Eight Upatoi Residents Sue Columbus Over Technology Overlay

The legal challenge Columbus residents threatened came Monday. Four days after Mayor Skip Henderson signed the technology overlay ordinance into law, eight Upatoi landowners and Keep It Rural LLC filed suit in Muscogee County Superior Court.

The case number is SU2026CV001406. Attorney Jonathan Waters represents the plaintiffs: Stacie Mailey, Debbie Jackson, Charles McClure, Jeremy Gibson, Jordan Kempson, Robert Landi, Wayne Gasser and Debra Jarzomkowski. All live on or near the 865-acre Layfield Road site proposed for Project Ruby, the $5.18 billion hyperscale data center.

The lawsuit does not challenge whether data centers are good or bad. It challenges how this one was approved.

What the Complaint Argues

The plaintiffs assert five legal violations.

First: the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law. The council made material amendments between the June 2 first reading and the June 16 vote. The buffer requirement grew from 200 feet to 500 feet. A PFAS ban was added. A diesel generator ban was added. None of those provisions existed when the public heard the ordinance. No new public hearing was held. “The public was denied the reading-and-hearing process the City’s ordinances guarantee,” the complaint says.

Second: the Columbus Unified Development Ordinance and city charter. The same procedural failure applies under Columbus’s own rules.

Third: due process under the United States and Georgia Constitutions. The plaintiffs say there was no meaningful notice and no meaningful opportunity to be heard. They point to the removal of three members of the public during the June 2 first reading. The complaint calls that act “chilling” and says it “curtailed public participation” in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Fourth: the Georgia Open Meetings Act. The council directed an unofficial committee to vet and revise the overlay before the vote. The committee was coordinated by the Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce. The complaint says it operated without public comment and behind closed doors. Conducting government business that way, the plaintiffs argue, violates the Open Meetings Act.

Fifth: arbitrary and capricious abuse of zoning power. The complaint alleges spot zoning. Spot zoning singles out a parcel for a use different from its surroundings, to benefit a property owner at the expense of neighbors. Georgia courts scrutinize it closely. The record, the plaintiffs argue, shows the ordinance was written specifically to facilitate Project Ruby. That is inconsistent with comprehensive planning. It harms general welfare.

What They’re Asking For

The plaintiffs want the overlay declared void, invalid and unenforceable. They seek a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction. That injunction would block the city from accepting or processing any application under the overlay, including Project Ruby’s.

If the court declines to void the ordinance, the plaintiffs offer an alternative. They ask that the matter be sent back to the council to conduct proper proceedings. They also seek attorney fees.

What Comes Next

Four of the five counts rest on facts this series documented: the procedural gap in the ZPL, the material amendments made between readings, the UDO framework, the public participation that was cut short.

The fifth count points somewhere the series has not yet gone. The unofficial committee revised an ordinance governing a $5 billion project. It did so without a public record. Who was in the room, what was proposed, what was rejected, and who directed the specific language that ended up in the final ordinance are not yet known.

That is where this story goes next.