Outside Memphis City Hall on October 20th, residents gathered to demand a pause on data center development. Photographing the protest for the Memphis Flyer meant listening to people explain why they had come. As a resident of Westwood, in 38109, those conversations were about my community, too.
Three people spoke with me before the meeting: a man and his wife, and another man. The couple lived in Midtown. Their reason for showing up was simple. Development outside their neighborhood still deserved their attention.
“We’re Midtowners, but we’re Memphians, too,” one of them said.
Those words stood out. They raised concerns about drinking water and the costs associated with data centers. Living elsewhere in Memphis had not stopped them from supporting residents closer to the development. They understood why people were asking questions and had come Downtown to stand with them.
The other man came for two reasons: to support a data center moratorium and to support the council calling for U.S Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the National Guard to leave Memphis. Both issues brought people to City Hall — asking elected officials to respond to concerns about their communities.
Inside council chambers, residents spoke about health, water, air, and electricity. Speakers described what worried them about more development and asked for time to establish regulations with community input. These were people taking time out of their day to explain what was happening where they lived.
One speaker described rushing a family member to Walgreens for an inhaler. Hearing about someone struggling to breathe made the discussion personal. The testimony did not establish what caused the breathing problems, but explained why the speaker felt an urgent need for action.
Councilwoman Janika White later spoke about growing up with asthma near Boxtown and Westwood and losing family members to cancer. She said she supported a pause and further study. She also said she supported item 18 , which was ultimately an ordinance proposing a 135-day pause on data center development.
Her experiences deserved to be heard. But sharing those experiences did not answer the question of why she supported item 18 , while opposing the longer (18-month) moratorium residents were requesting through item 19.
Following the discussion while photographing and taking notes became difficult. Councilman Jeff Warren introduced a substitute version of item 18, which Councilwoman Rhonda Logan supported.
Councilwoman Jerri Green questioned proceeding after receiving a multi-page substitute without a “redline” showing the changes.
Green asked for time to read it and allow the public to understand it. Warren and Logan argued the substitute combined provisions council members had already considered.
Her concern was reasonable. If a council member needed more time to understand the changes, residents deserved the same opportunity. Familiarity with earlier proposals did not settle the question of what the combined version contained or how it differed.
The process mattered because people had shown up expecting a decision about their neighborhoods. Understanding the proposal before the vote should have been part of their participation.
Exchanges between council members and people in the room became harder to follow. Technical problems added to the confusion when item 19 reached a vote. The council proceeded with a roll call.
Item 19 ended in a 6-6 tie. It failed.
Item 18 then passed 7-5.
The 18-month moratorium residents asked the council to support did not pass. Another proposal did.
Those details matter beyond the meeting. Residents deserve to understand what changes after the vote, which developments face restrictions, and what happens next. A passed ordinance needs a clear explanation people are able to use when asking officials to follow through.
The council also passed the resolution calling for the removal of ICE and the National Guard from Memphis as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force. This move expressed the council’s position, not if either [would] leave the city.
Covering the meeting required separating what happened from what people claimed. The photographs document moments outside City Hall and inside chambers. Interviews capture residents’ concerns. The recording preserves the discussion and votes.
Leaving City Hall, the question was personal: How did council members hear residents explain these concerns and still reject the longer pause those speakers wanted?
What do council members see when they open their front doors? Would they support a data center in their own backyard? What answers would they expect if their families were asking these questions?
