10/11/2026
NDAs seem to be where people get hung up. The term sounds intimidating, and when attorneys get involved, people naturally become concerned. I have my fingers crossed that the Ohio Legislature will pass the proposed bills prohibiting public officials from signing these agreements. But hereās the thing: No one can force a public official to sign an NDA. Whether it was legally permissible or not, the company was not going to walk away from Waterford simply because a document wasnāt signed. At its core, that makes this a moral decisionāa choice that reflects values.
My biggest problem with everyone getting hung up on the legal document is the repeated suggestion that officials canāt talk about the project. They can talk about it, and they have disclosed little crumbs of information along the way.
But letās go back to May 2025. I was upset about the first offer, and my husband picked up the phone and called people who are paid with taxpayer dollars. There was no NDA at that point, yet they still would not tell us what was moving into our community. That was a choice made by individuals without a legal gag preventing them from answering.
These were people we had known, talked to, and dealt with before. Yet they danced around the question. That was the moment we knew we were in trouble. And, of course, there were social media posts and a barroom confession afterward suggesting that information had been withheld from the community.
There is another contradiction that deserves an explanation. I have been told during our farm visit that local officials receive weekly phone calls from the company, along with monthly meetings. So which is it? Are officials receiving no contact and no information, or are they receiving regular updates? Either way, there is a serious disconnect between what constituents are being told and what appears to be happening behind the scenes.
Iāll add one more piece to that puzzle. I personally received a phone call questioning a residentās honesty about not having a contract. I was told by someone in our local offices that, based on private property contract information, this individual had signed a contract and was not being truthful with me.
The problem? They had confused the contract with that of the neighboring property.
Think about that for a moment. Private contract information was being discussed, but the details were apparently confused between neighboring properties. This raises a legitimate question: If local officials have no information about these agreements, how did this confusion happen in the first place?
And there are countless other problems with the āwe have no informationā narrative.
Fair purchases and the relationships surrounding them raise questions about whether the relationship between the company and local officials is as limited as we have been led to believe.
Then there are details I was privy to and shared with only a handful of people on the ground. Yet, during our visit with local officials, I discovered that they were familiar with those same details. That raises another question: If information is so restricted, how are local officials learning details that have only been shared with a select few? Someone is talking. The question is who, what is being shared, and why the public is being left in the dark.
This isn't simply about NDAs. It's about transparency, choices, and accountability. We can debate the legality of a document all day, but we also need to examine the decisions people made when no such document prevented them from speaking.
And here's where I think we need to have a bigger conversation: Waterford didn't make this about Progress vs. People. Local officials and this company did.
The responsibility to change that narrative rests with them. They have the opportunity to stop treating residents' questions as opposition and start treating them as a legitimate part of the process. They can choose transparency, acknowledge the concerns, and work toward rebuilding trust.
Until that happens, residents will continue to find themselves on the defensive, constantly trying to prove that their questions are reasonable and their concerns are legitimate.
And trust me, being on the defensive is not a great place for a community to be. We should be working toward a future where progress and people aren't treated as opposing sidesābecause we all matter.
*This is my personal opinion and experiences and does not reflect any organization.
MASH Focus - Publication & Network The Marietta Times Farm and Dairy Appalachians Against Data Centers