Missouri Voters Oust Officials Over Data Center Deals, Prompting Call for Industry Engagement
This opinion piece argues that data center developers and Big Tech must proactively engage with local communities to address concerns about water use, pollution, noise, and power supply. Failure to do so has led to significant community opposition and political backlash, as seen in Missouri where voters ousted officials over data center deals. Direct engagement is crucial to foster transparency and prevent misinformation.
The United States is facing a growing demand for data center infrastructure to support Artificial Intelligence, but local communities are increasingly concerned about their potential impact. Residents are raising issues regarding excessive water use, pollution, noise, tax treatment, and strain on the electrical grid, which data center operators and local governments are often failing to address.
This lack of engagement and transparency has led to significant public skepticism and outright opposition. For instance, the article cites concerns from the legal community regarding pollution and noise from Elon Musk’s xAI Memphis Colossus Data Center, specifically due to its methane gas generators.
Local leaders, often focused on economic development and tax revenue, tend to avoid public debate, believing it might hurt their strategies. However, this short-sighted approach has backfired. In Missouri, voters in Festus ousted every incumbent City Council member in favor of anti-data center candidates, and Independence voters removed council members who approved substantial tax breaks for data centers, with a lack of transparency cited as a major factor in both outcomes.
The author, Mary Anne Zivnuska, a resident of Leslie, Missouri, and a practicing attorney, asserts that Big Tech should learn from the federal government's public outreach model. She advocates for direct engagement with communities to proactively address concerns, clarify misconceptions, and highlight potential benefits, rather than solely relying on underfunded local governments to buffer public opinion.