Curtis Linton Says I’m Spreading Misinformation. Here Are the Facts.

I'm saddened to hear the rhetoric coming from Curtis Linton’s camp in regards to my messaging about his stance on data centers. I have gone out of my way not to make accusations about Curtis's character or speculate about his motives.

I have relied on primary sources: his own public comment before County Council, his campaign finance reports, the text and history of Ordinance 25-101, and the publicly disclosed relationships surrounding Project Washington.

So let's talk about what that record actually says.

Curtis now says he supports the final version of Ordinance 25-101. I acknowledge that.

But you'll forgive me for taking your public comment as your final position on this issue, Curtis, because it was the last public position I could find from you on data centers (there was nothing to be found on your print materials, website, or socials) before you accused me of slander.

On November 4, you went before County Council and began your comments by saying:

“I'm here to say, I do not support the ordinance.”

You argued that the county was risking millions of dollars in tax revenue, defended Starwood, criticized some of the concerns being raised about data centers, and argued against changing the rules for projects that were already moving through the development process.

Then in December you filed to run for County Council.

And despite data centers becoming one of the largest land use issues facing New Castle County, I could find no public campaign statement from you explaining a different position until after I began talking about your record.

So if your views changed, became more nuanced, or you supported a later compromise, I'm glad we're talking about that now.

But it is simply not “misinformation” for me to show people what you actually said in public.

And once we get beyond that accusation, there is a much more important disagreement that voters deserve to understand.

The real question was never whether there should be any regulations on data centers. The question is simple: If Curtis supports common sense regulations for data centers, why does he oppose applying them to Project Washington, a project his own union has a labor agreement with?

Ordinance 25-101 created New Castle County's first rules specifically governing these enormous facilities.

A major fight throughout that process was whether those protections should apply to the data center projects already moving through the county development pipeline.

The final compromise Curtis says he supports does not require Project Washington and other pending projects to comply with the new regulations. These weren’t operating data centers that we were trying to regulate after the fact. They hadn’t broken ground. They hadn’t even submitted full applications. They entered the county's development process months before New Castle County adopted its first ever regulations specifically for data centers.

And this is where the context matters.

Curtis is the Business Manager and Secretary-Treasurer of Laborers Local 199. He's been a member of Local 199 since 2001 and became a Business Agent/Manager in 2018.

Local 199 is also one of the unions that signed a Project Labor Agreement with Project Washington.

Not with data centers generally. With Project Washington specifically.

And Project Washington is the largest and most consequential data center proposal in this debate. It is the reason Councilman Dave Carter began writing the ordinance in the first place.

It is also one of the projects that will not be required to follow the new data center ordinance Curtis now says he supports.

I think voters should sit with that for a moment.

The union Curtis leads has a direct labor agreement with Project Washington.

The Building Trades fought aggressively during the data center debate.

Curtis publicly argued against applying new rules to projects already moving through the process.

And the final compromise exempted Project Washington from mandatory compliance with those new rules.

If these are common sense protections for data centers, why shouldn't Project Washington have to follow them?

Why should the biggest projects coming into New Castle County get a pass simply because they got far enough into the planning process (which isn't very far) months before our first data center ordinance was finished?

We're not talking about an existing facility that had operated for twenty years and suddenly changing the rules underneath it. We're talking about a proposed hyperscale development that hadn't even completed the county approval process.

And the rules we're talking about exist for a reason. They address the effects these enormous projects can have on surrounding communities and require protections involving things like buffers, water use, noise, and who pays when a facility is eventually decommissioned.

If those protections make sense for the next data center, they make sense for the enormous data centers already knocking on our door.

Now add another piece of context.

The construction unions aren't merely supportive of Curtis in some abstract sense.

They are financially backing his campaign.

Curtis's campaign finance report shows maximum contributions from building trades unions, union PACs, contractors and construction organizations, including the Delaware Building & Construction Trades PAC, IBEW Local 313 PAC, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 74 PAC, Boilermakers Local 13 PAC, Teamsters Local 326 PAC and others. His report also includes maximum contributions from Allen Strategies, a lobbying firm representing interests connected to Project Washington, and Saul Ewing, the law firm representing Starwood on the project.

And we don't have to speculate about whether Building Trades leadership wanted Curtis elected.

When Curtis's candidacy was announced, Delaware Building Trades President James Maravelias publicly encouraged union members to give Curtis the maximum $600 individual contribution before the end of the year, saying:

“A good showing in December will ward off challengers.”

Again: none of that proves Curtis was bought.

I have never said that, and I don’t believe it to be true.

Campaign contributions do not prove why someone takes a position, and a Project Labor Agreement does not prove why someone advocates for a particular policy.

But pretending those relationships are irrelevant is equally unreasonable.

Voters are entitled to know who is financially backing a candidate, what organizations that candidate represents professionally, and what economic interests those organizations have in matters that will come before County Council.

And context matters when you're asking voters to put you on the government body that makes decisions about land use and development.

I also want to be very clear about organized labor: I support the unions. I support good paying construction jobs.

Frankly, I understand why the Building Trades want these projects. Their responsibility is to get their members working and protect their livelihoods. That's what a labor organization is supposed to do.

But County Council has a different responsibility.

County Council has to protect everyone .

And I reject the idea that we have to choose between good union jobs and protecting the public.

We can have both.

We can tell a multibillion dollar corporation: build here, employ Delaware workers, pay good wages, and follow rules that protect the people who already live here.

We can create jobs without asking residents to absorb the consequences.

We can welcome investment without handing developers a blank check.

We can support organized labor without pretending that every project creating union work is automatically a good deal for the public.

That's what this disagreement is actually about.

County Council spends an enormous amount of its time making decisions about development: what gets built, where it gets built, what rules developers have to follow and who bears the costs those projects create.

Those decisions eventually show up in our daily lives, in our neighborhoods, our infrastructure, our electric bills, our taxes, our traffic and our quality of life.

A central commitment of my campaign has been simple: Development should pay the costs it creates.

And when a powerful developer comes before New Castle County asking for an approval, an exception or favorable treatment, residents deserve someone on the other side of that table whose first responsibility is to them.

That is why these relationships matter to me.

Not because Curtis Linton is a bad person. I've never said he is.

Not because accepting a campaign contribution makes someone corrupt. I've never said that either.

But when the union you lead has a labor agreement with one of the largest developments before the county; when the broader Building Trades have fought for that project and are financially backing your campaign; when you publicly advocated a position that would allow projects already in the pipeline to avoid new regulations; and when the project your union has an agreement with ultimately receives exactly that treatment, voters deserve to know.

Those aren't attacks.
Those aren't inventions.
Those aren't slander.

They're the public record.

If Curtis believes there is more to his position, then I welcome him explaining it. That's what campaigns are supposed to be about.

But I'm not going to stop showing voters documented facts just because those facts create an uncomfortable conversation.

And I'm certainly not going to apologize for asking the question County Council members should always be prepared to answer:

When the interests supporting you and the interests of the residents you represent come into conflict, who comes first?

For me, there is only one answer.

The residents do.