Comment by a2128

Comment by a2128 2 days ago

29 replies

View on Hacker News

This is a scary argument. Should we also ban car emissions/safety testing, because Volvo's competitors might discern something from the results? Should we also stop FCC certification because competitors might glean information out of a device's radio characteristics?

The local residents, if not the public at large, should have a right to know. If not, then it should go both ways and grocery stores shouldn't be allowed to use tracking because my personal enemies might discern something from the milk brand I'm buying

infecto 2 days ago

What is always left unclear in these anti data center articles is how much the public is left in the dark? It’s not out of the normal for large developments to be kept under NDA until hitting a threshold of certainty, usually that does not mean the residents are left out of voicing their opinions before ground breaks.

Reply View 19 replies
  • state_less 2 days ago

    Obviously data center bidders would prefer their activity to be kept in the dark, but does that make for good outcomes for anyone else except the bidders. First, the community would like to weigh in on whether they want a data center or not, often they don't. Then if they do, they'd rather have a bidding war than some NDA backroom deal with a single entity. All this does is serve Big Tech and Big Capital, and they don't need to run on easy mode, sponging off the small guy at this stage.

    Reply View 16 replies
    • jeffbee 2 days ago

      > the community would like to weigh in on whether they want a data center

      This is the enabler of pure NIMBYism and we have to stop thinking this way. If a place wants this kind of land use and not that kind, then they need to write that down in a statute so everyone knows the rules. Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.

      Reply View 3 replies
      • state_less 2 days ago

        I thought I made it clear, I'm not against data center build outs per se, a community might decide it's worth it to build one. If a community decides to go ahead with it, make it clear and open for the public to bid on it so the residents get the best deal available (e.g. reduced power bills, reduced property taxes, water usage limits, noise/light polution limits, whathaveyou...). These massive data centers are a new kind of business that most communities don't have much experience with, and I doubt they've had time to codify the rules. It sounds like the states are starting to add some more rules about transparency, which seems like a step in the right direction for making better deals for all involved.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • 5upplied_demand 2 days ago

        The subtitle of the article tells us this is happening.

        > Wisconsin has now joined several states with legislative proposals to make the process more transparent.

        But it is a reactive measure. It has taken years for the impacts of these data centers to trickle down enough for citizens to understand what they are losing in the deal. Partially because so many of the deals were done under cover of NDAs. If anything, this gives NIMBYs more assurance that they are right to be skeptical of any development. The way these companies act will only increase NIMBYism.

        > Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.

        Trusting large corporations to provide a full and accurate analysis of downside risks is also damaging.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • ajam1507 2 days ago

        > If a place wants this kind of land use and not that kind, then they need to write that down in a statute so everyone knows the rules.

        Ironically this is a recipe for how you get nothing built. Zoning laws are much more potent than people showing up at city council meetings.

        Reply View 0 replies
    • SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago

      I feel like the term "community" is leading intuitions astray here. The actual decision at question here is whether the local government provides the necessary approvals for a company to build what they want on their private property.

      It's good and proper for the government to consider the impacts on a local community before approving a big construction project. That process will need to involve some amount of open community consultation, and reasonable minds can differ on when and how that needs to start. The article describes a concrete proposal at the end, where NDAs would be allowed for the due diligence phase but not once the formal approval process begins; that seems fine.

      It's not good and improper for the government to selectively withhold approval for politically disfavored industries, or to host a "bidding war" where anyone seeking approvals must out-bribe their competitors.

      Reply View 8 replies
      • webstrand 2 days ago

        Its the same argument for high-density hog farming. If the use of private property may impinge on the neighbors, either through invasive noise, or costs to public utility infrastructure (power, water) then the community ought to have some insight and input, same as they have input into whether a high density hog farm can open right on the border of the community.

        Yes some people see the datacenters as part of an ethical issue. I agree its not proper for permits to be withheld on purely ethical grounds, laws should be passed instead. But there are a lot of side-effects to having a datacenter near your property that are entirely concrete issues.

        Reply View 7 replies
    • infecto 2 days ago

      You make this sound like a conspiracy. This is normal practice in economic development, check off boxes until announcing to the public. The public rarely has much power in voicing their opinion but data centers are the current evil entity.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • antonvs 2 days ago

        > data centers are the current evil entity.

        There's a reason for that: they compete for resources but contribute relatively little back to the local economy. In that sense they're quite different from previous large corporate investments in a local area.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • infecto a day ago

          Again, I think it’s a muddy example. I have yet to see compelling data that on average data center are meaningfully raising rates and most of the rate increases are more due to the aging infrastructure in America that was neglected for too long.

          If anything these should be examples on the failure of how these resources are being sold and good opportunity to build a better system.

          Reply View 0 replies
  • cmxch 2 days ago

    What kind of say do the residents have when it’s nearly a done deal?

    Unless the residents have a strong enough chance to veto, they’re just speaking into the void as far as the company is concerned.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • infecto 2 days ago

      Typically constituents don’t have any ability to veto. I imagine there are some cases in CA, thinking of that amusing article about an ice cream shop getting blocked by another ice cream shop.

      It’s usually an indirect vote with your voice. To be frank, people don’t have that much of a role in what business gets built if it aligns with the states economic goals and zoning is not being critically changed.

      I think the bigger discussion is if resources are going to be constrained can we make sure the use is being properly charged for resource buildout. It’s the same problem with building sports arenas or sweetheart tax deals for manufacturing plants, they often don’t pan out.

      Reply View 0 replies
datsci_est_2015 2 days ago

It’s definitely a result of the money at play, which is unprecedented in scale and (imo) speculation.

But this is, in theory, why we have laws: to fight power imbalances, and money is of course power.

Tough for me to be optimistic about law and order right now though, especially when it comes to the president’s biggest donors and the vice president’s handlers.

Reply View 5 replies
  • mistrial9 2 days ago

    the building of the American Railroads were the largest capital endeavor in known history IIR. .. and Stanford was in the center of that, too

    Reply View 4 replies
    • datsci_est_2015 2 days ago

      Ah my bad. But also, if we’re comparing buildout of infrastructure to the construction of the American Railroad system, especially in the context of lawbreaking and general immoral and unethical behavior…

      Point kind of proven, yeah? One more argument for the “return to the gilded age” debates.

      Edit: you’re speaking kind of authoritatively on the subject though. Care to share some figures? The AI bubble is definitely measured in trillions in 2026 USD. Was the railroad buildout trillions of dollars?

      Reply View 3 replies
      • hobs 2 days ago

        Depends on when you stop calculating, and how you exactly value the work

        By 1900 the united states had 215 thousand miles of railroads https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-histor...

        Depend on you value land mileage and work this could easily be north of 1T modern dollars.

        Reply View 1 reply
        • datsci_est_2015 2 days ago

          Land value underneath railroad tracks is an interesting subject. Most land value is reasonably calculated by width * length, and maybe some airspace rights. And that makes sense to our human brains, because we can look at a parcel of land and acknowledge it might be worth $10^x for some x given inflation.

          But railroads kind of fail with this because you might have a landowner who prices the edge of their parcel at $1,000,000,000,000 because they know you need that exact piece of land for your railroad, and if the railroad is super long you might run into 10 of these maniacs.

          Meanwhile the vast majority of your line might be worth less than any adjacent farmland, square foot by square foot, especially if it’s rocky or unstable etc.

          Having a continuous line of land for many miles also has its own intrinsic value, much more than owning any particular segment (especially as it allows you to build a railroad hah).

          Anyway, suffice to say, I don’t think “land value underneath railroads from the 18th century” is something that’s easily estimated.

          Reply View 0 replies
      • tmp10423288442 2 days ago

        As a percentage of GDP investments in the railroad buildout in the US was comparable or slightly higher than AI-related investments. But they are on the same order of magnitude, which says a lot about the scale of AI.

        > AI infrastructure has risen by $400 billion since 2022. A notable chunk of this spending has been focused on information processing equipment, which spiked at a 39% annualized rate in the first half of 2025. Harvard economist Jason Furman commented that investment in information processing equipment & software is equivalent to only 4% of US GDP, but was responsible for 92% of GDP growth in the first half of 2025. If you exclude these categories, the US economy grew at only a 0.1% annual rate in the first half.

        https://www.cadtm.org/The-AI-bubble-and-the-US-economy?utm_s...

        Reply View 0 replies
tzs 2 days ago

> Should we also ban car emissions/safety testing, because Volvo's competitors might discern something from the results? Should we also stop FCC certification because competitors might glean information out of a device's radio characteristics?

In the US neither of those are generally made public per se. They are made public when the thing actually passes testing or certification.

Reply View 0 replies