Pennsylvania Game Commission Failure:
A Community's Plea Ignored in Data Center Land Swap Vote
January 28th, 2026
By: Kane D. Vento
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Approved Contract No. L-3930 Data Center Land Swap Map
​
On January 24th, 2026, at a meeting held in Harrisburg Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, crucial voices from the community were silenced as the commissioners voted in favor of a contentious land swap proposal viewed by many as a ticking time bomb for wildlife and local habitats.
The decision to approve Contract No. L-3930, which facilitates a land exchange for the construction of a data center in Limerick Township, Montgomery County Pennsylvania, has drawn sharp criticism for failing to prioritize ecological preservation and community needs. The decision to approve Contract No. L-3930 Data Center Land Swap signals to corporations that the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission is willing to play games with public land.
​
A Troubling Vote
The meeting saw numerous public comments overwhelmingly against the land swap, emphasizing the threats to wildlife and the sanctity of public land. Teresa Guido Cox articulated the core sentiment shared by many, labeling the proposal a “bad deal for wildlife” that supports the interests of “billionaires and corporations.” She emphasized that data centers pose risks of “noise, air, [and] light pollution,” and questioned the need for such developments when the focus should be on preserving existing habitats.
​
Despite these fervent pleas, the commissioners proceeded with the vote, resulting in a 6-3 approval. Those who voted in favor of the data center land swap included Commissioners Sankey, Foradora, Fredericks, Koppenhafer, Mitrick, and Pride. In stark contrast, Commissioners Knick, Schwalm, and DiMarco cast dissenting votes, demonstrating awareness regarding the ecological and social implications of this decision. Commissioner Knick's dissent was indicative of his ongoing commitment to protecting wildlife interests and recognized the far-reaching consequences of such encroachments.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​Votes cast by Pennsylvania Game Commission Commissioners on Contract No. L-3930
​
Ignored Community Voices
Community members expressed profound concerns about how the land swap would hinder hunting opportunities and degrade a vital habitat. Fred Ebert, a lifelong resident and sportsman, stressed the importance of local hunting land for maintaining a healthy population of hunters and fostering community acceptance of hunting. He ominously warned that approving this swap sets a dangerous precedent, stating, “This exchange places a target on all game lands for development.”
​
​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Montgomery County resident Fred Ebert expressing his disapproval of the
Contract No. L-3930 Data Center Land Swap
Similarly, State Senator Katie Muth criticized the lack of transparency and the perception that community voices were sidelined. She pointedly remarked, “Decisions involving public land should not be shaped behind the scenes with private developers,” arguing that the commission’s actions contradict its mission to protect public natural resources. Muth’s concern highlighted a crucial issue, the perceived complicity of the commissioners in enabling the encroachment of data centers into previously protected areas.
​
​
State Senator Katie Muth urging Pennsylvania Game Commission to
vote no on Contract No. L-3930 Data Center Land Swap
Commissioner Mitrick insisted on the integrity of the land acquisition team, stating, "I have the utmost respect for their integrity and honesty.” This however clashed with community members' concerns about transparency and accountability. Mitrick’s trust in the team overlooked the significant doubts voiced by community members who felt that their interests had been sidelined.
​
Contract No. L-3930 Data Center Land Swap signals to corporations that the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission is willing to play games with public land.
​
Commissioner Koppenhafer defended her support for Contract No. L-3930, stating, "As a commissioner with fiduciary responsibility to all Pennsylvanians, I recognize there are both winners and losers in this situation."
However, concerns arise when Commissioner Koppenhafer appears to prioritize corporate interests over ecological integrity in her definition of responsibility. The real victims here are the wildlife and communities that will suffer the consequences of this decision, now and in the future. This focus on 'winners' seems more about enhancing the Commissioner's resume with numbers, specifically acres, than demonstrating a genuine commitment to responsible stewardship.
​
​
​
​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​​
​
​
​
​
Adapted from City of Industry Infographic
​
The Beginning of a Fight
The land swap proposal has been justified under the guise of creating a net gain in public land. The impact on local wildlife habitats, both in practical terms and on the community, is significant and cannot be overlooked. As Beverly Echols pointed out, “You’re giving the very, very best piece of that piece of land to the LLC,” framing the decision not as a beneficial exchange but rather as a detrimental concession to industrial interests.
​
Commissioner Pride stated, "We've done our due diligence to ensure that this is a fair deal," when, in fact, this deal reeks of naivety and shortsightedness. His complacency dismisses the lurking dangers to our ecosystems, signaling that convenience trumps conservation. The overwhelming sentiments expressed during public comments demonstrate that the commissioners failed in their responsibility to serve as stewards of Pennsylvania's wildlife and habitats. While economic development is vital, it should not come at the cost of losing irreplaceable ecological resources.
​
As the dust settles on the recent vote, it remains clear that the voices of the community were not adequately heard. The commissioners have a duty to protect wildlife habitats and uphold Pennsylvania's rich ecosystem. Those who voted against the land swap, Commissioners Knick, Schwalm, and DiMarco, stand as defenders in a pivotal time in Pennsylvania's history, where the balance between development and conservation has become more crucial than ever since the industrial revolution.
​
“You [Pennsylvania Game Commission] need to vote no on this otherwise you have destroyed the public’s trust in this commission.” - State Senator Katie Muth
​
This vote is just the beginning of a necessary fight against unchecked development. Immediate action must be taken to ensure that future commissioners align with the perspectives of those who value ecological preservation. Removing those who voted in favor of this proposal is crucial to preventing similar decisions from passing in the future. The community must unite to safeguard their land from further encroachment, fostering a sustainable vision that respects both the environment and the needs of local residents. Only through collective advocacy can we reclaim our commitment to protecting Pennsylvania’s wildlife and ecosystems for generations to come.
