Datacenters bring millions in tax revenue (I oppose giving them tax breaks, that's a politician issue not an issue inherent to DCs) and are much less of a nuance than factories or warehouses. The increased cost of electricity is a concern but can be helped by an upfront investment, a bond for future grid maintenance, or separate utility infrastructure.
Are the datacenter concerns actually AI fears and they somehow think that stifling datacenter construction will save their jobs from AI? I understand the fear but if there's money to be made, datacenters will get built somewhere, and another municipality will reap the benefits.
Anti-data-center advocacy is so clearly a psyop driven by members of the elite media class (i.e. the kinds of people who write for Politico), who are scared of AI. I wish the US had better constitutional protections for people who want to build infrastructure in spite of short-sighted or malicious activist opposition.
Heaven forbid residents might get a say in whether or not a corporation can come in and build a huge blight / negative externality right next to them in their community! We should just let corporations build whatever they want anywhere they want to, right?
The lesson of YIMBYism is, actually yes, you should let corporations build whatever they want wherever they want to; because otherwise local residents will take advantage of any legal provision they can to prevent anyone from building anything, and that's how you get a housing shortage (that happens to financially benefit the incumbent homeowners, although I think this is mostly not what's driving NIMBYism).
But the real lesson of YIMBYism is the ability to think that local residents politically agitating against something they think constitutes a local negative externality, might need to get told to go to hell for the benefit of the rest of society, even if they're right about the thing being a negative externality for them.
In my California neighborhood right now, there are people complaining to our local city council representative about a certain planned housing development, that they think is a negative externality for them for various reasons. The city council person is interested in responding to the concerns of his constituents, and is also telling them that California state law limits what local governments can do to prevent these kinds of developments.
I am wholeheartedly in favor of that California law, much to the chagrin of my anti-housing neighbors. I would wholeheartedly be in favor of an analogous Texas law that tells anti-data-center local interests that their concerns are stupid, and they shouldn't have the power to prevent a corporation from constructing a data center near them, so that the rest of society can continue to benefit from using computer systems housed in data centers.
This is what zoning is for. If you live near land zoned for industrial or commercial then you can't fight it when someone wants to develop the land. If you don't want to live near something like that you shouldn't have bought/rented next to that zone.
Or I can fight to rezone that land because a single pass of zoning, shockingly, isn’t fucking permanent.
Y’all do vaguely understand how government works, right? Planning and zoning is a core function. This is hardly rocket science, except, I suppose, when your vibe-code shit start-up depends on building data centers in other folks’ backyards.
Rezoning land is extremely difficult and likely requires changes to the Master plan for the city/county. If a citizen is unhappy with a zone nearby do not move there.
If an area is zoned for industrial and someone wants to build a datacenter there without variances I don't see why anyone should be able to say no. Same thing for building condos or single-family homes in areas zoned for those. There's almost always variances though which is why there is even an opportunity to say no.
Is it really that difficult to believe that these residents—many of whom are living out in the country by choice—really just don’t want this kind of development near them? And that they have taken action of their own volition?
I laughed out loud at the suggestion that rural Texans are reading Politico, or any other “elite media” for that matter. I say this as someone who has lived in TX for decades.
ETA: to be fair, I'm not saying that what you describe never happens, but no way is this an example of it.
Yeah, there probably are some rural people who just reflexively oppose any kind of construction, NIMBYs are everywhere. The psyop is Politico writing an article in support of them, instead of comparing what they're doing to redlining or some other historic phenomenon that the Politico writers see as racist against nonwhites.
Yes, not wanting a data center is the same as fucking red-lining. What an astronomically bullshit argument and false equivalence. What a stunning display of intellectual dishonesty.
Depends. Is the alternative a loud, obnoxious factory? Or a warehouse with a constant stream of trucks? If you live near land zoned for industrial buildings then something is going to go there eventually.
I would personally, why not (generally curious why there is opposition. Things such as the whole electric infrastructure costs being passed on to consumers is not inherent to a data center build, just a failure in policy).
I think this is a fake phenomenon, like people who claim to have some kind of sensitivity to radio waves that causes them chronic illness that induces them to move to the national radio quiet zone (https://wjla.com/news/health/allergic-to-radio-signals-suffe...).
The main difference is that when people complain about the negative health effects of 5G cell phone radios, the Politico-writer class makes fun of them for being conspiracy theorists instead of arguing that the existence of these people is one of several good reasons to get rid of 5G cell phone towers.
Data-center advocacy is so clearly a psyop driven by members of the elite techbro class (i.e. the kinds of people who write comments like these), who are scared of the middle class. I wish the US had better constitutional protections for people who want to protect their quality of life and their jobs in spite of short-sighted or malicious billionaire opposition.
Datacenters bring millions in tax revenue (I oppose giving them tax breaks, that's a politician issue not an issue inherent to DCs) and are much less of a nuance than factories or warehouses. The increased cost of electricity is a concern but can be helped by an upfront investment, a bond for future grid maintenance, or separate utility infrastructure.
Are the datacenter concerns actually AI fears and they somehow think that stifling datacenter construction will save their jobs from AI? I understand the fear but if there's money to be made, datacenters will get built somewhere, and another municipality will reap the benefits.
> Datacenters bring millions in tax revenue
Source?
> The project is expected to generate approximately $310 million in property taxes over 30 years, in addition to utility taxes.
https://www.joliet.gov/Home/Components/News/News/5666/41
Anti-data-center advocacy is so clearly a psyop driven by members of the elite media class (i.e. the kinds of people who write for Politico), who are scared of AI. I wish the US had better constitutional protections for people who want to build infrastructure in spite of short-sighted or malicious activist opposition.
Heaven forbid residents might get a say in whether or not a corporation can come in and build a huge blight / negative externality right next to them in their community! We should just let corporations build whatever they want anywhere they want to, right?
The lesson of YIMBYism is, actually yes, you should let corporations build whatever they want wherever they want to; because otherwise local residents will take advantage of any legal provision they can to prevent anyone from building anything, and that's how you get a housing shortage (that happens to financially benefit the incumbent homeowners, although I think this is mostly not what's driving NIMBYism).
But the real lesson of YIMBYism is the ability to think that local residents politically agitating against something they think constitutes a local negative externality, might need to get told to go to hell for the benefit of the rest of society, even if they're right about the thing being a negative externality for them.
In my California neighborhood right now, there are people complaining to our local city council representative about a certain planned housing development, that they think is a negative externality for them for various reasons. The city council person is interested in responding to the concerns of his constituents, and is also telling them that California state law limits what local governments can do to prevent these kinds of developments.
I am wholeheartedly in favor of that California law, much to the chagrin of my anti-housing neighbors. I would wholeheartedly be in favor of an analogous Texas law that tells anti-data-center local interests that their concerns are stupid, and they shouldn't have the power to prevent a corporation from constructing a data center near them, so that the rest of society can continue to benefit from using computer systems housed in data centers.
This is what zoning is for. If you live near land zoned for industrial or commercial then you can't fight it when someone wants to develop the land. If you don't want to live near something like that you shouldn't have bought/rented next to that zone.
Or I can fight to rezone that land because a single pass of zoning, shockingly, isn’t fucking permanent.
Y’all do vaguely understand how government works, right? Planning and zoning is a core function. This is hardly rocket science, except, I suppose, when your vibe-code shit start-up depends on building data centers in other folks’ backyards.
Rezoning land is extremely difficult and likely requires changes to the Master plan for the city/county. If a citizen is unhappy with a zone nearby do not move there.
If an area is zoned for industrial and someone wants to build a datacenter there without variances I don't see why anyone should be able to say no. Same thing for building condos or single-family homes in areas zoned for those. There's almost always variances though which is why there is even an opportunity to say no.
Is it really that difficult to believe that these residents—many of whom are living out in the country by choice—really just don’t want this kind of development near them? And that they have taken action of their own volition?
I laughed out loud at the suggestion that rural Texans are reading Politico, or any other “elite media” for that matter. I say this as someone who has lived in TX for decades.
ETA: to be fair, I'm not saying that what you describe never happens, but no way is this an example of it.
Yeah, there probably are some rural people who just reflexively oppose any kind of construction, NIMBYs are everywhere. The psyop is Politico writing an article in support of them, instead of comparing what they're doing to redlining or some other historic phenomenon that the Politico writers see as racist against nonwhites.
Yes, not wanting a data center is the same as fucking red-lining. What an astronomically bullshit argument and false equivalence. What a stunning display of intellectual dishonesty.
I think they mean to say that Politico is the kind of company to pull this bullshit spin when it is convenient.
Not that excuses your astronomical lack of decorum.
I'm getting a shill vibe from the shill accusation.
And you're 100% ok if it were being built immediately outside your window, right?
Depends. Is the alternative a loud, obnoxious factory? Or a warehouse with a constant stream of trucks? If you live near land zoned for industrial buildings then something is going to go there eventually.
Yes. In fact I assume there are multiple data centers built in the same urban area I live in, perhaps not very far from me.
I would personally, why not (generally curious why there is opposition. Things such as the whole electric infrastructure costs being passed on to consumers is not inherent to a data center build, just a failure in policy).
To name just a single reason: they produce noise at inaudible frequencies that makes people sick.
I think this is a fake phenomenon, like people who claim to have some kind of sensitivity to radio waves that causes them chronic illness that induces them to move to the national radio quiet zone (https://wjla.com/news/health/allergic-to-radio-signals-suffe...).
The main difference is that when people complain about the negative health effects of 5G cell phone radios, the Politico-writer class makes fun of them for being conspiracy theorists instead of arguing that the existence of these people is one of several good reasons to get rid of 5G cell phone towers.
Interesting - got a source? Id be surprised if such a noise survives a few miles.
This is like saying that you should oppose electricity or factories if you don’t want them in your backyard.
If given the choice, which would you prefer?
A) An electrical station immediately proximal to where you reside
B) No electrical station immediately proximal to where you reside
This is incredible. On the range from zero to multiple layers of irony it's a great read regardless of where it lands.
Data-center advocacy is so clearly a psyop driven by members of the elite techbro class (i.e. the kinds of people who write comments like these), who are scared of the middle class. I wish the US had better constitutional protections for people who want to protect their quality of life and their jobs in spite of short-sighted or malicious billionaire opposition.