Madonna Munley is a retired teacher and the fifth generation of her family to live in Archbald. On an ordinary afternoon in a borough park, she can point across the grass and narrate what isn't there yet. Right here will be Archbald I, she says. The power plant will be right past that pole. She is not guessing. The site plans exist. The land is already spoken for.
Archbald is a borough of roughly 7,500 people, wedged into a valley cut by the Lackawanna River, slightly smaller in area than Manhattan. It currently has more proposed data center campuses than any other municipality in Pennsylvania: six, from five different developers, with a seventh added since. Together the specifications describe more than fifty buildings, each larger than a Walmart, covering a full 14 percent of the town.
What's Already Been Decided
Two sites make the arithmetic concrete. Valley View Estates, a trailer park bordering one proposed campus, has an owner who agreed to sell the land to a developer. Residents were told to be out by April 15, 2026. The Highlands, a condominium complex occupied largely by retirees, sits against the boundary of another. Neither is a hypothetical impact statement. Both are addresses.
Tammy Misewicz-Healey, who has three children under six and runs the Stop Archbald Data Centers group with her husband, put the scale of what residents are up against in blunter terms than any zoning document.
The Ordinance That Arrived Too Late
When the first data center proposals reached Archbald in early 2025, the borough's zoning code treated them roughly the same as a commercial office building — permitted in zones never built to absorb a fifty-building campus. Residents organized and pushed for a rewrite that would confine data centers to fully industrial land, away from the center of town. An updated ordinance passed in November 2025. It didn't go that far. Facilities are still allowed to sit beside residential neighborhoods, including the ones already selling their neighbors' addresses out from under them.
The timing did most of the damage before the vote ever happened. Developers moved to acquire land while the borough was still writing the rule that might have stopped them, leaving Archbald with little recourse once the ink dried. The ordinance meant to protect the town's remaining land arrived after the land that mattered most was already under contract — the same grandfathering logic that, at the state level, would later let existing projects sail past Governor Shapiro's executive order untouched. Archbald lived the local version of that clause a year before Harrisburg wrote the state one.
The Clock Built Into State Law
On March 27, 2026, Archbald's council denied a permit to a Texas-based developer, Provident Realty Advisors, for an eighteen-building campus beside a borough park. Residents cheered. But the vote wasn't really a decision on the merits — it was a deadline. Under Pennsylvania law, a municipality that fails to act on a zoning application within a set window sees it automatically approved by default. When the developer declined to reschedule an earlier hearing, the borough had to vote by the close of business that day or lose the ability to vote at all. One resident, Janessa Bednash, said what the sequence actually looked like from the audience.
The mechanism matters more than the single vote. State law hands developers a form of leverage that has nothing to do with the strength of their proposal: run out the clock, and silence becomes approval. Archbald won that particular round because its council happened to convene in time. The rule that made the win necessary in the first place is still on the books.
Officials With Their Hands Tied, or Something Else
At a later hearing on a still-pending campus — four hundred residents packed a high school auditorium in matching yellow T-shirts reading Stop Data Centers Protect NEPA — one councilman tried to lower the temperature in the room by naming the limits of his own authority.
Whether that's an accurate description of the borough's constraints or a convenient one is a question worth holding onto. State law does limit what a municipality can categorically forbid. It does not require a council to make the process easy, to accept a developer's own timeline, or to treat a community-benefits offer as a substitute for consent. One developer offered Archbald seventeen million dollars in community benefits to host a campus. Hundreds of residents showed up anyway to say no. Misewicz-Healey put it plainly: the concern was never about any single site.
Archbald Is Not Alone
State Representative Kyle Mullins, whose district includes Archbald, told the House floor his own constituents are living inside nine proposed campuses, six of them in this one municipality. At least twelve campuses are proposed across Lackawanna County altogether, reaching into Clifton and Covington townships, Dickson City, Jessup, Olyphant, and Ransom Township. Mullins didn't soften his description of what that concentration amounts to.
Clifton and Covington townships appear again in the next post in this series, for a different reason. The same land under siege from zoning applications sits over the water table the next post is about — and the same family whose property borders three sides of a proposed campus has already watched a well run dry once before, for reasons that had nothing to do with data centers at all.
Sources: Spotlight PA; NPR/WVIA (Kat Bolus); The Allegheny Front; DeSmog; The Cool Down; Scranton Times-Tribune coverage of the Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus hearings; Pennsylvania House floor remarks, Rep. Kyle Mullins.






