I agree that we need data centers, and that they can provide a benefit to communities, but it's also very shortsighted for communities to think this is a bailout of an unsustainable suburban development pattern.
Loudoun is the incredibly exclusive and expensive picture of endless sprawl, and data centers are a mere brief bailout to allow them to continue sprawl and exclusivity before the bubble pops. Obviously the data centers won't close up shop anytime soon, but what happens in five or ten years when the chips are out of date? What happens when they're no longer worth what they are today? They'll be forced back into raising property taxes eventually, this just kicks the can down the road.
It's all very reminiscent to me of the factory town that relied on industry until one day it no longer existed. Except in this case they've rolled out the red carpet for the data centers in no time flat while actively campaigning against pro-housing policies here in Virginia.
Right? If we believe the people building them, they'll be obsolete in a few years by their own agenda - up in space or requiring only a fraction of the compute we use now. Then what? There's not much flexibility in these spaces... This is like a factory town build on methamphetamines.
I actually winced at the Quincy story. They've loaded up on public facilities with their newfound wealth that can't possibly be maintained if the tax revenue from the data centers dries up. The scary part is that there is already talk of next generation computing that would render the current data center model obsolescent.
Besides the fear of new technology, the larger physical size and impact of the new vs previous use plays a big part in the public reaction.
Then there’s timing, people are wary of large companies over-promising public benefits, with no accountability.
You need leverage to get a win-win. Loudoun County is geographically advantaged location for network interchanges. It’s like comparing the public benefits NYC can leverage during the entitlement process from a big development vs a second tier city or a rural county. All data centers are not the same. AI data centers can jurisdiction shop more than network interchanges or servers.
The other issue is transparency. It’s to the developer’s advantage to minimize public debate. I’d imagine in some industries keeping production water and electrical usage and costs confidential is a competitive advantage. The public should be wary of these costs being externalized on them.
My take is to address it at the state level instead of each city and county dealing it one by one.
Very well done. If you set aside the bad faith actors in this conversation, of which there are many, I think what you’re seeing is really a cultural pushback against bigness and technology. And a lot of that is well earned, since big tech and the corporate sectors haven’t exactly been benign players to many communities now for decades. I think if the tech companies had gone into this build out with the mindset of. “We are here to grow your tax base and donate to your little league teams and your parks”, the reaction could’ve been different, instead, many have employed what is by now the standard economic development canards of “give us tax abatements and free infrastructure and thanks and praise” which has worn thin on so many. I’m not saying that’s always right, but i think it’s a big element of all this. In the end, we must have the data centers and a massive build out of new energy supply. Doing otherwise would be history’s worst self-own. But let’s not set aside why there’s so much skepticism as to how things are done nowadays, either.
They have not. And it would be entirely within their reach to make more of a difference than 60 years of policy. And obtain goodwill and profit in the process.
Yes, and the let's not forget that the tech-bros that own and develop this technology frequently brag about the future success of AI (and the need for data centers) in terms that the rest of us find dystopian. I think it's quite reasonable for the normies to question the value proposition of the next round of bigness and technology and economic development subsidies based on the poor track record of those things to date.
yeah the messaging from the tech and AI companies (especially Anthropic), has been absolutely horrid. Paint the worst possible scenario for people, then wonder why they freak out. Truth is, as Jaime notes, the tech will be wonderful in so many respects. But the leaders in AI have mostly told only horror stories.
I think comparing data centers to power plants is an apt comparison. They're necessary facilities, but they have to come with parameters to ensure the host community benefits/avoids harm.
I do want to push back on the assertion that opposition is driven by politicians looking to stir up the people for their own benefit. I think the public pushback is based in real concerns about big monopolistic companies who live by the motto "Move fast and break things," deploying a novel technology on all of us for their profit while making claims about the future that sound dystopian to many. People may get their facts wrong about specifics, but I think their concerns are pointed in the right direction.
You’re not wrong. However there’s the origin story of the data center footprint, published in a book that got tons of media attention. Turns out all data were either fabricated or manipulated, and the recant was timid. Plus the polls shift about a third towards supporting data centers when the facts are straightened. They do move fast and break things, but the alternative does seem bleak…
I agree that we need data centers, and that they can provide a benefit to communities, but it's also very shortsighted for communities to think this is a bailout of an unsustainable suburban development pattern.
Loudoun is the incredibly exclusive and expensive picture of endless sprawl, and data centers are a mere brief bailout to allow them to continue sprawl and exclusivity before the bubble pops. Obviously the data centers won't close up shop anytime soon, but what happens in five or ten years when the chips are out of date? What happens when they're no longer worth what they are today? They'll be forced back into raising property taxes eventually, this just kicks the can down the road.
It's all very reminiscent to me of the factory town that relied on industry until one day it no longer existed. Except in this case they've rolled out the red carpet for the data centers in no time flat while actively campaigning against pro-housing policies here in Virginia.
Right? If we believe the people building them, they'll be obsolete in a few years by their own agenda - up in space or requiring only a fraction of the compute we use now. Then what? There's not much flexibility in these spaces... This is like a factory town build on methamphetamines.
I actually winced at the Quincy story. They've loaded up on public facilities with their newfound wealth that can't possibly be maintained if the tax revenue from the data centers dries up. The scary part is that there is already talk of next generation computing that would render the current data center model obsolescent.
Great points. The nuclear example is awesome.
Besides the fear of new technology, the larger physical size and impact of the new vs previous use plays a big part in the public reaction.
Then there’s timing, people are wary of large companies over-promising public benefits, with no accountability.
You need leverage to get a win-win. Loudoun County is geographically advantaged location for network interchanges. It’s like comparing the public benefits NYC can leverage during the entitlement process from a big development vs a second tier city or a rural county. All data centers are not the same. AI data centers can jurisdiction shop more than network interchanges or servers.
The other issue is transparency. It’s to the developer’s advantage to minimize public debate. I’d imagine in some industries keeping production water and electrical usage and costs confidential is a competitive advantage. The public should be wary of these costs being externalized on them.
My take is to address it at the state level instead of each city and county dealing it one by one.
Very well done. If you set aside the bad faith actors in this conversation, of which there are many, I think what you’re seeing is really a cultural pushback against bigness and technology. And a lot of that is well earned, since big tech and the corporate sectors haven’t exactly been benign players to many communities now for decades. I think if the tech companies had gone into this build out with the mindset of. “We are here to grow your tax base and donate to your little league teams and your parks”, the reaction could’ve been different, instead, many have employed what is by now the standard economic development canards of “give us tax abatements and free infrastructure and thanks and praise” which has worn thin on so many. I’m not saying that’s always right, but i think it’s a big element of all this. In the end, we must have the data centers and a massive build out of new energy supply. Doing otherwise would be history’s worst self-own. But let’s not set aside why there’s so much skepticism as to how things are done nowadays, either.
They have not. And it would be entirely within their reach to make more of a difference than 60 years of policy. And obtain goodwill and profit in the process.
Yes, and the let's not forget that the tech-bros that own and develop this technology frequently brag about the future success of AI (and the need for data centers) in terms that the rest of us find dystopian. I think it's quite reasonable for the normies to question the value proposition of the next round of bigness and technology and economic development subsidies based on the poor track record of those things to date.
yeah the messaging from the tech and AI companies (especially Anthropic), has been absolutely horrid. Paint the worst possible scenario for people, then wonder why they freak out. Truth is, as Jaime notes, the tech will be wonderful in so many respects. But the leaders in AI have mostly told only horror stories.
I think comparing data centers to power plants is an apt comparison. They're necessary facilities, but they have to come with parameters to ensure the host community benefits/avoids harm.
I do want to push back on the assertion that opposition is driven by politicians looking to stir up the people for their own benefit. I think the public pushback is based in real concerns about big monopolistic companies who live by the motto "Move fast and break things," deploying a novel technology on all of us for their profit while making claims about the future that sound dystopian to many. People may get their facts wrong about specifics, but I think their concerns are pointed in the right direction.
You’re not wrong. However there’s the origin story of the data center footprint, published in a book that got tons of media attention. Turns out all data were either fabricated or manipulated, and the recant was timid. Plus the polls shift about a third towards supporting data centers when the facts are straightened. They do move fast and break things, but the alternative does seem bleak…