I'd say having your house fall to a third of its value while your electricity bill triples is a perfectly rational argument for opposing a data center. If the data center is that valuable, pay the residents current market value for their property and give them a million dollars to uproot their life. Letting giant corporations impose massive costs on the folks that don't have the money to buy politicians is not an efficient outcome.
They are. Well okay, it is about 5km away, but it is in the direction of my backyard. They are quiet neighbors overall, not much traffic compared to most other jobs. The only thing not to like is someone negotiated a tax 10 year break on us.
More importantly, I'm not NIMBY if at all possible.
Sounds good to me. As far as industrial neighbors go it doesn't get any better than a glorified warehouse. The scale of these facilities means keeping a few local contractors in the trades in business indefinitely - electricians, plumbers, etc. Not ideal in terms of number of jobs gained, but those jobs tend to be high quality.
Power costs are a concern, but it doesn't matter if it's across the street from me or 100 miles away on the same PJM interconnect. In the end it likely would strengthen the local grid where I live.
Water usage is just overblown social media rage bait for the most part in most locations at least. So long as it's not a stupid ridiculous design go for it.
The only thing I'd rage against are tax credits. But I'd be strongly against those no matter the project going in. The only public money spent should be on adding traffic lights or improving road access if needed, and I'd want to see that being justified.
This assumes an actual datacenter. Not one with a co-located power plant. These are different things.
Many folks lived near datacenters and had utterly no clue or care until they were told to be mad about it. I'd point them out to visitors or when traveling to family and they'd never have known the difference otherwise. It's effectively living next to an office park.
And unless they also build their own power plant, everyone in town has to pay higher electricity prices to cover the new demand. That is the primary complaint I have been hearing.
If anyone wants to add any other complaints to the list, I'd like to hear them. I might be forced to have this argument in my parent's hometown in the coming years.
And sucking down all the electrical power in the region.
> Yet another (text) suggests residents would forget about the data center controversy as soon as they find out the city is getting a new Olive Garden restaurant.
I'd say having your house fall to a third of its value while your electricity bill triples is a perfectly rational argument for opposing a data center. If the data center is that valuable, pay the residents current market value for their property and give them a million dollars to uproot their life. Letting giant corporations impose massive costs on the folks that don't have the money to buy politicians is not an efficient outcome.
Props to these folks for protecting their community. Maybe they can build the data center in your backyard instead :).
They are. Well okay, it is about 5km away, but it is in the direction of my backyard. They are quiet neighbors overall, not much traffic compared to most other jobs. The only thing not to like is someone negotiated a tax 10 year break on us.
More importantly, I'm not NIMBY if at all possible.
Sounds good to me. As far as industrial neighbors go it doesn't get any better than a glorified warehouse. The scale of these facilities means keeping a few local contractors in the trades in business indefinitely - electricians, plumbers, etc. Not ideal in terms of number of jobs gained, but those jobs tend to be high quality.
Power costs are a concern, but it doesn't matter if it's across the street from me or 100 miles away on the same PJM interconnect. In the end it likely would strengthen the local grid where I live.
Water usage is just overblown social media rage bait for the most part in most locations at least. So long as it's not a stupid ridiculous design go for it.
The only thing I'd rage against are tax credits. But I'd be strongly against those no matter the project going in. The only public money spent should be on adding traffic lights or improving road access if needed, and I'd want to see that being justified.
This assumes an actual datacenter. Not one with a co-located power plant. These are different things.
Many folks lived near datacenters and had utterly no clue or care until they were told to be mad about it. I'd point them out to visitors or when traveling to family and they'd never have known the difference otherwise. It's effectively living next to an office park.
Datacentres aren't mills. Mills employed hundreds of people and mill owners invested in property to house the workforce in the local area.
Data centres are mostly ran remotely, employing a handful of people to watch a fence line.
And unless they also build their own power plant, everyone in town has to pay higher electricity prices to cover the new demand. That is the primary complaint I have been hearing.
If anyone wants to add any other complaints to the list, I'd like to hear them. I might be forced to have this argument in my parent's hometown in the coming years.
And sucking down all the electrical power in the region.
> Yet another (text) suggests residents would forget about the data center controversy as soon as they find out the city is getting a new Olive Garden restaurant.
This was so funny.