Residents lose fight to silence booming Bitcoin facility in North Texas

North Texas residents’ bid to incorporate a city near the noisy Bitcoin facility was rejected after 62% of the 138 voters cast ballots on Tuesday night. The 62% vote ratio ended the residents of the rural Texas community’s long-standing complaints about the Bitcoin mine operation.

The voters cast their ballots in eleven voting centers. There were more than 17 initiatives in the election, each with “For” and “Against” options, providing voters a variety of issues to consider.

Residents battle noise from Texas Bitcoin facility

The rural Texas community started complaining about noise after a cryptocurrency facility controlled by MARA Holdings, formerly known as Marathon, was constructed in 2022. About 60,000 computers are powered by strong industrial fans at the site, which locals claim have destroyed the tranquility of their rural neighborhood with their deafening roar.

The locals have approached the plant on several occasions to address the Noise issue. In response, the Bitcoin facility extended a 2,000-foot-long, 24-foot-tall soundproofing wall last year.

The plant also installed an immersion cooling system in place of the majority of the cooling fans. MARA claims that the liquid-based technology has replaced 67% of the fans.

The locals claim that the plant hasn’t done much to reduce the noise. The nearby residents measured the noise using decibel readers, which indicated a level just below the statewide regulation of 85 decibels.

However, a county-funded third-party investigation discovered that the noise level was between 35 and 53 dB in homes within a mile of the plant and about 60 decibels near the facility.

According to the Texas Tribune, a local news outlet, Texas counties lack the jurisdiction to enforce noise regulations. The locals campaigned to integrate the roughly two-square-mile town to reduce the noise at the Bitcoin plant. The town has around 600 residents and a single stop sign, into the City of Mitchell Bend. According to the outlet, the locals hoped that becoming a city would allow them to enact a noise law.

Danny Lakey, a resident of Hood County who lives half a mile from the Bitcoin ministry, stated that the residents are hoping to have some tools to fight the noise a little. “Although we took a loss here, we are going to move forward and we will continue to do what we can to not let industry take over Hood County,” said Lakey.

Tribune stated that the fight with MARA created an internal conflict among some residents as they weighed whether to form a city. Many residents claimed that they relocated to the countryside to escape both the bustling cities and their regulations.

MARA welcomes a vote defeat

MARA applauded the defeat of the ballot measure. A MARA representative stated that the firm’s executives are pleased that voters in Hood County recognized the sham incorporation attempt and rejected it at the polls.

The MARA representative added that the facility is still committed to supporting local communities, generating jobs, and acting as a responsible neighbor. The representative added that since purchasing the Bitcoin mining site in 2024, the firm has spent millions of dollars improving it.

The spokesperson claimed, despite persistent false claims, independent sound studies, including one conducted by the Hood County government, have verified that the plant still operates well below county and state legal sound limitations.

The failed vote follows a series of court cases involving locals and MARA, which runs at least three other sites in Texas. Last month, the plant filed a lawsuit to stop the election, claiming that incorporation would have negatively impacted its business.

MARA lawsuit accused Hood County officials of “colluding” with voters to hold the election, calling it “illegal.” The plant’s request was denied by Judge Reed O’Connor, allowing the vote to proceed.

O’Connor stated in the ruling that the order was rejected because MARA Holdings was unable to demonstrate a major risk of irreversible injury. The ruling emphasized that such a preliminary injunction would not be against the public interest.

Source