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.

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.

"Lengthy community dialogue" is your assumption

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?

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

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?

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.

OpenAI isn't a convincing source. Of course they're going to blame everything on someone else. They don't want to acknowledge the very real hate for AI that people have. It's also extremely likely that they themselves are involved in the very same thing but to push AI instead.

The next time someone calls me an asshole I’m going to blame Chinese propaganda. Surely it’s that and not my personality.

Do you consider the American fight for Civil rights to have been motivated by Nazi (or Soviet) propaganda? Would one's opposition to the Nazis preclude them from supporting Civil Rights based on some truth exploited by Nazi propagandist?

1. https://perspectives.ushmm.org/item/german-leaflet-for-black...

Is it really a matter of "national security" when the technology at hand is being used in a way that unilaterally benefits a small class of oligarchs at the expense of the rest of society? That's not really in the benefit of the nation anymore, is it?

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.

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.

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-....

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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

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

> 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, 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.