Comment by jeffbee

I thought I made it clear, I'm not against data center build outs per se, a community might decide it's worth it to build one. If a community decides to go ahead with it, make it clear and open for the public to bid on it so the residents get the best deal available (e.g. reduced power bills, reduced property taxes, water usage limits, noise/light polution limits, whathaveyou...). These massive data centers are a new kind of business that most communities don't have much experience with, and I doubt they've had time to codify the rules. It sounds like the states are starting to add some more rules about transparency, which seems like a step in the right direction for making better deals for all involved.

The subtitle of the article tells us this is happening.

> Wisconsin has now joined several states with legislative proposals to make the process more transparent.

But it is a reactive measure. It has taken years for the impacts of these data centers to trickle down enough for citizens to understand what they are losing in the deal. Partially because so many of the deals were done under cover of NDAs. If anything, this gives NIMBYs more assurance that they are right to be skeptical of any development. The way these companies act will only increase NIMBYism.

> Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.

Trusting large corporations to provide a full and accurate analysis of downside risks is also damaging.

> If a place wants this kind of land use and not that kind, then they need to write that down in a statute so everyone knows the rules.

Ironically this is a recipe for how you get nothing built. Zoning laws are much more potent than people showing up at city council meetings.