The reputation of datacenters precludes them due to some high-profile abuses of locals, as well as cities overcommitting brittle and unprepared infrastructure to them.

Consumer energy prices in 13+ states hiked because the grid was unable to meet the sudden demand. SpaceX's datacenter in Memphis used gas turbines to rapidly deploy Colossus before the grid could be upgraded, which resulted in an increase in local air emissions that was technically illegal. There are two Meta datacenters that oneshotted their local water supplies during construction and tests, resulting in sediment and bacteria going through consumers' taps. NV Energy cut off an entire town of residential properties because datacenters were more profitable, in a higher-stakes parallel to the ongoing RAM woes in consumer electronics.

There's been more than enough well-justified association between "datacenter" and "abuses local resources" that I think nobody should really be surprised at the backlash toward them. The backlash is so furious that it's forming a rare example of a bipartisan, populist consensus on any given political issue.

The infrastructure thing I get! The water thing is, I think, baloney, but depending on where you are there's energy generation concerns. Seems totally reasonable to me for local political bodies to demand that new data center projects account for what they'll do to the local power grid, and, obviously, running jet turbine gas generators is not a reasonable answer to those concerns.

What frustrates me about the new political valence of data centers is that there are reasons to be optimistic about data centers in blue states, which could move the market towards renewables and grid modernization, making data centers --- which are going to happen one way or the other --- a vector for improving our current energy system. Instead, they're all just going to be pushed to the locales who will do the least to regulate energy usage.

> SpaceX's datacenter in Memphis used gas turbines to rapidly deploy Colossus before the grid could be upgraded, which resulted in an increase in local air emissions that was technically illegal.

To put a finer and much-angrier point on how this connects to the backlash:

1. Traditionally, Americans have been protected from certain kinds of harm by certain federal laws. Where present, these laws take priority (supremacy clause) over state laws. (i.e. The Clean Air Act.)

2. Due to certain people of one party controlling the federal government today, American communities are no longer getting justice under those laws. This is because the facility-owners (i.e. xAI and Elon Musk) are capable of bribing the federal government into ignoring or impeding the law. (i.e. no help from the EPA, while the DoJ claims the facility has a "national security" exception to pollute.)

3. Since communities are robbed of normal protection from federal laws, they must instead try to use other measures like state/local laws.

4. Due the different responsibility-areas of state/federal laws, this often means preventing the facility from being begun at all, as opposed to focused limits on what happens during construction and operation.

____

TLDR: Corrupt crooks have sabotaged the normal careful legal-compromise route, so they are partly to blame when American communities seek hard-line measures instead.