Public Backlash Against Data Centers Leads to Moratoriums, Eminent Domain Attempts
A national populist backlash against data centers is growing, driven by environmental concerns and general opposition to large-scale development. This has prompted politicians to impose new restrictions, including a moratorium in New York and an eminent domain attempt in Nashville to block a project. The article argues this response is disproportionate and overlooks economic benefits.
America is experiencing a sudden, widespread backlash against two technologies: automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and data centers. While ALPRs, primarily supplied by Flock Safety, face opposition due to privacy concerns and documented misuses, data centers are meeting resistance primarily over environmental concerns and a general sentiment against "Big Development." YouGov polling, reported by The Washington Post, indicates a significant shift in public opinion, with up to three-quarters of Americans now opposing data center construction in their communities.
This bottom-up populist revolt is forcing politicians to respond, even if it means reversing prior pro-development stances. Senator Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has proposed a national moratorium on data centers, and governors are implementing various restrictions. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has become a critic of Flock Safety, despite the technology's use by Florida state police.
Specific actions include New York imposing a moratorium on hyperscale data center development. In a more extreme case, Nashville is reportedly attempting to seize private land through eminent domain to prevent data center construction. Additionally, states and localities are enacting tighter land use restrictions.
The author contends that while concerns about ALPRs are legitimate due to privacy implications, the backlash against data centers is disproportionate. Critics, driven by "misplaced concerns about data centers' overhyped environmental impacts," are not just seeking mitigation or an end to unfair subsidies but are advocating for severe restrictions. The article concludes that such populist "moral panics" can drive policy changes, which are not always beneficial, and may even be unconstitutional in some instances, such as Nashville's land seizure attempt, potentially overriding constitutional protections for property owners and developers.