Kansas Communities Urged to Negotiate, Not Ban, on Data Center Development
This article, written by a former city planning director, advocates against blanket bans on data centers, arguing that they are "locally unwanted land uses" (LULUs) with negative externalities but also significant revenue potential. It suggests that local governments should instead use their leverage to negotiate for community benefits and implement strict controls on energy use, noise, water consumption, and zoning. The author provides examples of communities in Kansas that have organized moratoriums and offers strategies for local officials to manage data center development.
Former city planning director Bill Fiander argues that while hyperscale data centers are increasingly viewed as "locally unwanted land uses" (LULUs) due to concerns like high energy and water consumption, noise, and extensive land use, communities should seek to negotiate rather than impose outright bans. Fiander, who teaches state and local government in Kansas, highlights that many communities across the state, including Ottawa and Emporia, have pursued citizen-led moratoriums or bans.
He posits that data centers represent a "golden goose moment" for financially strained communities, citing average annual property tax revenues exceeding $20 million. Fiander advises local officials to collaborate with professional planners, engineers, and experts to implement effective strategies. These include energy bill protections, such as Evergy's large-load tariffs for data centers over 75 megawatts, and robust zoning site controls, encompassing residential buffer zones, decibel limits, closed-loop water systems, and specific building aesthetics. Additionally, he recommends accountability measures like certified third-party reviews of environmental studies, performance surety bonds, annual community reports, and comprehensive developer agreements.
Fiander asserts that the data center industry's historical disregard for public opinion has shifted, granting local governments substantial leverage as viable development sites become scarcer. He concludes that LULUs necessitate open engagement to ensure that communities can accrue benefits while mitigating potentially catastrophic costs, an advantage lost through indiscriminate bans.