7 ms·

I’m a voter who prefers we establish rules that be followed rather than encumber every project with a lengthy community dialogue.

by adamsb6 3mo ago

sidewndr46 3mo ago
That'd pretty much defeat the point of having local government. If politicians can't get their hand in the cookie jar, what's the point?
starik36 3mo ago
That's it right there. Rules, not deals.
- ghaff 3mo ago
  The two are often difficult to dissociate. My town had a fairly fractious town meeting around a rezoning proposal that was mostly for a fairly specific commercial purpose--that passed through a basically procedural mechanism in a second meeting.
thewillowcat 3mo ago
These companies aren't coming in, buying property at market rates, and developing it with existing infrastructure under current zoning laws. They usually want tax breaks, major infrastructure changes, and other accommodations and guarantees. It's completely reasonable for people to want a dialog with their representatives before those kinds of arrangements are made with a company on their behalf. And it's entirely reasonable for them to vote out reps that are overly accommodating. I live in an historic district. I had to attend a public meeting a couple years ago to get approval to change a lamp post. It is perfectly reasonable to ask tech companies to show up and defend massive projects to the public.
- jnwatson 3mo ago
  A meeting to get a lamp post change is exactly how progress stops. It is why we can't build anything in US and it costs a billion dollars per mile of high speed rail.
  - defrost 3mo ago
    A data centre isn't a lamp post.
    - Nervhq 3mo ago
      [dead]
  - _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
    Communities passed and paid bonds to have water hookusp. Built infrastructure. They should have a say in who gets access and why. There are plenty of places datacenters could build without hassle, but they want access to readymade infra, and that comes with a reasonable tradeoff.
    - ghaff 3mo ago
      There are also traffic issues--likely less of an issue with datacenters or solar farms. But things like housing that put pressures on local schools are certainly issues--though again not really with datacenters which are more about power and water infrastructure.
      - mathgeek 3mo ago
        Power and water infrastructure being strained can raise utility prices and require new infrastructure, which affect schools and tax rates by extension. It can also lead to new build stoppages until infrastructure is built, which affects hone prices and taxes. There are many knock-on effects.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago
    If it's a brand new type of lamp post that's never been built in that area before and is likely to cause significant problems to the inhabitants (e.g. power blackouts) then that kind of progress should be stopped or at least discussed in an open fashion and not hidden behind NDAs.
  - vrganj 3mo ago
- WarmWash 3mo ago
  Usually the state gives tax breaks and the town gets double it's tax revenue. That's why the councils rush to vote yes, and $20-30M annually is a rounding error for the datacenter.
freejazz 3mo ago
"Lengthy community dialogue" is your assumption
susiecambria 3mo ago
Yes, rules are absolutely necessary. And community engagement is also essential. Community input might be tiring, frustrating, and the like but people get to speak as part of the process and because they have a right to.
justcool393 3mo ago
in a lot of cases, the leaders of the communities are not following the rules. (see the ppl talking about ndas and such) in any case, this isn't like "oh we don't want to build an apartment building because it might drop the value of a single family home halfway across town." it isn't even like "we want to build this train line which will have some negative externalities but the positive effects (and externalities) are worth taking a hit in some areas" the problems with the datacenters are that like (1) the service its providing (LLMs) has dubious societal value, (2) the direct negative effects such as noise pollution and such have been pretty well documented, (3) the indirect negative effects like massive strain on infra and (4) the people pushing them most heavily are effectively attempting to invade the communities, peddle conspiracy theories about "china" being behind the opposition, and demand to be specially treated because they were bankrolled by big tech, etc. some people when this topic come up act like anyone opposed is some nimby who hates societal progress or smth and who is super concerned about that their home estimate might go down. but like communities do recognize the need for zoning and restricting certain things being built. you need the thing being built to both (a) actually be a good that helps the community (or have a very very good reason why some damage to the community is justifiable (datacenter projects generally don't) and (b) need to contain negative externalities (which is why we don't put the chemical plant next to the elementary school even if it's the most economic option). people recognize these things on some level.
- JuniperMesos 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - freejazz 3mo ago
    NIMBY YIMBY have no value when you apply them this indistinctly. You're for any AI data center?
    - JuniperMesos 3mo ago
      Yes, I literally support repealing laws that would prevent someone from building an AI data center anywhere it's legal to build any kind of commercial or industrial facility at all. Also as a housing YIMBYist I'm supportive of massive reforms to zoning laws that would result in legalizing many more types of housing construction, including mixed-use zoning laws like what exist in Japan that would make it legal in principle to build housing close to a data center.
oatmeal1 3mo ago
In general yes, but a datacenter is to many people a categorically different kind of development because they oppose AI companies. The first datacenter should trigger a lengthy discussion and create rules that apply to all further datacenters.
- ghaff 3mo ago
  It's likely the general public has very little in the way of an opinion about "AI companies."
esalman 3mo ago
Is this why you're in the minority?
simianwords 3mo ago
This devolves into NIMBY.

I’m a voter who prefers we establish rules that be followed rather than encumber every project with a lengthy community dialogue.

by adamsb6 3mo ago

I’m a voter who prefers we establish rules that be followed rather than encumber every project with a lengthy community dialogue.

sidewndr46 3mo ago

That'd pretty much defeat the point of having local government. If politicians can't get their hand in the cookie jar, what's the point?

starik36 3mo ago

That's it right there. Rules, not deals.

ghaff 3mo ago
The two are often difficult to dissociate. My town had a fairly fractious town meeting around a rezoning proposal that was mostly for a fairly specific commercial purpose--that passed through a basically procedural mechanism in a second meeting.

thewillowcat 3mo ago

These companies aren't coming in, buying property at market rates, and developing it with existing infrastructure under current zoning laws. They usually want tax breaks, major infrastructure changes, and other accommodations and guarantees. It's completely reasonable for people to want a dialog with their representatives before those kinds of arrangements are made with a company on their behalf. And it's entirely reasonable for them to vote out reps that are overly accommodating. I live in an historic district. I had to attend a public meeting a couple years ago to get approval to change a lamp post. It is perfectly reasonable to ask tech companies to show up and defend massive projects to the public.

jnwatson 3mo ago
A meeting to get a lamp post change is exactly how progress stops. It is why we can't build anything in US and it costs a billion dollars per mile of high speed rail.
- defrost 3mo ago
  A data centre isn't a lamp post.
  - Nervhq 3mo ago
    [dead]
- _DeadFred_ 3mo ago
  Communities passed and paid bonds to have water hookusp. Built infrastructure. They should have a say in who gets access and why. There are plenty of places datacenters could build without hassle, but they want access to readymade infra, and that comes with a reasonable tradeoff.
  - ghaff 3mo ago
    There are also traffic issues--likely less of an issue with datacenters or solar farms. But things like housing that put pressures on local schools are certainly issues--though again not really with datacenters which are more about power and water infrastructure.
    - mathgeek 3mo ago
      Power and water infrastructure being strained can raise utility prices and require new infrastructure, which affect schools and tax rates by extension. It can also lead to new build stoppages until infrastructure is built, which affects hone prices and taxes. There are many knock-on effects.
- ndsipa_pomu 3mo ago
  If it's a brand new type of lamp post that's never been built in that area before and is likely to cause significant problems to the inhabitants (e.g. power blackouts) then that kind of progress should be stopped or at least discussed in an open fashion and not hidden behind NDAs.
- vrganj 3mo ago
WarmWash 3mo ago
Usually the state gives tax breaks and the town gets double it's tax revenue. That's why the councils rush to vote yes, and $20-30M annually is a rounding error for the datacenter.

freejazz 3mo ago

"Lengthy community dialogue" is your assumption

susiecambria 3mo ago

Yes, rules are absolutely necessary. And community engagement is also essential. Community input might be tiring, frustrating, and the like but people get to speak as part of the process and because they have a right to.

justcool393 3mo ago

in a lot of cases, the leaders of the communities are not following the rules. (see the ppl talking about ndas and such) in any case, this isn't like "oh we don't want to build an apartment building because it might drop the value of a single family home halfway across town." it isn't even like "we want to build this train line which will have some negative externalities but the positive effects (and externalities) are worth taking a hit in some areas" the problems with the datacenters are that like (1) the service its providing (LLMs) has dubious societal value, (2) the direct negative effects such as noise pollution and such have been pretty well documented, (3) the indirect negative effects like massive strain on infra and (4) the people pushing them most heavily are effectively attempting to invade the communities, peddle conspiracy theories about "china" being behind the opposition, and demand to be specially treated because they were bankrolled by big tech, etc. some people when this topic come up act like anyone opposed is some nimby who hates societal progress or smth and who is super concerned about that their home estimate might go down. but like communities do recognize the need for zoning and restricting certain things being built. you need the thing being built to both (a) actually be a good that helps the community (or have a very very good reason why some damage to the community is justifiable (datacenter projects generally don't) and (b) need to contain negative externalities (which is why we don't put the chemical plant next to the elementary school even if it's the most economic option). people recognize these things on some level.

JuniperMesos 3mo ago
[flagged]
- freejazz 3mo ago
  NIMBY YIMBY have no value when you apply them this indistinctly. You're for any AI data center?
  - JuniperMesos 3mo ago
    Yes, I literally support repealing laws that would prevent someone from building an AI data center anywhere it's legal to build any kind of commercial or industrial facility at all. Also as a housing YIMBYist I'm supportive of massive reforms to zoning laws that would result in legalizing many more types of housing construction, including mixed-use zoning laws like what exist in Japan that would make it legal in principle to build housing close to a data center.

oatmeal1 3mo ago

In general yes, but a datacenter is to many people a categorically different kind of development because they oppose AI companies. The first datacenter should trigger a lengthy discussion and create rules that apply to all further datacenters.

ghaff 3mo ago
It's likely the general public has very little in the way of an opinion about "AI companies."

esalman 3mo ago

Is this why you're in the minority?

simianwords 3mo ago

This devolves into NIMBY.