers."
The Mayor's Response:
"A data center could already be built under current City zoning regulations (M1, M2). The M3 ordinance does not 'enable' a data center to be built; rather, it develops standards for setback, noise, screening, public improvements, water/sewer and other elements which are significantly more stringent than the current M1 & M2 zoning regulations. M3 does not invite a data center (the state tax breaks did that). M3 allows the City a great deal more oversight regarding such a development than would be possible without the ordinance."
Our Response:
The Mayor argues that M-3 provides more regulation, not less. But this framing sidesteps a key question: if data centers can already be built under M-1 or M-2, why create a new district at all?
The answer is that M-3 is specifically designed to accommodate the unique scale and infrastructure demands of hyperscale data centers, demands that would be difficult or impossible to meet under existing zoning. The ordinance establishes 50-acre minimum parcels, allows districts up to 300 contiguous acres, permits 60% lot coverage, and includes provisions for massive utility infrastructure.
Whether these standards are "more stringent" or simply "different" is a matter of perspective. What's clear is that M-3 creates a regulatory pathway tailored to large-scale data center development, development that wouldn't fit neatly under existing M-1 or M-2 classifications.
On Intensity of Use
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The M3 ordinance will 'allow industrial uses far more intensive than anything currently permitted in Mason'."
The Mayor's Response:
"The M3 ordinance does not allow any new uses in the City. Data centers are allowed now, but as noted in Truth #3, subject to much less restrictive regulations than provided for in the M3 ordinance. Every use listed in the M3 ordinance could be built in the City today!"
Our Response:
The Mayor's response focuses on whether data centers are technically "allowed" under current zoning. But "intensity" isn't about whether a use is permitted. It's about resource consumption, infrastructure demands, and community impacts.
Data centers are among the most energy-intensive industrial users in existence. A single hyperscale facility can consume as much electricity as a small city and require millions of gallons of water daily for cooling. The City's own FAQs acknowledge that "to support future data centers, public utilities like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy will need to build new infrastructure to expand their service capacity." (City FAQs, p. 3)
Whether or not data centers are "new uses," the scale of resource consumption enabled by M-3 is unprecedented for Mason.
On Whether M-3 Is "Tailored" for Data Centers
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The M3 ordinance 'is specifically tailored to accommodate Hyperscale Data Centers'."
The Mayor's Response:
"This statement is misleading because the implication is that the M3 ordinance is intended to make it easier for a data center to be built in the City. The truth is that the ordinance IS 'tailored' to address the unique characteristics of a data center, but not to accommodate it, but rather to impose significant regulations. The M3 ordinance would implement significantly more stringent rules than currently exist for such developments. As noted above, data centers are a legal use today under current City ordinances. But without the M3 standards, the City is not authorized to enforce regulations to address the unique impacts of data centers, such as setbacks, noise, water use, etc."
Our Response:
The Mayor acknowledges that M-3 is "tailored to address the unique characteristics of a data center." The distinction he draws between "accommodating" and "regulating" is semantic. An ordinance can do both simultaneously.
The M-3 ordinance creates a regulatory framework that makes hyperscale data center development possible in Mason by establishing clear standards for the unique impacts these facilities create. Without such a framework, a developer would face significant uncertainty about what requirements apply. With M-3, the pathway is defined.
Whether this is characterized as "accommodation" or "regulation" depends on one's perspective. What's undeniable is that M-3 is designed specifically with data centers in mind.
On the Timeline
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"The M3 ordinance is 'being pushed through with limited public input' in a 'rushed process'."
The Mayor's Response:
"Normally a zoning ordinance amendment approval process takes two weeks with one public hearing. The M3 ordinance has now been under consideration for 2.5 months and with input by the public at 5 public meetings, 2 public open houses and through a 2 week written comment period. During that time, the proposed ordinance has been amended more than 10 times primarily due to public input. Further, a number of additional amendments will be proposed at the next City Council meeting based on the input from the written comment period. Nothing has been rushed and public input has been encouraged."
Our Response:
The Mayor compares M-3's timeline to a "normal zoning ordinance amendment." But M-3 is not a normal amendment. It creates an entirely new zoning classification designed to regulate one of the most resource-intensive industrial uses in existence.
According to Michigan State University Extension, adopting a new ordinance to address "serious current issues" is expected to be a "long, time-consuming" process that requires careful development of "legal language that achieves desired results while avoiding any unintended consequences."
The proposed ordinance was released on November 17, 2025. The Council initially planned to pass it at the December 15, 2025 meeting, just 28 days later. The comment period was extended only after significant public pushback. As of the February 2, 2026 vote, the ordinance will have been under public review for approximately 77 days.
For an ordinance of this magnitude, one that will govern how data centers can be built in Mason for years to come, community members have consistently asked for more time to review, analyze, and provide meaningful input. Those requests have been denied.
On Property Taxes and Infrastructure
What the Mayor Claims We Said:
"Data centers 'may pay little to no property tax while requiring significant public infrastructure investments'."
The Mayor's Response:
"The City, and I personally, have no intention of allowing a tax abatement, therefore, a data center would pay full property taxes. This has been stated by City officials during public meetings. The only tax break being offered is from the state in the exemption of sales/use taxes. As for infrastructure improvements, under the M3 ordinance, a data center would pay the full cost of any such improvements. But without M3, the ability of the City to require a data center to pay for those improvements will be significantly reduced under M1 & M2 regulations. Data centers generate substantial property tax revenue and the City, schools, and county will all benefit from that revenue."
Our Response:
The Mayor states the City has "no intention" of allowing a tax abatement. However, intentions can change, and future Councils are not bound by current statements. What matters is what's written into enforceable policy.
Regarding state tax exemptions: Michigan's Public Act 207 exempts qualifying data centers from sales and use taxes on construction and equipment through 2050 (and through 2065 for brownfield sites). These are substantial exemptions, potentially tens of millions of dollars over the life of a facility.
Additionally, the City's own FAQs acknowledge that infrastructure expansion will have costs: "This new infrastructure, coupled with deferred maintenance projects, will likely increase local utility rates." (City FAQs, p. 3)
Residents are right to ask: what binding, enforceable protections exist to ensure that data center developers, not residents, bear the full cost of infrastructure expansion?
Additional Concern: Document Inconsistencies
City Documents Don't Match
Beyond the policy disagreements above, we've identified a factual inconsistency in the City's own published materials:
City Handout (M-2 vs. M-3 Comparison, Jan 22, 2026):
"Any testing or exercising shall be allowed only to occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on a weekday."
City FAQ (M-3 Zoning District Considerations, Jan 26, 2026):
"Any testing or exercising shall be allowed only to occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on a weekday."
One hour may seem minor, but for neighbors it's the difference between 8 a.m. industrial noise and 9 a.m. industrial noise. More importantly: if the City's own documents can't stay consistent on basic protections, how can residents know what they're actually being asked to approve?
We ask: Which version is correct, and will Council publish final ordinance language before voting?
Questions for the February 2 Meeting
Bring These to the Microphone
- If data centers produce noise, fumes, and traffic impacts (as the City's own FAQs acknowledge), how do they qualify as "light industrial" under Mason's M-1 and M-2 definitions?
- How does M-3 comply with the Master Plan's guidance for "lighter uses at the city fringes" and preservation of rural context?
- What enforceable, written protections exist to prevent tax abatements for data center developers?
- What binding protections exist to ensure residents don't bear infrastructure costs?
- Which testing start time is correct (8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m.), and will final ordinance language be published before the vote?
- Will the City delay the vote until the water resource study is complete and published?
Demand Clarity Before the Vote
We appreciate the Mayor engaging with community concerns. We ask only that the City address the substance of these issues, using its own documents, its own ordinances, and its own Master Plan, before making an irreversible zoning decision.