Few evils are as demoralizing or debilitating as the toxic “air of inevitability,” a creeping sense that some fights — no matter how righteous — just can’t be won.

The grim history of our valley’s exploitation at the greedy hands of rapacious invaders reinforces hereditary self-doubt and normalizes the generational defeatism that has made us easy marks since the Gilded Age of the robber barons.

“You can’t fight City Hall,” the bootlickers insist. The rich and powerful will always get their way. Resistance is futile.

When doomsayers have the floor, discouragement is contagious. The cure is embracing hope wherever you find it. Sunday Times Staff Writer Frank Lesnefsky uncovered some while digging around in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.

The MPC is the legal framework for municipal zoning, and as such, it makes for extremely boring reading. It’s an unofficial rule that all legislation should include enough unnecessary words and confusing “legalese” to discourage the average citizen without a law degree or a sadomasochistic streak from thoroughly reading it.

Luckily, Frank delights in deciphering such fuzzy texts. His translation of the term “curative amendment” is not at all boring and could prove to be a blockbuster.

First, some background. When Ransom Twp. supervisors voted in January to shut down a hearing on a proposed and widely opposed data center development, a packed house of relieved residents roared in approval.

Within minutes, however, some in the crowd were speaking in hushed tones about “curative amendments.” I was only vaguely familiar with the term. None of the observers seemed to fully grasp it, either, but the general consensus seemed to be that, while meaning well, the supervisors handed the legal advantage to the developers. The air of inevitability was quietly circulating.

On Monday, Scranton Materials LLC filed a lawsuit in Lackawanna County Court against the Ransom Twp. Board of Supervisors. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the township’s zoning exclusionary to data centers and allow the construction of six mammoth structures on 251 acres on Newton Road.

The lawsuit alleges that the supervisors abused their authority in effectively denying the developers’ application and got the law wrong in acting on a citizen’s motion that is not allowed under the MPC.

In hindsight, the 2-1 vote to close the hearing was a bracing moral victory for citizens, but also an unforced procedural blunder. The supervisors who voted to end the hearing acted against the advice of the township solicitor, which is almost always a costly mistake.

So where’s the hope I referenced almost a dozen paragraphs back? It’s hiding in plain sight in the MPC. It’s no coincidence that Frank found it while reporting on the Scranton Materials lawsuit.

Municipalities are required to allow every type of land use. Under the MPC, property owners can seek curative amendments to zoning that prohibits or restricts development of their land. Most who follow Frank’s exhaustive coverage of data center development are at least vaguely aware of these facts, and many understandably believe that the MPC is stacked in favor of developers.

Largely, it is.

But it turns out that municipalities have considerable leverage in the consideration of curative amendments. In fact, the MPC mandates them to use it. As Frank reported Thursday, when a governing body considers a curative amendment, the MPC dictates it must also consider:

The impact of the proposal on roads, sewer facilities, water supplies, schools and other public service facilities.

If the proposal is for a residential use, the impact of the proposal on regional housing needs and the effectiveness of the proposal in providing housing units of a type actually available to and affordable by classes of people otherwise unlawfully excluded by the challenged provisions of the ordinance or map.

The suitability of the site for the intensity of use proposed by the site’s soils, slopes, woodlands, wetlands, flood plains, aquifers, natural resources and other natural features.

The impact of the proposed use on the site’s soils, slopes, woodlands, wetlands, flood plains, natural resources and natural features; the degree to which these are protected or destroyed; the tolerance of the resources to development; and any adverse environmental impacts.

The impact of the proposal on the preservation of agriculture and other land uses which are essential to public health and welfare.

Considering these impacts — practically all of which apply to invasive data center development — municipalities can craft their own curative amendments to counter the self-serving amendments of developers. That’s no magic wand, but it puts the lie to the demoralizing, defeatist belief that resistance is futile.

Even with the rules and odds stacked against them, municipal governments (including those that stumbled early) are not powerless against the rich and powerful. At every opportunity, constituents should remind elected officials of the leverage they possess and their responsibility to use it in the public interest.

Archbald residents will have their next opportunity on Tuesday at 5 p.m. at the Valley View High School auditorium, when borough council holds its second hearing on the proposed Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus. Developers applied with the borough to build 14 data centers across almost 575 mountainside acres above Business Route 6 and extending up Route 247, or Wildcat Road. The sprawling “campus” would consume up to 3.3 million gallons of water and 1.6 gigawatts of power daily.

History is littered with bootlickers who bowed to the toxic air of inevitability rather than join the righteous fight. Their tainted legacy is the toxic air we breathe right now.

Chris Kelly, the Times-Tribune columnist, follows Frank Lesnefsky’s reporting religiously. You should, too. Contact the writer: ckelly@scrantontimes.com; @cjkink on X; Chris Kelly, The Times-Tribune on Facebook; and @chriskellyink on Bluesky.