Benson now promises strict rules for data centers. But when a company employing her husband pushed a project in Saline Township, local officials rejected it—and the development moved forward after the company sued.
Jocelyn Benson wants Michigan voters to believe she will stand up to data-center developers. She says she would impose a moratorium until the state adopts rules for public hearings, transparency, environmental protections, and electricity costs.
Then comes the question her campaign cannot bury: Why should Michigan trust her to enforce rules she is only demanding now, after a company employing her husband helped push a controversial project past a community’s rejection?
Ryan Friedrichs, Benson’s husband, was a senior executive at Related Companies and worked on the Saline Township data-center project. He appeared before local officials for the developer. In September 2025, the township board voted 4–1 against the rezoning required for the project. Related Digital sued days later. The township then reached a settlement that allowed the project to proceed.
That is the record: elected local officials said no; the developer sued; and the project moved ahead through a settlement. Residents were heard, but they did not get the result their board’s vote called for.
Benson now says Michigan needs open negotiations and transparency to prevent backroom deals. Those principles sound compelling in a campaign speech. They sound considerably less convincing when a company tied to her household was pressing ahead with a project after local officials rejected it.
The connections raise an obvious ethical cloud. Friedrichs worked for the company advancing the project. Stephen Ross, Related Companies’ founder, previously employed Benson as CEO of the Ross Initiative in Sports for Equality and has contributed to her campaigns. That does not prove a quid pro quo or establish that Benson intervened in the Saline project. It does make the public entitled to demand more than a carefully worded denial.
Benson’s financial disclosure lists $370,000 in income for Friedrichs from his employer. That is not proof of a project commission, and it should not be portrayed as $370,000 paid by the data center. But it is a substantial household income from the company whose project he worked on. Related Companies has said Friedrichs received no commission from the project; Bridge Michigan found no evidence he stood to make millions. Those facts limit what can responsibly be claimed. They do not make the underlying relationship disappear.
Benson’s campaign says Friedrichs is no longer working on Michigan data-center projects, has recused himself from state-related work that could come before a Benson administration, and that Benson herself had no role in authorizing or developing the Saline project. The project advanced under Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration. But “I wasn’t the decision-maker” is not a satisfying answer to a candidate now asking voters to trust her judgment on the same industry that employed her husband.
The real issue is not whether Benson personally signed a permit. It is whether she applies one standard to politically connected insiders and another to everyone else. Her husband helped advance the project. Her former professional benefactor founded the company behind it and donated to her campaigns. The township rejected the project, then faced a lawsuit and settled.
Now Benson says future developers must negotiate openly, respect communities, and meet strict conditions. Where was that standard when her husband’s employer was making its case in Saline?
Voters should not accept campaign promises as proof of accountability. They should demand clear answers: What did Benson know about Friedrichs’s role, and when? What steps did she take to avoid conflicts? Why should residents believe her proposed guardrails will bind powerful developers when the Saline project advanced despite the local board’s rejection?
The public record does not establish a kickback or prove Benson intervened. It does establish enough overlapping relationships and enough political double talk to make this a serious credibility problem. Benson wants to write the rules for data centers. Before Michigan hands her that power, she should explain why her own household’s connections to this project did not require stronger safeguards from the start.
The project’s critics have collected documents and links at Data Center Darlings. Readers should also examine the township records, independent reporting, and Benson’s response.
No comments:
Post a Comment