Digital Redlining and the Bessemer, Alabama Data Center

By Mark T. Holcombe, AI Ethics Educator and Applied Ethics Framework Designer

A common assumption in debates about large infrastructure projects is that zoning, permits, and “economic development” talk are basically neutral. If a project is legal and promises investment, then the ethical work is already done. When a hyperscale data center is proposed next to people’s homes, creeks, and forests, “legal approval” can become a shortcut that avoids the real ethical problem: who bears the burdens, who receives the benefits, and whether the process treats affected communities as full participants rather than obstacles. (Inside Climate News)

Why existing approaches fail

Prevailing discourse around projects like the proposed Bessemer data center often collapses into a few inadequate frames:

• Compliance-as-ethics: If rezoning and permitting are satisfied, the project is treated as ethically settled—even when residents report they cannot get basic questions answered or feel sidelined. (WBHM 90.3)
• Facts/values confusion: Technical claims (jobs, tax base, megawatts, acreage) are offered as if they automatically determine what ought to be done. But empirical data never substitutes for moral justification.
• Premature normative conclusions: “It’s progress” or “it’s harmful” becomes the conclusion before the argument is built—especially when parties talk past one another about fairness, property, consent, and risk.

Digital redlining matters because it reframes siting (selecting a location) as potentially structural (permit regulations, etc.), not merely local. This learning module treats “digital redlining” as a continuation of historic redlining practices where marginalized communities were denied mortgage loans, etc.

Implications for AI ethics and governance

This module treats hyperscale data centers as AI-adjacent infrastructure governance: even when “AI” is discussed as software, the material burdens (land, power, water, noise, ecological risk) show up in local political processes. This module explicitly frames these burdens as potential tools of digital redlining when externalized onto marginalized or low-power communities. Your job here is to keep the reasoning disciplined: separate what is empirically true from what is ethically justified, and show your work.

Learning Module

Case Study: The Proposed Bessemer, Alabama Hyperscale Data Center (Project Marvel)

Module purpose: This is a guide for your analysis. It does not provide moral conclusions or “the answer.” Your task is to use the Critical Moral Reasoning framework and apply Rawlsian justice and Libertarian principles to the Bessemer case.

Learning objectives

By the end, you should be able to:

1. Build a moral argument using the textbook’s formula: Case at Hand → Relevant Facts → Axiology → Parties of Interest → Moral Principles → Duties → Conflict Resolution Principles → Conclusion
2. Identify where disagreement is happening (facts vs. values vs. duties vs. principles).
3. Apply Rawls’s method (impartiality/reciprocity; veil-of-ignorance reasoning) and a Libertarian self-ownership/negative-duties lens to the same case without mixing them.
4. Identify the specific kinds of evidence that would be strong enough to support the claim that the data center was sited through a pattern of inequity (digital redlining), rather than through neutral factors like land price, zoning history, or grid access.

Section 1 — Case at Hand (write 2–4 sentences)

Prompt: State the ethical question as a judgment problem (a dilemma about what should be done, not merely what is legal). The textbook’s framing: dilemmas often arise because parties’ interests conflict, facts pull in opposite directions, or moral principles conflict.

Your task:

• Write the core question in this form:
  • “Should ___ (decision-maker) do ___ (action) given ___ (conflicting considerations)?”
• Write one alternate framing using the same form and note how it changes what you would look for.

Section 2 — Relevant Facts (empirical claims only)

Below is a starter set of publicly reported facts about the proposal. Add at least 10 more facts from primary or near-primary sources (meeting minutes, zoning documents, environmental assessments, utility filings, etc.).

Starter facts (do not treat as complete)

• The proposal has been described as a hyperscale data center project (“Project Marvel”) with developers claiming roughly $14.5 billion in investment. (Inside Climate News)
• The plan reported by multiple outlets involves about 18 buildings totaling roughly 4.5 million square feet on roughly ~700 acres (initial rezoning area reported around the high-600s/700). (WBMA)
• Bessemer approved changes that allow data centers in light industrial zones, and council action advanced rezoning from agricultural to light industrial for the project area. (WBHM 90.3)
• One reported developer entity is Logistic Land Investment LLC; reporting indicates a request to rezone additional acreage beyond the initial footprint (reported as ~900 acres). (Inside Climate News)
• Reporting and statements from residents raise concerns about noise, environmental impacts, and quality of life near Rock Mountain Lake Road and nearby waterways/woods. (https://www.wbrc.com)
• The Southern Environmental Law Center publicly criticized the rezoning decision and emphasized transparency/environmental concerns. (Southern Environmental Law Center)
• The City of Bessemer published “updated development plans” and has acknowledged plan changes (e.g., buffers). (bessemeral.org)

 

Your task (evidence discipline):

1. Create a two-column list: Verified vs. Unverified/Disputed facts.
2. For each unverified/disputed claim, write what would verify it (document, dataset, testimony, measurement, etc.).
3. Identify missing facts that matter ethically (e.g., water source, discharge permits, noise modeling, tax abatements, who pays for grid upgrades, emergency response plans).

Section 3 — Axiology (who has moral standing here, and why?)

In the textbook’s formula, axiology is where you specify what properties matter morally (e.g., autonomy, well-being, fairness, rights, environmental integrity).

This learning module frames digital redlining as a pattern where AI/data infrastructure may externalize environmental costs onto vulnerable communities and exploit power imbalances.

Your task:

• List 5–8 axiology candidates relevant to this case (examples: autonomy, informed consent, health, property, livelihood, ecological integrity, procedural fairness, opportunity).
• For each candidate, write:
  1. What it is,
  2. Why it matters,
  3. How you would observe/measure impact (even roughly).

Section 4 — Parties of Interest (stakeholders + moral patients)

Your task:

1. Identify all parties of interest, including:
   • Nearby residents (different distances), landowners, renters
   • City officials, planning/zoning commission
   • Developer(s), contractors, utility providers
   • Local businesses, schools, emergency services
   • Environmental parties (creeks/watersheds; species/habitats)
2. For each party, specify:
   • What they stand to gain/lose
   • What they can control
   • What they cannot reasonably avoid

Section 5 — Moral Principles (apply Rawls and Libertarian lenses separately)

5A. Rawls task (Justice as Fairness methodology)

Critical Moral Reasoning: An Applied Empirical Ethics Approach describes Rawls as using a social contract method, emphasizing impartiality/neutrality and reciprocity, and using “veil of ignorance” style reasoning to reduce bias from accidents of circumstance.

Your task (Rawls):

1. Veil of ignorance rewrite: Re-describe the case as if you do not know which party of interest you will be (resident, developer, city official, low-income renter, etc.).
2. Propose 2–3 governing principles you think rational, minimally self-interested persons would assent to for:
   • Transparency/participation
   • Distribution of burdens/benefits
   • Protection of basic interests (health, home stability, opportunity)
3. State how each proposed principle would constrain (or permit) rezoning, siting, mitigation, or compensation—without deciding the outcome yet.

5B. Libertarian task (self-ownership / negative duties / property)

Critical Moral Reasoning: An Applied Empirical Ethics Approach contrasts Singer and Rawls with a laissez-faire Libertarian emphasis on autonomy/self-ownership and resistance to imposing positive duties that create claims on others’ labor or resources.

Your task (Libertarian):

1. Identify what counts as:
   • A negative duty in this case (duties not to harm, not to coerce, not to trespass)
   • A contested positive duty (duties to provide benefits, compensate, subsidize, or “guarantee” outcomes)
2. Specify the role of:
   • Voluntary contract/consent
   • Property rights and legitimate acquisition
   • Government’s legitimate scope (what is allowed vs. overreach)
3. Write two arguments a Libertarian could make and two counter-questions someone else could press—again, without concluding who is correct.

Section 6 — Duties (who owes what to whom?)

Use your principle work to identify duties.

Your task:

• Make a duties table with rows = parties, columns = duty types:
  • Duties of transparency (information access, disclosure, no NDAs that block public accountability—if applicable)
  • Duties of non-harm (noise, water, pollution, displacement)
  • Duties of fairness (equal access to process; equal consideration of interests)
  • Duties of restitution/compensation (if burdens are imposed)
• Mark where duties conflict (e.g., property rights vs. participatory justice; speed of development vs. environmental safeguards).

Section 7 — Conflict Resolution Principles (how you decide when duties clash)

The textbook’s moral argument structure explicitly requires conflict resolution principles before concluding.

Your task:
Choose one conflict-resolution strategy and justify why it is legitimate here (examples):

• “Perfect duties override imperfect duties” (if using deontic reasoning)
• “Prevent the most serious rights-violation first”
• “Protect the least-advantaged from avoidable harm” (Rawls-friendly framing)
• “No coercion beyond protecting negative rights” (Libertarian-friendly framing)

Then write:

1. What counts as “serious harm” here, and how you know
2. What counts as “coercion” here, and how you know
3. What would change your mind (what evidence or principle conflict would force revision)

Section 8 — Conclusion (your argument, not a verdict-by-feeling)

Your task:
Write your conclusion in this format:

1. Because (facts)…
2. And because (principles)…
3. Therefore (duty/obligation)…
4. So the ethically preferable option is (policy/action)…
5. Provided that (conditions/mitigations/constraints)…

Then write one paragraph on:

• Where you think reasonable people will disagree (facts vs. axiology vs. duties).

Section 9 — Digital Redlining Check (methodological caution)

This learning module defines digital redlining as a structural continuation of historical redlining, including siting that exploits power imbalance and treats communities as “sacrifice zones.”

Your task (do not assume):

1. List 3 indicators that would support a claim of digital redlining in this case (e.g., pattern across demographics; differential standards; excluded consent).
2. List 3 alternative explanations that could also explain the siting outcome (market, land availability, grid/fiber, zoning legacy).
3. Identify the minimum evidence threshold you would require before using the label publicly.

References

• Bullard, R. D. (as cited in attached document). “Path of least resistance” framing.
• Hedgepeth, L. (2025, Oct 9). Despite stiff opposition, Bessemer changes its laws to accommodate data centers. WBHM. (WBHM 90.3)
• Hedgepeth, L. (2025, Nov 19). Bessemer City Council approves rezoning for a massive data center, dividing a community. WBHM. (WBHM 90.3)
• Inside Climate News. (2025, Nov 18). An Alabama City Council Approves Rezoning for a Massive Data Center. (Inside Climate News)
• Inside Climate News. (2026, Jan 14). Bessemer Data Center Developer to Request Rezoning for Additional 900 Acres. (Inside Climate News)
• Southern Environmental Law Center. (2025). Bessemer City Council greenlights controversial data center rezoning. (Southern Environmental Law Center)
• Critical Moral Reasoning: An Applied Empirical Ethics Approach (course text excerpt). Moral argument formula; Rawls/Libertarian sections.
• AI Water Use (attached document). Digital redlining framing and definition passages.

FAQ

What is “digital redlining” in the context of data centers?
In the attached document, digital redlining is described as a continuation of historic redlining logics where resource-intensive, polluting infrastructure is disproportionately sited in marginalized or low-power communities, exploiting power imbalances (“path of least resistance”).

What is the Bessemer, Alabama data center proposal (Project Marvel)?
Reporting describes a proposed hyperscale data center near Bessemer involving rezoning large acreage from agricultural to light industrial, with developers claiming a multi-billion-dollar investment and a multi-building campus. (Inside Climate News)

What is the moral argument formula used in Critical Moral Reasoning?
The text gives this structure: Case at Hand → Relevant Facts → Axiology → Parties of Interest → Moral Principles → Duties → Conflict Resolution Principles → Conclusion.

How do I apply John Rawls to the Bessemer case without jumping to conclusions?
Use veil-of-ignorance style reasoning (don’t assume which stakeholder you are), then propose governing principles that impartial, minimally self-interested persons would assent to, and only then derive duties and constraints.

How do Libertarian principles typically approach duties and fairness disputes?
In the text’s presentation, the Libertarian emphasizes autonomy/self-ownership and is wary of positive duties that create claims on others’ labor or resources; focus your analysis on negative duties, coercion, and legitimate scope of government.