> which are wildly different

Many of the same reasons used against dense housing, mass transit, and solar/wind turbines are used against DCs -

such as claims:

* That it would be too much for the existing grid to handle

* That it would be too much for existing other utilities to handle

* That it would be too close to x other thing (zoo, etc)

* Some say it won't be visually appealing

* That it would change the nature of the existing area

* That there isn't enough groundwater

* etc.

> Put a data center in Atherton and I’ll change my mind.

Wouldn't the complaints then be that a DC there would spoil the area's natural beauty (and would be too much for the electric grid there, etc)? Or if the DC were located similarly to how this one is, there would be the same complaints as OP case - see the photo at the very top of the OP article - it shows a very low-density area. If someone was expecting to see urban-type density, it isn’t in the location shown in the photo.

>> even state-wide bans, even in states where much of the state is very low density

> Put a data center in Atherton and I’ll change my mind.

1. You say you would change your mind in that particular place, but are you arguing that others wouldn't NIMBY against Atherton if one were proposed there? Everyone has different ideas about where they believe should be NIMBYd, including because people have different 'backyards'? And I presume your 'backyard' is tens, hundreds, or thousands of miles from the OP DC location?

2. With state-level bans already existing in states where much of the state is very low-density, the evidence seems to show the opposite of your claim that if a very low-density area were picked then it wouldn't face a ban.