Bias Disclaimer: Amazon pays my salary currently, although my job doesn't have anything to do with datacenter construction.

Maybe I missed it, but the article doesn't seem to say what the "circumvention"/"loophole" that Amazon used was? It seems like Amazon went through the correct city permitting/legal processes years ago, and now residents want to complain about it years later because data centers are this year's culture war hot topic?

Like if Amazon followed the official process here, what's the problem? At some point you have to declare an approval final and allow a company to move forward with construction.

▲

ovao 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That was my read as well:

> ...the site had gone through a long approval process, which required public notices and public-comment periods. However, when Gilroy resident Rosa Rodriguez wanted to state her concern about the damage a data center can do to a region suffering from drought, she was told that the comment period had already lapsed in 2024

Is the "circumvention" the headline refers to that public commentary periods are time-boxed? But how could they not be time-boxed?

In fairness to the residents, the negative implications of data centers was probably not well known to them in 2024, but it seems to me that (at least based on the article) all the processes & rules were followed.

▲

aragilar 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

But if new evidence comes in which changes the basis for approval (e.g. lets say you need to do some earthworks and as part of performing them it becomes apparent these earthworks will damage nearby buildings), presumably the approval can be revoked until suitable changes can be made (or if that's not possible, the approval no longer holds)? The linked Wall Street Journal appears to give more details, suggesting this went through a fast-track process (with seemingly minimum community input). I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation (given it's likely more expensive in the long run).

	▲	ianm218 10 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation Building infrastructure and housing in the US is painfully slow and a huge tax on everyone, almost everything should be fast tracked. We have some of the most productive economic zones in the world (SF <-> LA, Boston <-> DC corridor) and we have made it largely illegal to build housing and transit in these areas due to bureaucracy and red tape. Do you think the high speed rail between SF and LA needs more rounds of community input?
	▲	tyre 7 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I would take fast-tracking high speed rail over community consultation.

▲

aragilar 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's the zoning rules (based on https://www.wsj.com/us-news/how-amazon-built-a-data-center-i...), which seem to provide an expedited process (which for large scale projects like this always seems a bit odd, and seems like it would increase the risk of corruption)?

Arguably if new information arrives which changes the risks or impacts of a project, especially if the project was initially on some kind of fast-track process, then projects should be subject to re-reviewed and scrutiny (which I would expect to have a standard legal process).

	▲	gruez 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Arguably if new information arrives which changes the risks or impacts of a project, especially if the project was initially on some kind of fast-track process, then projects should be subject to re-reviewed and scrutiny (which I would expect to have a standard legal process). What "new information" arose aside from the general datacenter backlash that's been brewing this year?
	▲	mrloopex 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There’s no such thing as a “final” contract. Everything is open to relitigation. I mean look at the E Jean Carol and President Trump case.

▲

DonsDiscountGas 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's possible that the official process is a bad one and needs reform. But that's really not Amazon's fault, and it would be super weird for them to set up a bunch of additional hoops for themselves to jump through. Also not very democratic.

> because data centers are this year's culture war hot topic?

Or because they didn't notice until they saw actual construction.

▲

21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

slg 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>because data centers are this year's culture war hot topic?

This ain’t the culture war. The public at large is fairly united on one side of this across the typical US political divides. If you want to dismiss this with a cute label to pretend that there aren’t any real concerns here, the only label that comes close to matching the actual dispute is class war.

	▲	paulnpace 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed. It is not clear to me why a community that is in opposition to something that will likely cause it to experience net negative economic impact are engaging in a "culture war".

▲

da_chicken 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's because this article is the journalistic equivalent of a retweet. The article links to a WSJ[0] article (which is going to be paywalled for many people). Any time you get an article like this TH one, you should try to read the source article.

> There were no public meetings or votes before a lone city staffer gave Amazon.com the green light last July to build a 438,500-square-foot data center on 56 acres of farmland 30 miles south of San Jose.

> Amazon’s project was approved with a single signature—by the town’s community-development director—because it met zoning criteria set 45 years ago for industrial development along a freeway.

> Mayor Greg Bozzo said other big industrial projects have been approved in the same manner over the years, but didn’t cause any uproar.

> “It didn’t bother them that a food-distribution center came to Gilroy without their engagement, but now it bothers them that a data center is coming to Gilroy without them having the possibility of engagement,” Bozzo said.

On it's face this is an incredibly dim-witted comment by the mayor. The people are generally angry about Amazon building data centers, but they're particularly angry at their city council which has been working to conceal the project from exactly the people they have a duty to inform.

It's not about excoriation of Amazon. It's about regulatory capture. And saying Amazon "did nothing wrong" is just being blind to the problem.

[0]: https://www.wsj.com/us-news/how-amazon-built-a-data-center-i...

▲

neucoas 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> now residents want to complain about it years later because data centers are this year's culture war hot topic

I hope one day Amazon or any AI company installs a data center next to your home. Then you will finally understand

▲

derektank 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The data center in question is being installed next to a Walmart supercenter and highway 101. It’s being built on land zoned for industrial use. It’s not next to anybody’s home.

▲

fzeroracer 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

This is false and easily provable by simply looking at the location on the map [1]. It's very clear that it's being built near housing and schooling. Especially a big deal as there's been more recent cases of exceedingly loud data centers carrying noise quite a distance.

[1] https://maps.app.goo.gl/D5PDUa62B5weCcqZ7

▲

mikestew 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The only houses I see are across a busy highway (101). The location is in an industrial park with nothing behind it. You’re not wrong, for large values of “near”, but not making a great case.

	▲	fzeroracer 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's close enough when you consider that the noise from a poorly built data center (ie: most of the ones being stood up rapidly in the current AI craze) can carry noise upwards of a mile plus depending on a bunch of different factors. So a lot of homes in that area would potentially be within the blast radius of data center noise, especially at night.

▲

kccqzy 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If noise is the concern then regulate noise. Don’t restrict data centers.

If someone’s house has a dog that barks continuously, you aren’t going to say building houses here are restricted. Instead you restrict barking dogs, which is what cities do.

▲

sokoloff 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It looks to me like it’s several hundreds of meters away from housing, with a 6-lane divided and controlled-access highway between the housing and the site.

▲

derektank 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re right that it does appear to be near a school (I don’t think anything that contradicts anything else I said). I think the health effects of siting a school right on a major highway are much more serious than being near a data center.

▲

fragmede 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

So you saw a video of the unholy shrieking of a gas turbine and concluded that all data centers are like that?

	▲	mindslight 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Before an edit, you had made an analogy to whether it makes sense to judge individuals' behavior the same way that datacenters are getting stereotyped. If there was no recourse through the legal system, then maybe? The problem here is that the "justice" system is all too happy to come down on individuals, while giving corpos a pass. If you or I buy a loud car stereo, we can get a ticket for making too much noise. Cities can even pass new noise ordinances or new methods of measurement that are post facto of our purchase, and we still have to conform to them! But when a corpo does something similar, the kid gloves go on and their ongoing behavior (eg noise pollution) gets "grandfathered", and there is nothing that anybody can do. Restore the rule of law - meaning equal protection under it rather than one-sided laws written by corpos - to restore the public's trust. But barring that, I'd say it's only smart to prevent this industry from getting a foothold in your community. Most are going to be great neighbors, but the few that aren't you can't do anything about.