| There have been some pretty egregious misuses of eminent domain in the past, but using it for infrastructure is pretty much the quintessential justification. That's basically the only reason to have eminent domain at all. Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain. Which one can totally choose to do! But they should be up front about it, if that's what's going on. As for the title, I would go further than you do. This is not a misleading title. It is a lying title. I'm usually a pretty big believer in Scott Alexander's Bounded Distrust [0] concept for the media where they very rarely actually, technically lie. This title (although not the article itself), in my opinion crosses that line. [0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust |
| |
| ▲ | jaredklewis a day ago | parent [-] | | We run power lines to everything else: houses, offices, commercial buildings, factories, and so on. Any particular reasons we should have a special exception where we don't run them to data centers? Where I live pretty much every piece of land has some sort of easement on it: for water, power, or something else. Seems weird to me if we can insist that now everything needs to be frozen and no more infrastructure upgrades. | | |
| ▲ | matwood a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Agreed. Since most land is already owned by private individuals do we freeze everything as is and do no further changes [1]? The last house I lived in had an easement along the back property line. I built my fence on the easement knowing full well they would tear it up if they needed to access anything. I live in a denser town now where the power comes from the street to my house, wraps around my house, then lines to the next building over. I guess I should tell those people in the other building to figure out a different way to get power. [1] Also feels a bit like the arguments against wind power. | |
| ▲ | oliwarner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > We run power lines to everything else But no, we don't seize rights and access to privately owned land for houses, offices, commercial buildings or factories unless there is overwhelming public benefit. I can't just say I want to build a factory and force access and utilities across my neighbours without their permission or an extraordinary process to prove that I'm going to provide massive local benefit (or national security). If my factory wants to compete on an already contested resource (water, power), I should have to go further to show that I'm going to be a net benefit in my area. As things stand, datacentres provide very an extraordinarily low employment density. They don't produce food. They consume an extraordinary amount of energy making it more expensive. And they money they generate concentrates wealth to billionaires. If you want your powerlines prove you're going to be beneficial. Start with a solar+batterty farm. You can surge from the network, and sell on slow days. Guarantee free power and network for locals. Integrate heat pumps to heat local homes in winter. I've wandered off the topic of forcing permanent access to others land into broader planning, but it's all related. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | >But no, we don't seize rights and access to privately owned land for houses, offices, commercial buildings or factories unless there is Ever since Kelo v New London we do. > overwhelming public benefit. This is just an appeal to authority that is predicated on the broad willful ignorance that the mean reader here will have toward how this particular sausage is made. Read the proceedings. Half the time it's bullshit like "gravel pit or office park development wants an easement through undeveloped/agricultural/industrial parcels XYZ to build a road because that means they can exit closer to the highway which saves a bunch of money. They'd pay the land owner because at the end of the day it's money either way, they just think they can convince the state to stomp the land owner cheaper than they can pay off the land owner. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere a day ago | parent [-] | | It’s ironic that Chinese “nail house” owners get more property rights than US citizens in the The Land of the Free (tm). |
|
| |
| ▲ | lenkite a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A blank cheque on corpo infrastructure just means that billionaires win and everyone else loses. At that point, just paint "Peasant Slave" on your forehead if you don't have a multi-million lobbying group at the state and federal level. "All your base are belong to us" => Billionaires of USA When that happens rename the nation to Corporate States of America as well. | | |
| ▲ | jaredklewis a day ago | parent | next [-] | | But what if I want to live in a country with a growing economy and improving infrastructure? Forbidding all development does hurt corporations and the wealthy, but just in the sense that it hurts everyone, including them. If we do want to soak the rich, can we do it in a progressive, targeted way (such as taxes) and not in a NIMBY way where we just say no one can build or improve anything? | | |
| ▲ | lenkite a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Private Corpo Infra != Public Use Infra. They cannot be treated the same way. | | |
| ▲ | jryle70 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | If they pay enough, why not? What is public use infrastructure in your opinion? Any difference than building more houses (like a dense apartment complex) and extend the grid there? That's still private corp infrastructure. |
| |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a difference between "The state will seize your property" and "You may sell your property to the corporation at a rate you choose, and if you don't want to then they'll have to find some other land to use". In either case, development does happen, but the primary beneficiaries of the development (the owners of the data center) would have to pay the people who's land they're using (or taking!) instead of lobbying the government to just take it. I think that unwitting land owners should not be subsidizing the AI grifters... |
| |
| ▲ | DecoySalamander a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only losers are foreign adversaries who would prefer it if your country didn't develop high-tech infrastructure and businesses. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Good point. Let's seize your house and make it a semiconductor fab. | |
| ▲ | lenkite a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | ALL High-tech Infra that leverages "eminent domain" SHOULD be held in the name of the nation state for public good not by the billionaire or his corpo. All these private data centers that leverage eminent domain to grab land should be property of the state and only temporarily leased to the corpo. |
|
|
|
|
| > Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain You're giving a blank check to use it as long as it's infrastructure, and as any simple rule, it's prone to get abused way beyond it's primary goal. IMHO the issue is nuance and balance, we should accept that whether it's applicable is an "it depends" matter. Keeping it too simple and black and white means companies can now strategically place data centers and get the local government to seize all the land leading to it, and vice versa, local govs can nudge companies to target specific places to seize wherever they want. Especially as the plans aren't required to come to fruition. |
