The article discussed this... data centers don't pay for the infrastructure upgrades they need to operate - the majority of that cost gets foisted on the public. They also drive up the wholesale cost of electricity, which means we all pay more for it.

Both are solvable with politicians who can be held accountable. But, in many locations, they aren't accountable and can only be trusted to do what's in the interest of their largest donors.

That's all ignoring the various other externalities... aesthetics, noise, pollution.

But, 100%, if a county/town has an underutilized industrial zone, they should build data centers there. But, it also appears data center developers prefer undeveloped plots. Again, also solvable, but somebody needs to do so.

Any municipality that tries to do this will not get a DC built, and the one next door will promise a 3 year tax abatement or other special privileges to get it instead. It's a race to the bottom thing.

You need a coordinated policy to encourage everyone to tax them extra, or to require them to put down money for new electrical infrastructure or so on before they break ground. It would be good to have federal action on that.

Yep they can definitely provide public benefts to a community. Like in Quincy, Washington where data centers built over the last twenty years have [1]:

* Lowered property taxes by 70% by broadening the tax base

* Helped fund a new high school, hospital, fire station, water infrastructure improvements, and parks with taxes

* Directly created 900 new jobs, and created 4-6 times that number of indirect jobs (this is in a town of about 8,500 - so that's significant).

But the data centers have also created headaches for locals like concerns about air pollution, seizing private land under eminent domain to build high voltage power lines, and traffic [2].

So I agree data centers are a potential benefit to a community. But locals should be concerned and getting involved from the early stages to ensure their interests are protected. And vigorous debates, protests, etc should be viewed as part of a healthy democratic process.

[1] https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2025-09/AdoptedTabled...

[2] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jul/26/where-agricult...

Why wouldn’t they search for communities that would charge them the least? And in doing so, we have messed up incentives on both sides of the aisle.

Edge compute should be a federal build out IMO. It is considered a matter of national security, right? I could be wrong, so I'm open to discussion.

We build data centers everywhere of all sizes and shapes, they’re part of US Dept of Energy. Companies and individuals can operate them, plug into them like self-storage unit business model.

They would be powered by advanced nuclear, solar, etc. with loads of build out across the country (energy transmission, maintenance, etc.).

Why do we need to have power generation at the source (yes, it is cheaper), when we could do a large scale jobs and infrastructure project out of it that would keep folks employed for GENERATIONS! The demand never ends.

It might open up a lot of opportunities to have that level of localized edge compute, and historically speaking our computing and energy requirements have only ever grown. Give as many people (and communities) a stake into the future!

Private businesses benefit, since they build new things on top of this infrastructure. People benefit, because maintaining the infrastructure is a cost that's rolled in. Everyone benefits from it directly or indirectly (end users).

US Gov could print $1T+ bonds for this, and they would actually pay out in far more ways IMO.

In my understanding, if anything, data centers get tax breaks, rather than increased taxes.

Taxes would be great. If a giant new datacenter meant more money in the coffers for schools, roads, and everything else that is funded by local taxes, then that sounds like something that some places would really like to see.

But that's not how it rolls. At least around me, there instead seems to be a pattern of cities and counties of giving datacenter builds tax abatements of multiple decades in length.

And unlike something like a hospital or a steel mill or even a warehouse: After the local service industry and trades boom from the initial construction is over with, there's not much else coming out of these places. They don't provide very much in the form of long-term employment positions.

And beyond that, it's not like we know what the shape of information technology will be 30 years from now. It's certainly shaped very differently today than it was in 1996.

(And yeah, I know. If there were no tax incentives for datacenters in Location A, then they'd just build them in Location B instead. I don't have a problem with this at all, but some folks seem to find that result to be fundamentally unconscionable.)

Money is made up. Access to water and clean air are real.

Furthermore, why is it assumed that as power demand and capacity rises, that prices would rise? In every other market prices drop at scale.

>I struggle to understand why data centers are seen as a problem rather than an opportunity.

Data centers require very little personnel to operate. It chugs a ton of water and electricity while polluting acoustically the surrounding area and basically bringing no jobs

Pollution, resources and increased utility costs to name a few.

You wouldn't mind listening to this 24/7? https://youtube.com/shorts/EVh2jkuGYps?si=YRxda9gb_wjdhKIv

Do you want a costco right next to your house? I believe you could do the same with a Costco, property tax, employment, yada yada

They don't.

> Cities and counties can charge a high property tax to data centers and the residents can benefit.

My city has had issues with data centers since prior to the whole LLM craze.

The reason? They gave them tax breaks, and later on the town discovered they employ almost nobody. For the amount of land they took up, they give very little back to the community - both in taxes and in employment. It's understandable that residents would prefer the land be used for just about anything else. Even a pollution generating plant.

That's exactly what the newly elected Democrat congressmen are proposing. Right now, it's the opposite where they get tax breaks, reap resources (electricity, water), while providing zero benefits to the local communities (jobs or funding).

> What's wrong with that plan?

It's about more than money. People live in rural areas for reasons and data centers are rather antithetical to them.

If you want to know details, listen to those people

Yes it's a huge job creation/economics boon as well. The data centers are injecting a lot of money into local economies (many of which have been shrinking) and providing skilled jobs.

> What's wrong with that plan?

Well, that's not the plan. The plan is massive tax cut, infrastructure built with public money and... that's it!