People push back against data centers because they use massive amounts of electricity and water, create very few long term local jobs, and often receive large tax incentives while putting strain on local infrastructure and resources. To many communities, they feel extractive rather than beneficial, taking land, power, and water to support services used elsewhere, with little direct return for the people who live there. More on reddit.com

They consume a fuck ton of electricity. They don't create that many jobs, which they are sold on. Generally, the infrastructure in their proposed locations isn't ready for a giant fuck off building. Data centers regularly use something called liquid/liquid cooling. The computers inside are on one cooling loop and they exchange heat with another loop that involves water coming in. The chemicals in the interior loop are not something you want in your water. Also, that water that comes in is now grey water and needs to be treated before returning to the system. These systems also pull water faster from the reservoirs than water is going back. Yes, we do need some data centers if we want things like Netflix or "the cloud", but not at the scale AI is demanding. And yes, industrial buildings are also not the best. But AI data centers specifically out consume traditional data centers or industrial buildings. More on reddit.com

There are a lot of incorrect assumptions here. TL;DR: Data centers concentrate costs (electricity, water, environmental and infrastructure strain) locally while distributing benefits globally. The host community gets little long-term benefit but absorbs most of the downside. Yes, a data center is cleaner than a mine, but that’s a false comparison. The real question for a town is what else could this land be used for? Data centers consume large, well-located parcels, lock in power and water infrastructure, and crowd out housing, mixed-use development, or industries that provide broader local benefits. And mines, for all their drawbacks, at least benefit their local area in a meaningful way through jobs, supply chains, and tax revenue. Being “less bad than the worst option” isn’t a meaningful justification. Data centers require huge footprints, buffer zones, and dedicated transmission lines, yet they generate very little local activity. Once built, that land is effectively removed from more flexible or community-oriented uses for decades. Warehouses employ hundreds or thousands of workers and often anchor local logistics ecosystems. Data centers, by contrast, employ very few permanent staff, often only a few dozen, with most construction jobs being temporary and many operational roles contracted out. The employment-to-land ratio is extremely low. From a local perspective, data centers aren’t neutral development. They impose large, long-term costs on power, water, and infrastructure while delivering minimal jobs or direct community benefit, all so services can be provided to users somewhere else. More on reddit.com

The city of Dayton gov't won't be interested in much involving something being built in Springfield. Seems like Springfield's gov't folks might be more appropriate.... More on reddit.com