A group of landowners in Saskatchewan are demanding answers regarding a proposed AI data centre by Bell, as their concerns about potential impacts on their lives and property values remain largely unaddressed. The seven families living adjacent to the proposed site have voiced their frustrations over months of inquiries that have yielded minimal engagement from local authorities.
Frustration Amid Silence
The residents have expressed their dissatisfaction in a letter to the rural municipality (RM) of Sherwood, stating, “At every stage of this process our concerns have been deferred, reduced, or ignored.” While not outright opposed to the project, they are worried about how it might affect their quality of life.
Doug McKell, a long-time resident whose family has been in the area for nearly 150 years, describes the struggle to obtain information from the RM as “like pulling teeth.” He emphasises that the established governance framework should facilitate a proper dialogue, lamenting that the lack of responsiveness has only served to heighten frustration among local residents.
A Call for Binding Conditions
Between January and March 2026, the landowners made four formal requests to the RM regarding essential matters such as noise levels, lighting, drainage, storm-water management, groundwater protection, and roadway handling. However, only the first submission, dated January 29, was acknowledged and published on the RM’s website. Subsequent submissions on February 8, February 17, and March 4 went unanswered and unrecorded.
When the silence persisted, McKell and his neighbours lodged a formal complaint with the Ombudsman on February 25. A council meeting on March 16 revealed that this complaint was discussed, yet just two days later, four out of seven council members, including the Reeve and Deputy-Reeve, unexpectedly resigned, leaving the community in further disarray.
New Council, New Hope
In a timely development, the province’s Ministry of Government Relations appointed former SARM president Ray Orb as Reeve on April 10, along with new council members to fill the vacant positions. This change has sparked a renewed sense of hope among the residents.
On March 25, the concerned group submitted another letter to the RM, urging for a formal resolution that would enforce specific binding conditions. They requested a response within a week, and on April 2, an executive summary for a development agreement was published online. While it appeared to address some of their concerns—promising to maintain sound levels at the property boundary and upgrading roadways at the developer’s expense—the residents are wary. McKell insists that mere promises are insufficient, stating, “A good faith process is not the same as a binding obligation.”
Constructive Dialogue or Empty Promises?
On April 14, the group had a meeting with the newly appointed council, which they reported as constructive. Residents left the meeting feeling optimistic, buoyed by the council’s willingness to engage and listen to their concerns. However, no firm commitments were made, and it remains uncertain whether binding conditions will be included in the final development agreement scheduled for review on April 20.
Why it Matters
This situation reflects a growing tension between community interests and development projects, particularly as technology companies expand their operations. The outcome of this dialogue could set a significant precedent for how local governments engage with residents in future developments, balancing the promise of progress with the need for community well-being and environmental stewardship. As Saskatchewan embraces technological advancements, the challenge lies in ensuring that local voices are heard and respected, fostering a harmonious coexistence between innovation and quality of life.
