Hacker News Reader

Comment by thewillowcat | Hacker News Reader

I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry.

View on HN

I’m a voter who prefers we establish rules that be followed rather than encumber every project with a lengthy community dialogue.

That's it right there. Rules, not deals.

The two are often difficult to dissociate. My town had a fairly fractious town meeting around a rezoning proposal that was mostly for a fairly specific commercial purpose--that passed through a basically procedural mechanism in a second meeting.

These companies aren't coming in, buying property at market rates, and developing it with existing infrastructure under current zoning laws. They usually want tax breaks, major infrastructure changes, and other accommodations and guarantees. It's completely reasonable for people to want a dialog with their representatives before those kinds of arrangements are made with a company on their behalf. And it's entirely reasonable for them to vote out reps that are overly accommodating.

I live in an historic district. I had to attend a public meeting a couple years ago to get approval to change a lamp post. It is perfectly reasonable to ask tech companies to show up and defend massive projects to the public.

A meeting to get a lamp post change is exactly how progress stops. It is why we can't build anything in US and it costs a billion dollars per mile of high speed rail.

A data centre isn't a lamp post.

Communities passed and paid bonds to have water hookusp. Built infrastructure. They should have a say in who gets access and why. There are plenty of places datacenters could build without hassle, but they want access to readymade infra, and that comes with a reasonable tradeoff.

There are also traffic issues--likely less of an issue with datacenters or solar farms. But things like housing that put pressures on local schools are certainly issues--though again not really with datacenters which are more about power and water infrastructure.

Power and water infrastructure being strained can raise utility prices and require new infrastructure, which affect schools and tax rates by extension. It can also lead to new build stoppages until infrastructure is built, which affects hone prices and taxes. There are many knock-on effects.

If it's a brand new type of lamp post that's never been built in that area before and is likely to cause significant problems to the inhabitants (e.g. power blackouts) then that kind of progress should be stopped or at least discussed in an open fashion and not hidden behind NDAs.

Why can the US build data centers that benefit a few rich guys while polluting and poisoning the water for everyone else without any major hurdles, but building high speed rail that the public and the environment would benefit from is nigh-impossible?

Usually the state gives tax breaks and the town gets double it's tax revenue. That's why the councils rush to vote yes, and $20-30M annually is a rounding error for the datacenter.

That'd pretty much defeat the point of having local government. If politicians can't get their hand in the cookie jar, what's the point?

"Lengthy community dialogue" is your assumption

Yes, rules are absolutely necessary. And community engagement is also essential. Community input might be tiring, frustrating, and the like but people get to speak as part of the process and because they have a right to.

in a lot of cases, the leaders of the communities are not following the rules. (see the ppl talking about ndas and such)

in any case, this isn't like "oh we don't want to build an apartment building because it might drop the value of a single family home halfway across town."

it isn't even like "we want to build this train line which will have some negative externalities but the positive effects (and externalities) are worth taking a hit in some areas"

the problems with the datacenters are that like (1) the service its providing (LLMs) has dubious societal value, (2) the direct negative effects such as noise pollution and such have been pretty well documented, (3) the indirect negative effects like massive strain on infra and (4) the people pushing them most heavily are effectively attempting to invade the communities, peddle conspiracy theories about "china" being behind the opposition, and demand to be specially treated because they were bankrolled by big tech, etc.

some people when this topic come up act like anyone opposed is some nimby who hates societal progress or smth and who is super concerned about that their home estimate might go down. but like communities do recognize the need for zoning and restricting certain things being built.

you need the thing being built to both (a) actually be a good that helps the community (or have a very very good reason why some damage to the community is justifiable (datacenter projects generally don't) and (b) need to contain negative externalities (which is why we don't put the chemical plant next to the elementary school even if it's the most economic option). people recognize these things on some level.

In general yes, but a datacenter is to many people a categorically different kind of development because they oppose AI companies. The first datacenter should trigger a lengthy discussion and create rules that apply to all further datacenters.

It's likely the general public has very little in the way of an opinion about "AI companies."

Is this why you're in the minority?

This devolves into NIMBY.

I was living in a touristic area.

Guess what was happening, local politicians were treating long term residents as trash in the face of big hotels/apartments who had loads of money.

Fun part was that those apartments/hotels wouldn’t hire locals but rather people who would drive like 20-30 km away.

Bad deal all way round for locals but of course local government people would pocket their share one way or the other if not from outright bribery.

You live in a touristy area because you have a tourism-related job, right?

Because where are the tourists supposed to stay if there's no hotels?

Or, he did something else and mived away, vecause this sucked.

There is never shortage of hotels. They pop up is actual econony supports it. No reason to take bribes

For anyone who was poor in that area it was better to move out.

Not really. I was just born there and it wasn’t as touristy when I was a child. It blew up as touristy place when I was a teenager and in my twenties.

My parents had odd jobs, construction, chemical processing operations. There was some small scale industry running there as well but it went bust when people wanted fresh air for tourism. Even if the industry was really small scale for marketing sake local government got rid of all of it.

I also don’t live there anymore as I wrote „I was living in a touristy area”.

If I would stay there, there was no future for me there.

> Fun part was that those apartments/hotels wouldn’t hire locals but rather people who would drive like 20-30 km away.

This is also true for data centers. They tell you there will be new jobs, but what they don't tell you is the people working there will be employed by an established contractor and driving in from the nearest metro area, not the locals.

And, in fact, after the initial construction datacenters employ very few people working on the premises.

It ought to be illegal for a publicly elected official to enter an NDA like that. It goes against the same principles that are the reason why we have things like FOIA

Are those NDAs enforceable? That’s a major governance gap and problem if so.

Some information is legally required for them to disclose, if they’re acting in their official capacity. I feel like development on public land is too big to hide.

I don't understand why people think they should be able to vote on things like this. Especially when they lack the necessary credentials to have an informed opinion on it.

I mean, why do we let people without property vote in the first place? It's really only people with a vested interest who have something at stake.

Who said anything about property?

You are using the same logic as those who kept the franchise restricted to the property-owning class. Parent is rightly mocking you for it.

Did you vote for the new McDonalds that got built? The new strip mall? The new apartment complex? The new water treatment plant that makes noise and stinks? The new metal shop? The new gas station? Let's start voting on everything and see how that goes. But we obviously don't because that's fucking stupid.

I don’t think dismissing direct democracy as “fucking stupid” is the kind of constructive commentary this site is after. It’s a complex issue and I wouldn’t advocate for it claiming it would fix everything, but in the representative democracy that we (supposedly) have, and the representatives that we tend to get, often cowed or corrupted by huge corporate interests, is it surprising that people want to take some influence back into their own hands? I’m not ever going to be against that kind of democracy.

And, in fact, the town where I live in the northeast does have a lot of issues voted on in town meetings by the residents who attend. Not every little detail certainly. But zoning changes, budgets, etc. yes. (Not that our infrastructure would presumably support one but I'd expect a datacenter proposal would be voted down.)

Glad to hear it!

The McD, strip mall, metal shop, and gas station will all be going into places that were long ago zoned for that kind of business, had all the necessary infrastructure to support such business installed long ago, and won't bring any new significant quality of life issues to people who live or work nearby. They also generally aren't asking for special tax breaks.

The water treatment plant often will be voted on, because it will often be financed by a bond issue or levy that requires voter approval.

The apartment complex is the only one that doesn't fall into either of those types of projects, and this is one that gets exceptions because it is to solve a problem the local area is having by directly addressing that problem. They need more nearby housing, so they make exceptions for housing projects.

Not many towns have found their AI needs are hard to meet because of the latency over the internet to their AI provider's datacenter, and so need to get a local datacenter built.

So what are the topics people should be able to vote on? I don't think people have the necessary credentials to vote on immigration, drug price regulation, social media regulation? Why let people vote at all, they don't know anything apparently.

How about the nuclear button?

I’m curious where you personally draw the line.

Using a nuclear strike first on the whim of an individual POTUS?

First use should be heavily debated and almost always avoided.

In response to {immediate pressing life threatening conditions at scale} .. they can be discussed and game planned well in advance and voted on - even if that vote is limited to a large pool with a breadth of military and diplomatic experience.

The current US practice of "POTUS can, like, do whatever" is pretty tragic.

>How about the nuclear button?

We do every 4 years

You vote for people you can trust to build a knowledgeable team to make decisions for you. Direct democracy would be idiotic. Do you vote on every new business that gets created? Every building that gets erected?

In a way yes. We've had local elections with candidates main driver being getting areas rezoned. Or getting downtown redeveloped.

> I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry.

People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property, or believing they should have some say in the "character" of their neighborhood that involves non-public land just doesnt make any sense to me.

Why do people think that because they have a house somewhere they should get the ability to freeze an entire town in time and disallow anyone to build anything. Seriously, where did this mindset come from?

NIMBYism has been popular for a long time. People really do want datacenters (or at least, the things that having datacenters enable).. they just want them somewhere else.

I'm not sure anyone but investors chasing yield feel a very strong need to see the planet covered in AI data centers, especially when the benefits seem to be rolling up, not down.

This may come as a surprise to you, but people like living in pleasant surroundings.

Just because I own the land does not mean I can open an abattoir next to an elementary school.

Using land in different ways results in externalities that affect those around it.

The people of a community should have some right to protect themselves from those externalities. How that happens in practice is a deeply flawed, messy, ugly process, but collectively deciding where to draw the line is part of living together as a community.

The next town over from where I live has basically no rules. No zoning, if you want to turn your property into a junkyard go right ahead! Even still, people are successfully fighting against a trash company putting in a landfill. I believe the levers they're pulling are a state wetlands permit and a state solid waste permit. The system is working.

Isn't that just leveraging the benefit of having access to a higher level of government which does have rules?

Sure, and why not? And there's an even higher level of government above that one. And if we really start misbehaving, there's an international level above that one... I think computer nerds call that kind of thing "defense in depth".

Japan has essentially no local zoning laws and things work perfectly fine.

This is false, they’re called “Land Use Zones” in Japan. It’s a national system, unlike in the west which is largely implemented piecemeal by municipality.

>no local zoning laws

can you read brother. do you know what the word local means

What does it matter if the zoning laws are local or national? You're OK with the feds telling you what you can and can't do with your land, but not local governments? Seems like a distinction without a difference.

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property, or believing they should have some say in the "character" of their neighborhood that involves non-public land just doesnt make any sense to me.

Would you like me to buy the lot next to your house and set up a 3000W sound system pumping noise music 24 hours directly at your bedroom? Because that's what you're arguing for.

Generally the law concerning this is called: “disturbing the peace” and is not tolerated.

But the noise from a data center is exempt. And if their water use exhausts the local aquifer, too bad for the locals.

And laws are only as good as their enforcement.

Taking GP's example further, let's say they have enough money to build their 3000W sound system AND maybe also build a cushy new building for the local police, who will then respond to your noise complaints by telling you it's really not that bad and maybe you should invest in some noise-canceling headphones.

So you acknowledge some classes of laws against use of property, and you agree with them.

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property, or believing they should have some say in the "character" of their neighborhood

So... iron smeltery next door for you then? Acid rain?

Come on. There is reasonable concern for property rights and civil coexistence and then there's Randian Libertarian Claptrap, and you've hopped right into the deep end.

YES, government has a clear and obvious interest, as a matter of principle, in the regulation of land use and development. This doesn't change just because you think the government made a wrong decision in a particular instance. The solution is to fix the government. Go vote for datacenter candidates. Seems like no one else is.

Just tax acid rain byproduct

im not suggesting the complete abolition of zoning, im saying

1. it should be controlled at the state or county level not locally

2. local communities/boards should have zero input in what is permitted if the project passes zoning laws.

so no, iron smeltery in a residential neighboorhood not allowed. but if someone is trying to build a datacenter in an industrial area you have zero say in the matter.

Your argument makes sense until you have a horrible neighbor. You can see it in action in a state like Montana which to my knowledge prohibits housing covenants. Want to park 12 cars that are rusting in your front yard? Do it! Neighbors can't do anything about it. But that does have the effect of lowering property value and degrading the neighborhood.

There is a WILD difference between commercial properties coming in to residential areas and a neighbor with rusty cars.

I'll happily live next to rusty car guy. I would rather eat glass than have to live near a data center.

You may be confusing Montana with a much-worse place.

Or confusing with State law preventing homeowners' associations (HOAs) from enforcing new covenants that restrict the use of your property, compared to what was allowed when you originally purchased it.

you are the problem. your neighbor isnt doing anything illegal, they are just annoying you. why on earth would you think you should be able to do anything about it?

again, owning a piece of property doesnt give you influence over the people around you if they arent doing anything illegal.

> doing anything illegal

You are just putting off the hard work into "doing anything illegal" which is even more ironic considering this is a thread about people either a)passing laws which make constructing ai datacenters illegal or b) voting out politicians they do not believe are acting in the interest of the constituency

Strong private property rights have to come with some protections against others' externalities - otherwise your property is harmed.

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property

If the data center existed in a vaccum, with no inputs or outputs, this argument would hold some weight.

Instead, they stress limited water supplies, cause power shortages, increase GHG emissions (which we, the public ultimately have to pay for, either through mitigation or dealing with the damage after the fact).

Oh, and also they may well have negative externalities to employment. They definitely have negative externalities to communication, the internet has been flooded with AIshit.

> People believing they are entitled to dictate what other people do with their property

Yes, I believe that’s called “society” and while we are all very disappointed about your personal liberties I’m afraid some compromises had to be made to allow people other than you to have property rights too.

So many of these conversations come back to the problem of privatized gains and socialized losses.

Most things that create value have externalities. I kill the moss on my roof, then it rains and the chemicals go into the stream, then you try to go fishing and get skunked. I exerted my freedom as a private property owner and got the benefits; you paid for the drawbacks. We're all pulling from the same pile of resources, and the Earth doesn't care where your picket fence is.

Data centers incur expensive externalities and you're asking the general public to bear those costs -- or "pay those taxes," if that resonates more. I suppose NIMBYism is part of it, but we're not talking about ugly condos here, we're talking about towns running out of electricity: https://fortune.com/2026/05/12/lake-tahoe-data-center-49000-....

Are you from Texas? Because Texas is what you get with a policy like that.

Amen, NIMBYs have ruined this country. Abolish zoning laws and nuke the suburbs, yeeclaw!

Zoning is a promise from the government 'invest in a house (which is most people's largest investment in life) here and we guaranty we will work on our side to make sure it is fit for purpose (a good place to live/you won't lose money).'.

These private property owners you are concerned about normally bought the land with these difficulties you are worried about priced in to the land's value. Why should to government hand them free money in the form of not enforcing what has been priced into the land value?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com