7 ms·

Misleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine) This is still quite debatable, but so much less

by usrusr 2mo ago

Misleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine) This is still quite debatable, but so much less so than the implied accusation that they would somehow sell out their privileges as subcontractors for the data centers themselves.

SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
Actually, strictly speaking, it's /more/ debatable. Using eminent domain to seize land for the data centre itself gets a much more generally negative reaction, while seizing it for the purpose of infrastructure to supply said datacentre - and therefore, at least arguably, alleviate strain on the infrastructure used by everyone else - has more nuance and more room for debate.
- throwaway667555 2mo ago
  Data centers increase strain on the grid, so their supply lines do too.
  - AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
    Data centers are a fixed load with on-site backup generators that can be used to shed load when the grid is stressed. Grids actually like that sort of thing. It lets them use more cheap renewables.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    That makes no sense. Building new grid increases strain on the grid? No, it reduces strain, that's why they're doing it.
    - throwaway667555 2mo ago
      Without explanation, you think power plants aren't "the grid" that's being strained?
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        I think the grid is the grid, you know, the system of interconnections between electricity producers and consumers.
        throwaway667555 2mo ago
        You learn something new every day.
SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago
Dunno why you think it's obvious that I should be able to have the state seize your house for my own personal infrastructure just because I demand I chew through so much electricity that the local infrastructure can't support my demands.
- jryle70 2mo ago
  Do you have the same objection if it for a housing project, built by a private corp? That's a practice that exists everywhere. This is an article about a case of expropriation in the Netherlands. The government frequently uses expropriation ("onteigening") to forcibly remove old, small wind turbines owned by private farmers to make room for massive, industrial-scale wind farms. In Dutch, so you'll need to swith on English translation: https://www.dirkzwager.nl/kennis/artikelen/afdeling-bestuursrechtspraak-onteigening-windturbines-mogelijk-en-saneringsvoorwaarden-toelaatbaar https://www.dirkzwager.nl/kennis/artikelen/afdeling-bestuurs...
wahern 2mo ago
It's more misleading than that. The power line that "may" "primarily"[1] serve a private data center has started construction "after nearly 20 years of planning, permitting and lawsuits"[2]. Per usual, NIMBYs continually move the goal posts and rely heavily on rhetoric to oppose a project. Data center opposition is providing them with great PR fodder, but they would have opposed these projects regardless. This is why infrastructure is so incredibly expensive in this country. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regulators-uphold-approval-for-controversial-transmission-line-that-may-serve-a-single-data-center-rather-than-the-public.html https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regula... [2] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-power-line-was-supposed-to-serve-the-public-now-it-may-serve-a-data-center.html https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-po...
- hack1312 2mo ago
  When it’s your house and land being stolen we’ll see how you feel
  - bpodgursky 2mo ago
    Are you under the impression people are not compensated by eminent domain? In fact, a huge portion of the sentimental press stores over eminent domain are attempts by homeowners not to cancel the project, but to increase the payouts. Often the homeowners would be quite sad to see the project cancelled, they just want to milk the settlement via litigation.
    - steele 2mo ago
      [flagged]
    - sokoloff 2mo ago
      I am under the impression that they are not compensated correctly when their land is taken. I own the land that I do because I value it more than any other buyer/current bidder. (If that weren’t true, I’d sell it to the higher bidder.) If, instead of bidding an attractive price for my land like an ordinary buyer, you win a court case or political process that says you can force me to sell my land at a “fair market value”, that previous point establishes that I’m being forced to take a loss, as I am being forced to accept a price lower than my reservation price. At the same time, eminent domain must exist in order to let continuous projects like power lines and highways be built. I just think that 150% or 200% of what is currently called “fair market value” is a better reference price than 100% of it. The taking of land against the owner’s will should come at a premium, but that premium should be capped rather than unbounded.
MostlyStable 2mo ago
There have been some pretty egregious misuses of eminent domain in the past, but using it for infrastructure is pretty much the quintessential justification. That's basically the only reason to have eminent domain at all. Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain. Which one can totally choose to do! But they should be up front about it, if that's what's going on. As for the title, I would go further than you do. This is not a misleading title. It is a lying title. I'm usually a pretty big believer in Scott Alexander's Bounded Distrust [0] concept for the media where they very rarely actually, technically lie. This title (although not the article itself), in my opinion crosses that line. [0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 2mo ago
  > Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain You're giving a blank check to use it as long as it's infrastructure, and as any simple rule, it's prone to get abused way beyond it's primary goal. IMHO the issue is nuance and balance, we should accept that whether it's applicable is an "it depends" matter. Keeping it too simple and black and white means companies can now strategically place data centers and get the local government to seize all the land leading to it, and vice versa, local govs can nudge companies to target specific places to seize wherever they want. Especially as the plans aren't required to come to fruition.
- oliwarner 2mo ago
  It should be used for essential infrastructure for public use. Power lines to a private DC seem to miss on both counts.
  - jaredklewis 2mo ago
    We run power lines to everything else: houses, offices, commercial buildings, factories, and so on. Any particular reasons we should have a special exception where we don't run them to data centers? Where I live pretty much every piece of land has some sort of easement on it: for water, power, or something else. Seems weird to me if we can insist that now everything needs to be frozen and no more infrastructure upgrades.
bob1029 2mo ago
To be even more nuanced, the land is not typically taken entirely. The more typical solution is an easement with compensation for the land owner to cover the reduction in utility. Transmission lines are pretty harmless when considering things that could be built instead. Zero emissions, silent, no illumination, etc.
- oliwarner 2mo ago
  Pretty harmless? That's easy to say until it's your land and view that now has pylons and restrictions dumped on it.
  - bob1029 2mo ago
    I've got overhead transmission lines in my back yard right now. It's really not a big deal. I've got a garden and a small shed that are directly underneath the lines. I have no perceptible loss in utility. Every now and then, someone will visit my property but I don't have to interact with them. The nature of the easement can make a big difference. Oftentimes the power lines will be colocated with gas pipelines which tend to impose stricter requirements on land owners. It's a lot easier to do things like excavate when you can see what you aren't supposed to hit.
    - madaxe_again 2mo ago
      Ditto. They come and trim my trees for me and pay me £300 a year for the privilege. I really don’t mind, barely even notice the lines are there.
- M95D 2mo ago
  > Transmission lines are pretty harmless Debatable. Some studies found this: https://emfradar.com/articles/power-lines-childhood-leukemia https://emfradar.com/articles/power-lines-childhood-leukemia Then some other studies mostly invalidated that. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7
  - 2mo ago
dang 2mo ago
(Submitted title was "Power companies are using eminent domain to seize land for data centers" but we've since changed the URL - more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975572)
HumblyTossed 2mo ago
There's a parcel of land in Texas that was left to the city to be used as a park, they've since sold it to a Data Center. Though, this isn't strictly imminent domain... Just people being assholes.
infecto 2mo ago
Humans are dumb. Near my current city folks are debating a solar farm going up. Far enough out of the way that it has zero impact to anything he city, middle on nowhere farmland. The math was something silly, for farm use it would generate $15,000 or solar farm $1,000,000. I am probably embellishing the number from memory but it was staggering. Folks are still trying to fight it. It’s frustrating. Farmers don’t like lines because you have to allow for an access road to it and it does not pay anywhere as well as say a cell tower.

by usrusr 2mo ago

SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago

Actually, strictly speaking, it's /more/ debatable. Using eminent domain to seize land for the data centre itself gets a much more generally negative reaction, while seizing it for the purpose of infrastructure to supply said datacentre - and therefore, at least arguably, alleviate strain on the infrastructure used by everyone else - has more nuance and more room for debate.

throwaway667555 2mo ago
Data centers increase strain on the grid, so their supply lines do too.
- AnthonyMouse 2mo ago
  Data centers are a fixed load with on-site backup generators that can be used to shed load when the grid is stressed. Grids actually like that sort of thing. It lets them use more cheap renewables.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  That makes no sense. Building new grid increases strain on the grid? No, it reduces strain, that's why they're doing it.
  - throwaway667555 2mo ago
    Without explanation, you think power plants aren't "the grid" that's being strained?
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      I think the grid is the grid, you know, the system of interconnections between electricity producers and consumers.
      - throwaway667555 2mo ago
        You learn something new every day.

SuperNinKenDo 2mo ago

Dunno why you think it's obvious that I should be able to have the state seize your house for my own personal infrastructure just because I demand I chew through so much electricity that the local infrastructure can't support my demands.

jryle70 2mo ago
Do you have the same objection if it for a housing project, built by a private corp? That's a practice that exists everywhere. This is an article about a case of expropriation in the Netherlands. The government frequently uses expropriation ("onteigening") to forcibly remove old, small wind turbines owned by private farmers to make room for massive, industrial-scale wind farms. In Dutch, so you'll need to swith on English translation: https://www.dirkzwager.nl/kennis/artikelen/afdeling-bestuursrechtspraak-onteigening-windturbines-mogelijk-en-saneringsvoorwaarden-toelaatbaar https://www.dirkzwager.nl/kennis/artikelen/afdeling-bestuurs...

wahern 2mo ago

It's more misleading than that. The power line that "may" "primarily"[1] serve a private data center has started construction "after nearly 20 years of planning, permitting and lawsuits"[2]. Per usual, NIMBYs continually move the goal posts and rely heavily on rhetoric to oppose a project. Data center opposition is providing them with great PR fodder, but they would have opposed these projects regardless. This is why infrastructure is so incredibly expensive in this country. [1] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regulators-uphold-approval-for-controversial-transmission-line-that-may-serve-a-single-data-center-rather-than-the-public.html https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regula... [2] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-power-line-was-supposed-to-serve-the-public-now-it-may-serve-a-data-center.html https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-po...

hack1312 2mo ago
When it’s your house and land being stolen we’ll see how you feel
- bpodgursky 2mo ago
  Are you under the impression people are not compensated by eminent domain? In fact, a huge portion of the sentimental press stores over eminent domain are attempts by homeowners not to cancel the project, but to increase the payouts. Often the homeowners would be quite sad to see the project cancelled, they just want to milk the settlement via litigation.
  - steele 2mo ago
    [flagged]
  - sokoloff 2mo ago
    I am under the impression that they are not compensated correctly when their land is taken. I own the land that I do because I value it more than any other buyer/current bidder. (If that weren’t true, I’d sell it to the higher bidder.) If, instead of bidding an attractive price for my land like an ordinary buyer, you win a court case or political process that says you can force me to sell my land at a “fair market value”, that previous point establishes that I’m being forced to take a loss, as I am being forced to accept a price lower than my reservation price. At the same time, eminent domain must exist in order to let continuous projects like power lines and highways be built. I just think that 150% or 200% of what is currently called “fair market value” is a better reference price than 100% of it. The taking of land against the owner’s will should come at a premium, but that premium should be capped rather than unbounded.

MostlyStable 2mo ago

There have been some pretty egregious misuses of eminent domain in the past, but using it for infrastructure is pretty much the quintessential justification. That's basically the only reason to have eminent domain at all. Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain. Which one can totally choose to do! But they should be up front about it, if that's what's going on. As for the title, I would go further than you do. This is not a misleading title. It is a lying title. I'm usually a pretty big believer in Scott Alexander's Bounded Distrust [0] concept for the media where they very rarely actually, technically lie. This title (although not the article itself), in my opinion crosses that line. [0] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bounded-distrust

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 2mo ago
> Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain You're giving a blank check to use it as long as it's infrastructure, and as any simple rule, it's prone to get abused way beyond it's primary goal. IMHO the issue is nuance and balance, we should accept that whether it's applicable is an "it depends" matter. Keeping it too simple and black and white means companies can now strategically place data centers and get the local government to seize all the land leading to it, and vice versa, local govs can nudge companies to target specific places to seize wherever they want. Especially as the plans aren't required to come to fruition.
oliwarner 2mo ago
It should be used for essential infrastructure for public use. Power lines to a private DC seem to miss on both counts.
- jaredklewis 2mo ago
  We run power lines to everything else: houses, offices, commercial buildings, factories, and so on. Any particular reasons we should have a special exception where we don't run them to data centers? Where I live pretty much every piece of land has some sort of easement on it: for water, power, or something else. Seems weird to me if we can insist that now everything needs to be frozen and no more infrastructure upgrades.

bob1029 2mo ago

To be even more nuanced, the land is not typically taken entirely. The more typical solution is an easement with compensation for the land owner to cover the reduction in utility. Transmission lines are pretty harmless when considering things that could be built instead. Zero emissions, silent, no illumination, etc.

oliwarner 2mo ago
Pretty harmless? That's easy to say until it's your land and view that now has pylons and restrictions dumped on it.
- bob1029 2mo ago
  I've got overhead transmission lines in my back yard right now. It's really not a big deal. I've got a garden and a small shed that are directly underneath the lines. I have no perceptible loss in utility. Every now and then, someone will visit my property but I don't have to interact with them. The nature of the easement can make a big difference. Oftentimes the power lines will be colocated with gas pipelines which tend to impose stricter requirements on land owners. It's a lot easier to do things like excavate when you can see what you aren't supposed to hit.
  - madaxe_again 2mo ago
    Ditto. They come and trim my trees for me and pay me £300 a year for the privilege. I really don’t mind, barely even notice the lines are there.
M95D 2mo ago
> Transmission lines are pretty harmless Debatable. Some studies found this: https://emfradar.com/articles/power-lines-childhood-leukemia https://emfradar.com/articles/power-lines-childhood-leukemia Then some other studies mostly invalidated that. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-018-0097-7
- 2mo ago

dang 2mo ago

(Submitted title was "Power companies are using eminent domain to seize land for data centers" but we've since changed the URL - more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975572)

HumblyTossed 2mo ago

There's a parcel of land in Texas that was left to the city to be used as a park, they've since sold it to a Data Center. Though, this isn't strictly imminent domain... Just people being assholes.

infecto 2mo ago

Humans are dumb. Near my current city folks are debating a solar farm going up. Far enough out of the way that it has zero impact to anything he city, middle on nowhere farmland. The math was something silly, for farm use it would generate $15,000 or solar farm $1,000,000. I am probably embellishing the number from memory but it was staggering. Folks are still trying to fight it. It’s frustrating. Farmers don’t like lines because you have to allow for an access road to it and it does not pay anywhere as well as say a cell tower.