The City of Hamilton has debated the Red Hill Valley Parkway, the location of a new outdoor professional sports stadium, urban boundary expansion, and every other issue under the sun.
None of them have prompted the number of letters that a land severance on the Steelport lands, the former Stelco site, has.
On Thursday morning, June 4, 2026, Hamilton’s Committee of Adjustment (CofA) will vote on a land severance application submitted by Slate Asset Management to carve out a 76-hectare (188-acre) section of the Steelport lands on harbour industrial property to permit a joint-venture application to construct federally funded data centres.
As of publication, late Wednesday evening, the City of Hamilton has posted 1,209 letters regarding the matter and is continuing to process submissions that arrived before the noon deadline on June 2.
This represents the largest number of letters for a single agenda item ever. While the vast majority use an identical form letter template, others are original submissions—some brief expressions of opposition, others sharing personal experiences.
No business or industrial groups submitted comments. The Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council was the only large organization to file a response.
A human review of the three posted PDF documents, totalling over 2,500 pages, identified only one letter of support.
Below is a selection of four notable submissions: one from Six Nations, the sole letter of support, concerns expressed by an associate professor who specializes in Great Lakes environmental issues, a submission from a data centre professional, plus an example of the form letter used by over 1,000 residents.
Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council
CLICK TO VIEW THE PAGE Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
CLICK TO VIEW THE PAGE Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
The Lands and Resources Department for Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council requested that the CofA defer the severance application until Ward 3 City Councillor Nrinder Nann’s motion requesting the City of Hamilton review its processes for approving data centres is considered by City Council.
Six Nations also raised concerns regarding their perpetual harvesting and hunting rights as guaranteed by the 1701 Nanfan Treaty.
The Letter of Support
In a rushed review of the submissions, conducted due to the sheer volume submitted, this publication identified only one letter of support.
Resident Sean Backus encouraged the CofA to approve the severance, arguing that “severing will allow the potential for a more varied industrial activity.”
CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL LETTER Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
The Professor’s Concerns
Dr. Loren King, an associate professor of urban political economy at Wilfrid Laurier University and director of the Great Lakes Trust, submitted a letter opposing the application. King argued that processing the severance under an outdated planning framework bypasses necessary community oversight for a project of this scale.
In his submission, King characterizes hyperscale data centres as “economic white elephants” that fail to benefit local economies or generate significant employment.
CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL LETTER Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
The Data Centre Administrator’s Submission
CLICK TO VIEW THE PAGE Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE PAGE Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
Ward 3 resident Aaron Anckaert, who works as a data centre administrator, submitted comments to the CofA expressing concerns regarding potential physiological impacts of a full buildout of data centre operations.
According to his submission, his work requires him to regularly enter “comparatively tiny 250kW, 80kW, and 40 kW data centres,” and he “can speak from first hand that the negative physiological affects are very real.”
Anckaert stated that he is “not opposed to hyperscale data centre deployment” but opposes the proposal until zoning regulations are reviewed.
Anckaert’s submission then follows the structure of the template letter used by the majority of respondents.
The Opposition Template
CLICK TO READ THE PAGE Credit: HANDOUT / City of Hamilton
Over 1,000 residents submitted identical form letters to the CofA.
The template argues there is a regulatory gap in Hamilton’s current M5 zoning, which relies on an outdated 2010 definition of a “Computer, Electronic and Data Processing Establishment.” The authors contend that this sixteen-year-old framework was never intended to regulate modern, gigawatt-scale artificial intelligence infrastructure or its intense environmental and utility demands.
The template lists concerns based on events that have occurred in poorly regulated jurisdictions in the United States. These include power grid harmonic distortions that can damage household appliances and increase electrical fire hazards, sharp increases in wholesale electricity costs, localized heat island effects, and water pollution impacts.
The submissions urge the CofA to refuse the severances until new regulatory frameworks are created. Alternatively, they request that the CofA impose conditions on future development.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: June 3, 2026
Last updated: June 3, 2026
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version
I grew up in Hamilton and have lived here my entire life. I have seen this city’s economic strength, and I have also seen its decline as industry changed, jobs disappeared and once-powerful employment lands lost their purpose.
Hamilton has always been a city of industry. For generations, companies came here because the city had what serious economic growth required: land, rail, port access, power, water, labour and a culture of building things. Hamilton did not become an industrial centre by accident. It became one because it had the infrastructure and ambition to support the next stage of the economy.
The protesters who gathered at city hall are right to raise concerns. Data centres are not invisible. They require electricity, cooling systems, water-management planning, backup power, land and public oversight. Hamiltonians are entitled to know exactly what is being proposed, what resources will be consumed, what safeguards will be imposed and what happens if promises are broken.
But Hamilton should also be careful not to reject the future before it understands the opportunity.
AI, quantum computing and advanced digital infrastructure are part of the next industrial revolution. These technologies will shape medicine, manufacturing, logistics, education, financial services, cybersecurity, engineering and public administration. Hamilton should be asking whether it wants to be merely a consumer of that future — or a participant in building it.
The former steel lands are not untouched countryside. They are historic industrial lands on Hamilton’s bayfront. Steelport describes its broader vision as a modern industrial district connected by rail, road and water, with AI, advanced manufacturing and clean infrastructure as part of the plan. ([The Steel Port][2]) That does not mean every proposal should be approved. It does mean the city should approach the opportunity strategically, not emotionally.
A properly conditioned data-centre project could bring construction jobs, engineering work, long-term operations, maintenance, security, electrical trades, cooling-system expertise and spin-off opportunities. It could help attract biomedical research, advanced manufacturing, cloud services, cybersecurity firms and AI-related startups. Hamilton’s universities, hospitals and industrial base could all benefit from being closer to serious digital infrastructure.
But the words “could” and “properly conditioned” matter.
No project of this scale should proceed on vague assurances. If a developer says the facility will not strain the power grid or water supply, that claim should be proven publicly. Hamilton should require full disclosure of projected electricity demand, water use, cooling technology, backup generation, emissions, noise, stormwater impact, local hiring and infrastructure requirements before any final approval is granted.
The city should also insist on enforceable conditions.
Require low-water or closed-loop cooling wherever feasible. Require water recycling. Require on-site or contracted renewable power where practical. Require waste-heat recovery analysis. Require noise limits. Require independent monitoring. Require public reporting. Require penalties if environmental commitments are missed.
And if Hamilton is going to host infrastructure that powers the AI economy, Hamiltonians should receive a direct public benefit.
That could include a binding community benefit agreement, local apprenticeship targets, dedicated infrastructure contributions, public-safety funding, affordability supports and investment in neighbourhood services. The city should explore every legal tool available, including development-related charges and negotiated public-benefit commitments. The principle is simple: if private investors profit from Hamilton’s land, workforce and infrastructure, the community should share in the return.
AI data centres will be built somewhere. The question is whether Hamilton wants to push them away entirely, or set a higher standard for how they are built.
Hamilton should not be anti-technology. It should be pro-accountability. It should not approve projects blindly, but it should not squander opportunities because the word “AI” makes people uncomfortable.
This city has paid a heavy price for past industrial growth. It knows better than most communities that jobs matter, but so do air, water, health and public trust. That history should not make Hamilton afraid of the next industrial revolution. It should make Hamilton tougher in negotiating its place in it.
The right answer is not an automatic yes. It is not an automatic no.
It is: prove the benefits, disclose the risks, protect the environment, compensate the community and make the promises legally enforceable.
That is how Hamilton can honour its industrial past while preparing for a more prosperous future.
Thank you Joey! This is a very informative and useful article for Hamiltonians. Are there any objective sources for local economic benefits you’re aware of? Steelport’s claims are hype, yet there must be some real economic benefits, perhaps even that would be positively transformative for Hamilton.
I mean that, or it will turn Hamilton into an uninhabitable hellscape that could be rented out as a backdrop for Terminator sequels.
The public bodies seeking to locate a data centre on the former Stelco lands have chosen to not engage in proactive communication regarding the project.
It is not my role to make presumptions regarding how this will be construction, even when those presumptions appear very probable. (Use of the existing hydro-electric infrastructure used by Stelco, cooling using lake water, possible filtering systems for return water, etc.)
One may note I just listed potential presumptions, which in of itself is presuming. :)
With the significant public interest in this matter, I expect we’ll hear much more from McMaster University as the process continues.
I’ll keep reporting as events transpire.