Opinion: Evaluating data centers as land use application proposals
An opinion piece argues that data centers should be evaluated as complex land use applications, requiring thorough cost-benefit analysis and expert assessments beyond immediate economic impacts. The author, Kevin B. Riley, suggests municipalities avoid knee-jerk moratoriums and instead focus on master planning and retaining specialists in zoning, environmental, and economic areas. He also recommends inventorying and marketing re-purposable sites for data center development.
Kevin B. Riley, a real property consultant from Lorain, Ohio, shares his professional perspective on the evaluation of data centers as land use applications, noting a prevalence of misinformation. He asserts that data centers, like residential subdivisions or malls, require a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that forecasts mid- and long-term impacts on municipalities, rather than focusing solely on immediate economic benefits.
Riley outlines various positive outcomes, such as improved roadways, increased tax revenue, and infrastructure investment, but also highlights significant adverse effects, including environmental degradation, noise pollution, heat, traffic congestion, and utility stress. He emphasizes that the complexity of these applications necessitates expert evaluation.
Critiquing "knee-jerk reactions" like moratoriums, Riley advocates for a proactive approach focused on zoning and master planning. He strongly recommends that every municipality facing a data center proposal should retain independent land use experts in zoning, re-zoning, traffic, EPA compliance, and economics, particularly mandating specialists for environmental impact, traffic counts, and river/stream topography reports.
Finally, Riley urges Ohio municipalities to create an inventory of re-use and re-purposable sites, citing examples such as the Lorain steel mill properties, former light industrial plants, and vacant big box stores, for potential data center development. He concludes by questioning the factual research undertaken by those affected by proposals and calls for full impact reporting and sinking fund agreements from officials and developers to address long-term maintenance costs.