A detailed follow-up account outlines the history, land use, and local response surrounding a family that declined a multimillion-dollar data center buyout.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A Kentucky farming family that previously turned down a $26 million offer for its land is now the focus of a detailed account outlining its history, daily operations, and the broader context surrounding a proposed data center development near Maysville.
The account, published in an in-depth report by The Epoch Times, describes the circumstances of Ida Huddleston, 82, and her daughter Delsia Bare, who were approached by a representative of an undisclosed company seeking to acquire roughly 1,000 acres of their family’s property for a hyperscale data center.
The Huddleston family’s land holdings total approximately 1,200 acres in Mason County, where generations have raised cattle and grown crops including soybeans and corn. The property has been in the family since 1848, with ownership tracing back more than 200 years. During the Great Depression, the family grew wheat to sustain themselves and others in the region.
The farmhouse where Huddleston resides was built in 1982 by her late husband using timber cut from the property and stone sourced from a nearby creek. Reflecting on the home and land, she said, “Every day in this house, every time I’m on the land and sitting on this porch, I feel his presence. What you see here, it holds memories of the past, and hopefully, the future.”
The surrounding landscape in Mason County remains largely agricultural, with pastures, hay fields, barns, and farmhouses reflecting a continuity that spans generations. Many families in the region trace their land ownership back to Revolutionary War-era grants.
Local officials have considered a proposal to rezone 28 properties for a 2,080-acre data center campus intended to support artificial intelligence and cloud computing operations. The Mason County Industrial Development Authority advanced the proposal, and the county planning commission approved it with conditions on April 22.
The company behind the proposed project has not been publicly identified. Officials have described it as a Fortune 100 technology firm operating large-scale data campuses globally. Nondisclosure agreements have been used in discussions between developers and local authorities, limiting public information about the project.
Huddleston described the purchase offer she received as a “scam” and said repeated contact from representatives amounted to “harassment” and “bullying.” She added, “Those people can’t be trusted. We’re not going anywhere. We’re going to stand and do what we’ve always done.”
Perspectives from other residents and landowners in the area highlight broader concerns. Max Moran, cofounder of the grassroots organization We Are Mason County, said similar development efforts are occurring nationwide, with companies approaching rural communities and offering financial incentives tied to large-scale infrastructure projects. “They require a significant amount of land, water, and electricity while forever changing the landscape of rural communities,” Moran said.
Moran’s family farms more than 760 acres locally, and he also serves as an elected official. He said concerns about transparency stem from the use of nondisclosure agreements and the structure of project applications, which involve an industrial authority acting as the formal applicant rather than the company itself.
Janet Garrison, a cofounder of the group and a retired information technology instructor, said awareness of the proposal grew gradually among residents as contracts circulated and land offers increased. She and her husband operate a 130-acre cattle farm nearby.
Additional concerns raised by residents focus on the potential impacts of large-scale data center development. Estimates discussed locally indicate the proposed campus could require approximately 2.2 gigawatts of electricity and large volumes of water for cooling. Initial plans referenced water drawn from the Ohio River, while later revisions included use of a regional aquifer.
Residents were also told that up to 500,000 gallons of water per day could be used during construction for dust control. Additional infrastructure requirements could include substations, transmission lines, and backup energy systems.
Other concerns cited include noise from equipment, emissions from backup generators, and potential effects on local housing. In one mobile home park within the proposed development area, initial relocation offers were reported at $20,000, later increasing to $50,000 after media attention. Some residents may face difficulty relocating older structures that cannot legally be moved.
The account also references broader agricultural trends, noting that in 2025 alone, approximately 2.5 million acres of farmland and 15,000 farms were lost nationwide, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.
Local officials have stated the project could bring economic benefits, including construction jobs and long-term employment. Maysville City Manager Matt Wallingford said the development could generate more than 1,000 construction jobs over an eight- to ten-year period and more than 100 permanent positions with average salaries around $100,000.
At the state level, legislative efforts to establish regulatory requirements for data center developments did not pass during the most recent session. A proposal that would have required developers to cover infrastructure costs tied to their operations was removed from a bill before final approval.
The account concludes with statements from Huddleston and Bare emphasizing their connection to the land and their decision to retain it. “As long as I’m on this land, as long as it’s feeding me, and as long as it’s taking care of me, there’s nothing that can destroy me,” Bare said. “We’ve helped feed the nation for generations. We’re not gonna stop now.”
Original article
Comments