Vineland Council President Threatens Lawsuit Over Data Center Kickback Question

Vineland City Council President Paul Spinelli threatened to sue a member of the public for slander at a February 24, 2026 council meeting, then acknowledged the lawsuit would be unwinnable, after being asked whether city officials or their families were financially benefiting from a massive AI data center under construction in the city.

The confrontation began when Bayly Winder, a Democratic primary candidate for New Jersey's 2nd Congressional District, asked publicly whether government officials or their families were profiting from the project or the companies involved. Spinelli initially answered no, but before the meeting adjourned he reopened the topic and turned on Winder directly.

"Mr. Winder, I'm sorry that I stopped you about the money thing, but I'm tired of reading it. Because every one of them, every one of them had been screenshot. Now, you want lawsuits? Because that's what can happen for slander," Spinelli said. "And then you'll pay for my lawyer because it'll be a city lawyer and you'll pay for your own. And that's ridiculous. I won't win the case, but you'll spend money."

Spinelli confirmed to Follow South Jersey after the meeting that an actual suit was not off the table. Legal experts and state law, however, work against him: any such slander claim would almost certainly be dismissed under New Jersey's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, the state's anti-SLAPP statute signed in 2023, which is specifically designed to quickly dispose of lawsuits filed to silence public participation.

The project at the center of the dispute is a 300-megawatt hyperscale data center intended to power artificial intelligence, currently under construction in Vineland and identified in regulatory filings as Project PBA-24-00022, developed by DataOne, Nebius, and NEP. The Vineland Planning Board approved the project on June 26, 2024, a vote the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance later argued was made with little over a week's public notice, leaving residents insufficient time to review the proposal or provide meaningful input.

In a January 2026 letter addressed directly to Spinelli and members of the Vineland City Council, the NJEJA urged the Planning Board and council to "withdraw all approvals for Project PBA-24-00022 in its current form such that a comprehensive, independent environmental review can be completed before any further action is taken," warning that the project "would impose severe, cumulative harms on an already overburdened area."

Community tensions at the February meeting extended beyond Winder's question. Constituent Diane Garrity challenged Spinelli directly on the council's responsiveness. "You make it like we're not supposed to be here," Garrity said. "And I have a right to expect you, as your constituent, to help us. And right now, no one feels like you're helping."

Critics have also objected to a five-year property tax exemption granted to the project's developers, structured as a payment in lieu of taxes arrangement. PILOT deals are common across New Jersey as a municipal development tool, but opponents argue the public return from this particular project has not been made sufficiently transparent or enforceable.

On energy and jobs, one community voice identified only as Kalucki said the concerns crossed partisan lines. "If these data centers are going to be part of our economic future, which seems likely, then the public return on those projects should be clear and enforceable," Kalucki said in a written statement, adding that the demands were not radical. "We need clear local hiring expectations, minimum permanent job commitments, and ideally, some formal community benefit provisions tied to performance." Kalucki said he had received assurances that the facility would generate its own power, meaning it "should not impact ratepayers in Cumberland County."

The state DEP confirmed that a draft air permit application for the Data One facility is currently under review. A department spokesperson said the agency had not received any permit applications for water use or water allocation related to the proposed facility.

Whether Spinelli follows through on his litigation threat remains an open question. His own words from the February 24 meeting made the stakes plain: he was not arguing the suit had merit, but that the cost of defending against it would deter future questions.