This op-ed is by Jennifer Carter Chumbley who graciously agreed for it to be shared here.
“Balanced development isn’t anti-growth. It’s what happens when growth finally has to answer to the people living next to it”
No one is arguing that data exists or that digital systems are used. The issue is where massive industrial scale data centers belong and who pays the price.
Hospitals, banks, police departments, farms, and homes do not require a hyperscale data center next to rural communities or farmland to function. These services already operate today using regional and national data centers located in appropriate industrial zones.
The real impact:
• Specialized emergency response needs that rural fire departments are not equipped or funded to handle - are we raising the amount we going to give our localities?
• Enormous electricity demand that strains rural power grids and raises rates for residents and small businesses.
• Heavy water usage and backup diesel generators that affect air quality and noise.
• Minimal permanent jobs once construction ends.
• Major tax incentives and sweetheart deals that shift costs onto local taxpayers.
Calling data centers “invisible infrastructure” ignores the very visible consequences for people who live nearby. They are industrial facilities, not community services.
If data centers are truly essential, they should be:
• Properly zoned away from homes and farms (located in industrial parks).
• Paying full and fair taxes.
• Located where infrastructure already exists (not macaroons with no access to sewer for example).
• Not subsidized at the expense of rural communities.
****Supporting technology does not mean accepting bad siting, bad deals, and bad planning. We can have modern infrastructure without sacrificing local quality of life.****
No comments:
Post a Comment