Daniel Dennehy’s biggest regret? Not seeing the handwriting on the wall–or, more specifically, a new piece of legislation by the council of Big Beaver Borough. It’s where Pitt Race is located. Dennehy is one of several individuals behind the Save Pitt Race effort.
“September 16 of this year they passed a redefinition of Ordinance 245, which includes language for [the …
I understand fighting the loss of a track due to new development, especially housing, endagnering operation through sound ordinances, etc etc. or through some governmental eminent domain - style land grab for developers.
I do not support, in any way, preventing an owner from selling a track. Ever.
It's wrong.
Nothing in here denies the right of an owner to sell their property. But changes to local land use -- zoning -- regulations ought to take place in the public eye, not under cover of an NDA, whether it's for housing, industrial use, or even race tracks. And any time a municipality starts talking about zoning changes, it's wise to start asking why...which I think is the lesson here.
I live 45 miles of Pitt Race in Ohio. The first I heard of Pitt Race being sold. The area surrounding PR is rural township land, which is good for the racing community. No noise issues and the like. Most people in the area are not aware of PR, so are they going to fight to maintain the track?
I know that the pending sale did not make a blip on the NE Ohio news and most likely even the Pittsburgh news. The first I heard of the pending sale was on a GRM post on Instagram or Facebook just a few weeks ago.
Last weekend, Pitt Race held their last event ever called Last Laps. During the drivers meeting they let it be known that these were the last sanctioned events for PR. It's amazing that one of the Nation's premier facilities went from 140+ mph to zero in a matter of weeks, all under the cover of non disclosure agreements. So sad.
In reply to Warlock :
imho, this is really the crux of it. If you were to try the same tactics to build a race track the way data center people do, you would be excoriated. Data center ordinance applications are super covert because they know people will fight these sorts of ordinance changes (especially as more data comes out about actual environmental and economic impact - not the theoretical stuff that's often brought about as a way to facilitate buy-in).
If you want to build a data center, by all means. Plan just like you would any other piece of property. Using NDAs to surprise people is dishonest, and I would certainly support changes to laws to prevent these sorts of clandestine property developments.
So as someone who's been involved with negotiations as a large customer with a large data center I will chime in.
First there are actual legitimate reasons for the NDAs. Naturally these companies will attempt to overstate the security concerns. Some of these sites deal with the military so again the NDAs are appropriate but you still have to push back where needed.
There are ways to combat this; first and foremost we noted that as a public entity we are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and as such have to provide some basic information IP notwithstanding.
We are a large organization and have the wherewithal to combat the draconian tatics. A small rural entity like doesn't.
Finally I will throw this out; if Pittrace were being sold to a hippie commune would you somehow magically feel better?
Yep, while the idea of NDA’s may be something new to the casual reader, NDA’s are nothing new in commercial real estate transactions.
In reply to randallprince :
For what it’s worth, about 15 years ago billionaire Bobby Epstein and his partners faced local opposition when the idea of Circuit of The Americas was announced.
Imagine the irony of residents unhappy with the race track fighting it in days gone by now fighting to keep it a race track and not a data center.. . .
The land is zoned R-2 which is Suburban Residential. I don't know when this had changed or if it was always R-2 and the track was a conditional use.
Big Beaver Boro was to hear a conditional use application from Beavrun Founders LLC at a council meeting Jan and Feb 2025 but I can't find the application. I'm betting although the above LLC is listed as being owned by the Stouts, I'm betting that the original 3 or 4 founders from 2000 still own some shares and are looking to recoop some of their $$.
Also , don't hammer the Stouts and others involved too much, there is always an outside chance another track will be built somewhere as I'm betting that the current location wasn't the only one considered in 2000.
In reply to Coniglio Rampante :
Indeed, the door of having an informed base of local residents swings both ways, but the locals should be informed. That way they can decide if the pros outweigh the cons of whatever large-scale project is being built near them and will impact their lives. That applies for a race track. That applies for a data center. That applies for whatever.
J.A. Ackley said:In reply to Coniglio Rampante :
Indeed, the door of having an informed base of local residents swings both ways, but the locals should be informed. That way they can decide if the pros outweigh the cons of whatever large-scale project is being built near them and will impact their lives. That applies for a race track. That applies for a data center. That applies for whatever.
+1
J.A. Ackley said:Indeed, the door of having an informed base of local residents swings both ways, but the locals should be informed. That way they can decide if the pros outweigh the cons of whatever large-scale project is being built near them and will impact their lives. That applies for a race track. That applies for a data center. That applies for whatever.
I'm inclined to argue that no, it doesn't apply. Data centers are good neighbors -- they don't make noise, they don't make traffic. They don't pollute the local environment, attract crime, or do any of the other things that impact the lives of people living near them. They're anonymous buildings with no windows and a handful of cars in a small parking lot. About the only downside I can think of is that they do need a fair bit of power, but that's not out of line with other types of manufacturing/etc industry and power grid planning isn't really a topic for public town hall meetings anyway.
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Not all data centers are built the same, but there are complaints in rural communities due to noise and water pollution. Obviously not as a loud as cars on a track during the day, but a constant hum 24/7.
I wonder what Pitt Race's financials looked like. It is a truly world-class facility, with nearly new buldings and facilities, an amazing track surface, meticulusly landscaped, etc. But at the end of the day, they were hosting autocrosses that cost $50 to enter and Track Nights that cost $250. I am not sure how often the place was rented for private use, but there were no track-side condos or major events that would attract crowds of paying attendees or television coverage. They may have been running in the red for years for all we know. I am as sad about the loss as anyone, but it may not have been huge bags of cash that convinced them.
Really well written article.
I previously worked in tech and my sympathy for large companies building data centers is practically nil. The need for compute power is right now driven by AI and was previously driven by different variations on the attention economy. Both of these things appear to be a net negative for society and should be treated like cigarettes and hard drugs.
Basically, we should allow the transaction to occur and tax the data center within an inch of its profit margins, and reinvest the money in allllll the things that society needs right now. Housing, healthcare, veterans services, day care, etc.
Large companies will continue to take advantage of all of us until we make it unprofitable for them to do so.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:J.A. Ackley said:Indeed, the door of having an informed base of local residents swings both ways, but the locals should be informed. That way they can decide if the pros outweigh the cons of whatever large-scale project is being built near them and will impact their lives. That applies for a race track. That applies for a data center. That applies for whatever.
I'm inclined to argue that no, it doesn't apply. Data centers are good neighbors -- they don't make noise, they don't make traffic. They don't pollute the local environment, attract crime, or do any of the other things that impact the lives of people living near them. They're anonymous buildings with no windows and a handful of cars in a small parking lot. About the only downside I can think of is that they do need a fair bit of power, but that's not out of line with other types of manufacturing/etc industry and power grid planning isn't really a topic for public town hall meetings anyway.
This almost certainly isn't a traditional data center, but an AI data center, which is a whole different ballgame, more like a cryptocurrency mining facility on steroids. It would pull as much power from the grid as they could feed into the facility, far more than a traditional data center, and supplement it with gas turbines on site running flat-out 24/7, which would then be producing streams of jet exhaust 24/7. Cooling requirements would be much higher which would mean higher water needs.
Growing up in the Rust Belt during the industrial collapse, I was surrounded by abandoned factories and empty buildings. As a kid, I thought that was normal—until I started traveling and realized it wasn’t. Twenty years later, I moved back home and still couldn’t understand why so many of these sites remained unused. Despite city incentives, the buildings stood (and still stand) in disrepair.
About five years ago, a local think tank released a paper suggesting that my hometown city would be an ideal location for data centers, using Amsterdam as a comparison. The reasoning made some sense—there are similarities—but the reality hasn’t matched the vision. It wouldn't be a stretch to start a AI Data center.
When an entity decides to tear down something that’s still in excellent condition and appears to make money, instead of developing one of the millions of available sites vacant that would actually pay for investment, it just doesn’t seem logical. Then again, I’m not in the business of printing money like they are. Fortunately, public opposition has sometimes stopped these kinds of misguided projects. AI Data center have been labeled as bad because their techniques of how they open them and what happens afterwards, all of this is not the citizens fault.
Interestingly, just two hours away, a developer took a completely different approach. They were granted land that had once been a dump site, received grants, and built a karting track there. It wasn’t easy—it took about three years to break through the red tape—but now that land is being used productively in an industrial area that would otherwise sit idle. Who knows—maybe when the kart track becomes successful, AI data center will buy it, and build over it. Again not a good look.
You'll need to log in to post.
