Commentary: We All Use Data Centers. So Where Should They Go?

Data centers have been widely discussed lately, and much of the conversation has focused on what can go wrong.

They use enormous amounts of electricity. Some use significant amounts of water. They can require new transmission lines and substations. Residents worry about noise, views, property values, tax incentives, and the loss of open land. And when someone proposes building one near a neighborhood, the reaction is often understandable: Not in my backyard.

Those concerns deserve serious consideration.

But another side of the conversation doesn’t get nearly as much attention.

We use data centers. All of us.

When we store family photographs in the cloud, check a bank account, make an online purchase, stream a movie, use GPS, access medical information, participate in a video meeting, or ask an artificial intelligence program a question, computers somewhere are processing and storing that information.

The “cloud” isn’t floating above us.

It is a building somewhere.

And increasingly, it is a very large building filled with computers that need electricity, cooling, security, and connections to the rest of the world.

That creates an uncomfortable question for communities debating data centers: If we want all of these services but don’t want the infrastructure that makes them possible, where exactly should that infrastructure go?

The Benefits Are Easy to Overlook

Data centers are unusual economic development projects.

They can involve enormous investments in buildings, electrical equipment, computer systems, and other infrastructure. Construction can require electricians, equipment operators, engineers, contractors and other skilled workers.

Once operating, data centers can also contribute substantial taxable property and equipment to a locality, depending on state and local tax policies.

That revenue can potentially help pay for schools, public safety, roads, and other government services without adding the same residential demands that come with large housing developments.

A data center doesn’t send hundreds of children to school every morning.

It doesn’t create hundreds of new homes requiring trash collection, parks, and other residential services.

That doesn’t automatically make a data center a good deal. Tax incentives and infrastructure costs matter, and communities need to understand exactly what they are giving up and what they are receiving.

Permanent employment is another consideration.

A massive data center complex can represent an extraordinary investment without producing the number of permanent jobs people might expect from a development of that size. That is a legitimate issue when evaluating the economic benefit.

But employment isn’t the only way to measure a project.

Tax revenue, construction activity, supporting businesses, and infrastructure investment are also part of the equation.

The question shouldn’t simply be, “How many jobs?”

It should be, “What does this project give the community, and what will it cost the community in return?”

The Costs Are Real, Too

None of this makes the concerns disappear.

Electricity may be the biggest issue.

Modern data centers can require tremendous amounts of power, and the growth of artificial intelligence is increasing computing demands. Supplying that electricity can mean generation and transmission projects far beyond the property where the data center itself is located.

Then there is water.

Some data centers use water in their cooling systems, although designs and cooling technologies differ. In places where water supplies are limited, that should be a major part of the discussion before approving a project.

Noise matters.

So do generators, substations, transmission lines, building height, lighting, and the view from someone’s front porch.

People who live beside a proposed project shouldn’t have their concerns dismissed simply because the project could generate tax revenue.

The location matters.

In fact, location may be the most important part of the entire debate.

If Not Here, Where?

It is easy to say a data center shouldn’t be built beside a subdivision, historic property, farm, or scenic roadway.

But move it somewhere else, and someone else may have the same objection.

Eventually, “somewhere else” has to be somewhere.

Perhaps that is where communities should spend more of their energy.

Instead of debating data centers only after a developer arrives with a particular property in mind, local governments can decide ahead of time where this type of development makes sense.

Areas already zoned and developed for heavy industrial uses would seem like an obvious place to begin.

Previously developed industrial properties may also offer opportunities.

Proximity to existing high-capacity electrical infrastructure should matter. So should access to fiber networks, transportation, and adequate water if a particular facility requires it.

Most importantly, major data center developments should be reasonably separated from homes.

Buffers, setbacks, landscaping, noise standards and building requirements aren’t anti-business. They are the rules that allow industrial and residential uses to coexist.

Communities can also ask whether developers should bear the costs of infrastructure required specifically because of their projects rather than shifting those expenses to residents and other utility customers.

Those are discussions worth having before approving anything.

We Can’t Have the Cloud Without the Ground

This debate has a larger contradiction.

We want faster internet.

We want instant access to information.

We want online banking available around the clock.

Businesses want cloud computing. Hospitals need digital records. Schools use online services. Governments store information electronically. Families stream entertainment and back up photographs.

And now we want artificial intelligence to perform increasingly complicated tasks in seconds.

All of that requires physical infrastructure.

We can’t demand more computing power while pretending the computers shouldn’t exist anywhere.

That doesn’t mean we should approve every proposed data center.

Some locations may simply be wrong.

Some projects may demand too much electricity or water. Some may be too close to homes. Some tax incentive packages may not provide enough public benefit. Some communities may decide that certain land is more valuable for agriculture, housing, recreation, or another purpose.

Those are legitimate decisions.

But they should be made by comparing costs and benefits rather than beginning with the assumption that all data centers are either wonderful economic opportunities or environmental disasters.

They are infrastructure.

And infrastructure has to go somewhere.

What Should Communities Demand?

Perhaps the better question isn’t whether we are “for” or “against” data centers.

Maybe we should ask what a community should demand before agreeing to host one.

How much tax revenue will actually remain after incentives?

How much electricity will it require?

Will new transmission lines be necessary?

How much water will it use?

What will residents hear from the property line?

How will generators be operated and tested?

How close will buildings be to homes?

Who pays for infrastructure upgrades?

How many construction and permanent jobs are expected?

And what happens if technology changes and the facility becomes obsolete?

Those aren’t anti-data-center questions.

They are responsible-development questions.

Developers should be expected to answer them clearly, and local officials should have standards in place before applications arrive.

The public deserves the same clarity.

Finding the Middle Ground

The data center debate doesn’t have to become another argument where everyone chooses a side and stops listening.

People concerned about land, electricity, water, and quality of life aren’t necessarily opposed to technology.

People who see economic value in data centers aren’t necessarily unconcerned about the environment or their neighbors.

Both things can be true.

We can recognize that data centers provide infrastructure modern life increasingly depends upon while also insisting they be built in appropriate places and under reasonable conditions.

The real challenge isn’t deciding whether data centers are entirely good or entirely bad.

It is deciding how much development makes sense, what communities should receive in return, what protections residents deserve, and which locations can handle these facilities with the least disruption.

No one particularly wants a data center in the backyard.

But every time we reach for a phone, open a laptop, stream a movie, check an account or save something to the cloud, we are using somebody’s data center.

So perhaps the question isn’t whether they should exist.

The question is whether we are willing to do the harder work of deciding where they belong — and making sure that when they are built, they are good neighbors.