Developer Launches PR Campaign — Here's What They're Not Telling You

A Polished Message, a Selective Story

In February 2026, the developers behind Project Tango launched centralparkcommercecenter.com — a professionally designed website with renderings, a 12-page fact sheet, social media accounts, and carefully crafted messaging. The site presents the proposed data center as a quiet, low-impact neighbor that will barely be noticed.

The fact sheet is dated February 25, 2026 — timed ahead of the July 15 County Commission hearing. This is a coordinated PR campaign timed to shape public perception ahead of the vote.

We've reviewed every claim in their materials and compared them to the public record, industry data, and the developer's own county filings. Here's what they're telling you — and what they're leaving out.

Claim: "Sound levels at the property line are projected to be at or below 50 decibels"

What they say: The facility will be quieter than "a typical suburban neighborhood" or "light rainfall." Sound levels will stay at or below 50 dB at the property line.

What the record shows: Industry data for hyperscale data centers consistently documents noise levels of 70-85+ dBA at the facility boundary. The World Health Organization recommends nighttime noise below 40 dBA and daytime below 55 dBA for residential areas. The developer's own county application deferred noise compliance analysis to the building permit stage — meaning no independent verification exists for the 50 dB claim.

What they're not telling you: The sound contour map in their fact sheet shows noise levels of 55-60 dB in areas within their own site — which raises the question of how equipment generating 60 dB inside the property will somehow produce only 50 dB at the boundary. The cooling equipment operates 24/7/365. Palm Beach County's industrial noise limit is 75 dB — nearly 30 times louder than their claim (decibels are logarithmic). If their projections are wrong, the community has no recourse after approval.

Claim: "Estimated water use is about 5,000 gallons per day"

What they say: Water use equals "roughly the amount used by one busy restaurant." The facility uses a "closed-loop cooling system that recirculates the same water repeatedly."

What the record shows: The developer's own county application reserves 314.3 ERC (Environmental Resource Credits), where 1 ERC equals approximately 5,600 gallons per month. That's 1.76 million gallons per month — or roughly 56,600 gallons per day. That's more than 11 times higher than the fact sheet claim.

What they're not telling you: The 5,000 gal/day figure may assume a specific cooling technology (dry coolers) that has not been committed to in any binding document. The county staff report states the cooling method is "not yet determined." If the developer switches to evaporative cooling after approval — which is cheaper and more common in hot climates — water consumption could be far higher. Read our detailed analysis of the water numbers.

Claim: "Data center operations do not produce emissions"

What they say: The facility produces zero emissions. Backup power "is not expected to be needed" but if required, will use "battery or natural gas."

What the record shows: Virtually every data center of this scale uses diesel backup generators for grid outages. The developer's county filings do not rule out diesel generators. Diesel exhaust is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Regular testing cycles for backup generators produce PM2.5 particulate matter.

What they're not telling you: Even if the facility itself produces no direct emissions, the electricity to power it does. At 200+ megawatts, this facility would consume enough power for 75,000-100,000 homes. FPL generates approximately 70% of its electricity from natural gas. The carbon footprint is estimated at 500,000+ metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually — comparable to 100,000 cars on the road.

Claim: "About 20-50 employees per phase"

What they say: Limited staff, creating "high-skill, high-wage jobs."

What they're not telling you: 20-50 employees per phase is precisely why data centers are poor economic development. A 3.6 million square foot facility employing 50-200 total workers means roughly one job per 18,000-72,000 square feet. By comparison, a typical office building employs one person per 200-300 square feet. The developer's own fact sheet undermines their "economic benefits" narrative — the facility generates almost no local employment relative to its enormous footprint and infrastructure demands.

Claim: "Not expected to significantly affect neighborhood traffic"

What they say: Very little daily traffic from limited staff and infrequent deliveries.

What the record shows: The developer's own traffic study projects 3,196 net daily trips with 319 AM peak and 337 PM peak trips. The study also shows Southern Blvd failing in PM peak hour conditions. The intersection of Southern Blvd and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road already has a background traffic failure without this project.

What they're not telling you: The construction phase will generate far more traffic than operations — years of heavy truck traffic on roads shared with school buses serving Saddle View Elementary. The developer's total contribution to road improvements is $136,881 — four cents per square foot of development.

Claim: "About 2,000 feet from the nearest homes"

What they say: The nearest homes and school are "roughly 5.5 football fields" away, separated by canals, berms, and buffers.

What they're not telling you: The 2,000-foot figure was a revision made after the December 2025 hearing — the original plans placed buildings closer. The county staff report documents 1,500 feet to Saddle View Elementary. The 2,000-foot measurement appears to reference only the data center buildings, not the "minor utility buildings" (216,000 square feet) whose purpose and noise profile are not explained in the fact sheet. Distance also does not eliminate noise — industrial sound travels effectively over flat terrain, especially at night when atmospheric conditions favor propagation.

Claim: "What could be built here otherwise" — manufacturing, recycling, contractor storage

What they say: Current zoning allows uses that could be worse — manufacturing, recycling facilities, contractor storage. The existing asphalt and concrete plants will be removed.

What they're not telling you: This is a classic false choice. The land was rezoned from rural residential in 2016 specifically for this project. The question isn't "data center vs. recycling plant" — it's whether this rezoning should have happened at all, and whether 2,400 families should have been told about it before buying homes. The removal of the asphalt and concrete plants is presented as a benefit, but those temporary uses were only there because the developer placed them there.

The Pattern

The fact sheet follows a familiar playbook: present aspirational numbers as settled facts, compare the facility to its best-case scenario rather than real-world equivalents, and frame the project as a community benefit rather than an industrial intrusion.

Every claim in the fact sheet may prove true — but none of them are binding commitments. The noise study is "underway." The cooling method is "under design." The setback was revised after public pressure. These are projections, not guarantees.

The July 15 hearing is the community's opportunity to ask: if these projections are wrong, who bears the risk?

How to help: Sign the petition, contact your commissioner, and attend the July 15 hearing.