What is the actual procedure through which this happens? You buy the land and then are granted permission on a discretionary basis? It seems to me that if you were a small business this becomes much harder to participate in because you need to acquire and hold the unproductive asset.
This would mean that land use tends towards that which large firms (which can sustain the costs easily by self-financing) find useful.
My employer went through a similar process, not for a data center but for a large recycling yard/center. We had to buy the land first, and it was basically unproductive for 2.5 years of mostly waiting for permits, and it was already zoned industrial so no zoning changes were needed.
The whole project was several million in expenses before even making a dollar. We aren't huge either, the permitting was not supposed to take that long it but a real strain on the business.
So yeah, you're correct. The current process favors large firms, at least those large enough to absorb the cost for multiple years or however long permitting takes, which in some municipalities can be a very, very long time.
It’s unusual to buy the land and take a gamble on its utility, at least whenever datacenter construction is involved. Purchasing parties are risk averse to this exact scenario and work hard to craft contracts that reduce risk.
Often the choices are —
1. Buy land at $/acre that reflects very little premium, based on a short feasibility study, but without any ultimate contingency that permitting will occur. This is your example. But problematically all permitting applications are typically public record, so when you fail, the land can’t be sold on to someone else as if that didn’t happen, any sophisticated buyer will know the exact issues the city/county had with your usage. Land often transacts onward at firesale prices under these circumstances.
2. $/acre for land is bid upon at a substantial premium reflecting the future value as a datacenter, it remains under contract for potentially years pending outcome of approvals, then it transacts. Permitting being denied usually results in either no money changing hands or a small termination fee reflecting the carrying cost of the land during that period. If permitting works out the seller of land walks away very happy as the $/acre was extremely lucrative.
Fun fact: Large businesses are often tapped to write the laws intended to target large businesses. The process is called “model legislation.” Fox and henhouse.
Well, businesses — and all parties — who will be affected by legislation should be able to provide input. Otherwise we too often get clueless legislation that is massively mocked and rightly bemoaned on this site — because the legislators have no real clue of the technical issues involved.
Of course, the businesses should be only one part of the expertise that goes into writing the laws; other experts MUST be involved, or it will indeed be a fox and henhouse situation where the fox designs the legal locks so they can always be opened by foxes...
That can be an example of model legislation but, broadly, model legislation is created by an organization for use as an example for multiple different legislatures (usually states). Everyone from think tanks, busineses, the EFF, the ACLU and PETA draft model legislation.
Here in Orlando several large builders bought about a 90% of downtowns empty lots promising new high rises in 2022, then threw in the towel after evicting all the tenants and now most Church street station is completely empty. Of course local government had put nothing in the agreement about timeframe of completion, what happens if the builder gives up, etc.
So now, all of it sits abandoned, no construction started, and now its not even worth building.
I’ve had multiple friends try to start businesses that got stuck on this: You can’t really get permits until you have the property and start drawing up plans.
For simple businesses like a retail store in a location that has other retail it’s not too risky to bet that you’ll be approved, too.
For businesses with unique needs or that happen to be in the public crosshairs, you’re putting a lot at risk in the process.
The process favors big companies and developers who have established relationships and “connections” with the planning boards.
The situation is even wilder in some other countries, both more and less corrupt than the average US municipality. In some places you’re not getting a permit at all without a sizable bribe, or having an in with the planning board.
In my city one of the aspiring developers tried to run an expensive political campaign to get a family member into an office that could have helped with their approvals. People caught on and didn’t like it one iota.
Depending on things, you might enter a land purchase (or lease) contract that's contingent on issuance of a building permit.
But a seller would probably prefer to sell without contingency, so what terms are available depends on market conditions.
Title insurance for residential real estate may sometimes cover properties that are unbuildable due to unsatisfiable permit requirements.
All told, it's easier as a buyer if you purchase an existing structure that was built under permits and is currently in use under appropriate occupancy permits.
Zoning laws. Many parts of the US but not all have land use zoning. The zoning for any property you buy is public record, so any business knows well in advance of what they are buying. If you want to deviate from the zoning you have to submit an application for that zoning variance which requires usually a community hearing.
Neither small or large businesses really have any big advantages here. Got to win over the community. If anything, the small business may be local and the operators more readily able to convince the community for a variance than some corporate lawyer.
Zoning is only part of it. If a plot is already zoned industrial, but is empty, you still need to get the permitting for building construction, utility hookup, waste water & stormwater, environmental inspections, etc.
It varies from state to state (and city specific laws), but to go from empty land to productive asset can take several years.
Also for a large enough utility hookup you will need to coordinate with the utility and or government since you can’t just plop down a large consumer on any old power line or pipe.
Notably, this location is not far from where the Foxconn facility was going to be installed (the "eighth wonder of the world", 10k+ jobs, yada yada). After that debacle, I can imagine local residents are deeply skeptical of new big development projects.
My first reaction is that 244 acres for a data center sounds absolutely obscene. But I have to admit that I'm coming from a place of ignorance.
How big "should" a data center be? How big are some other data centers? How big is us-east-1, for an example of a large one? I'm finding this to be rather difficult information to google.
That's the land allocation rather than the building-size / data-centre size.
The average data centre is 10,000 square metres (2.5 acres).
As well as compute and network facilities, DCs also need to accommodate parking, personnel areas, cooling, fire-suppression, power substations, power redundancy (generators), ground-security…
244 acres is absolutely at the upper end of any DC site.
Most hyperscalers now prefer to build larger sites as “campuses” which may consist of many buildings each consuming 40-100MW, and then yes each building needs most of what you mentioned, so it adds up.
A few sites are now also contemplating BTM or ‘behind the meter’ power generation which takes additional space.
Then some sites like Microsoft’s Fairwater design are optimized for a very large number of Accelerator cabinets — think GPU, TPU, etc. Those cabinets are each consuming 140kW today and with a path to 700-1000kW cabinets soon, so that’s one super dense building instead of a campus of less dense buildings filled with Compute.
> Utah’s 40,000 acre datacenter proves it’s not absolutely at the upper end
So far it seems to be more of a concept of a plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if they build smaller scale data centers first, then cancel the 40000 acres expansion. That sorts of feel like a marketing tactic. If not and they are serious, are we close to peak bubble?
Caledonia is an exurb of Milwaukee, so it's pretty sparse and spread out. There isn't that much demand for land on the outskirts of Milwaukee and most of the demand out there is industrial. Compared to the other industrial uses you'd get, data centers are almost certainly preferable.
us-east-1 is a region. That means that it is 3 to 6 “availability zones” within a 100 km or so. Each of these availability zones consists of a cluster of data centers. Each cluster is perhaps 3-5 that are a few km from each other. The data centers will have tens of thousands of servers each.
So that is the mental model you should have for “how big is us-east-1”. But also, the data centers are not going to be, individually, anything like 244 acres. Best guess is that individual data centers are between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet. That is 5 to 10 acres.
Do the math above and us-east-1 may be 300 acres of floor space spread over a very large area.
AWS publicly stated I think in 2021 that the larger availability zones in US East 1 consisted of 17-18 datacenters each. It’s likely grown a lot since, and they recently announced AZ7 will be online in Maryland soon, so they must be running out of ability to grow the ones in NoVA.
I can’t find a link now but it was one of the re:Invent talks like Peter DeSantis briefly explaining AZs before he dug into how Amazon optimizes their concrete mixtures to be more environmentally friendly or something…
All things point to that being the biggest region any hyperscaler has in the world, and several gigawatts of power consumption.
James Hamilton also gave a talk in 2021 about AWS having crossed 20 million Nitro cards deployed and 12GW power consumed —
Based on a majority of games regions, US-East-1 is scattered properties in a <100 square mile area near Dulles Airport in Virginia, associated with an Internet backbone junction and former AOL campus in small town called Ashburn.
Almost all of the site would have been open space, existing transmission corridors, an electric substation, and two flood control ponds they threw in to try to sweeten the deal by offsetting the new impermeable surfaces. The data halls are a small portion of the site.
I'm not defending Cloudflare, but what is a better solution? If small websites can just be DDOS'd out of existence because some group thinks it'll be funny, what protections do they have? It takes too much equipment and know-how to stop an attack for people to be able to survive online. The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket just like the mob.
The site's also blocked for me, also on a normal residential IP. Making your site inaccessible for people out of fear that somebody might make it inaccessible for people feels reminiscent of blockading the strait because you don't want the strait blockaded.
occasionally a major site that I subscribe to blocks me with cloud flare. It was either nyt or a similar news site I subscribe to. I couldn't even get to any 'give me feedback' page because cloudflare was blocking. When cloudflare decides to block you, it should give you a contact page for that website so you can send them an email or tell them.
I work around this by using my phone connection with phone chrome.
> feels reminiscent of blockading the strait because you don't want the strait blockaded
I think this is a poor analogy, unnecessarily politicizing the topic.
It might be a good analogy the other way around, if hackers DDOSed the website as revenge for partial IP-based blocking, in order to apply pressure to the website operator to remove IP-based blocking. But that wasn't the topic.
The better solution to blocking entire continents is probably doing nothing.
For DDoS resistance... Well I can imagine a world where a tech in the same area as IPFS or freenet gives backup access to websites that are overloaded.
> For DDoS resistance... Well I can imagine a world where a tech in the same area as IPFS or freenet gives backup access to websites that are overloaded.
As a small website owner, I can use Cloudflare or I can wait for this imagined tech.
You can use CF and lose relevance. Or even go beyond that and outright geoip-block .
Ofc it's your choice.
For some reason there are many small sites I have no problem visiting and then there are those CF users which may or may not work at any given moment, forcing me to ignore them.
Well, good luck. You are cutting yourself from the internet, not cutting me off.
Would IPFS need to be a part of the browser? Or is there an easy to use browser out there that runs on IPFS? If you need the average user to go find proxys, it won't work.
Makes me wonder if the company protecting against the DDOS would have motivation to encourage or facilitate the DDOS efforts too, makes them the protection racket itself.
If DDOS is really the problem we want to solve then it would be awesome if one can do it without looking into the packet. SSL terminating at some centralized third party provider is way too much power.
Websites should have a lean markdown or .txt page for each human friendly webpage. A lot of the surge in bots is because of LLMs. Its insane that a technical documentation web page can use 200MB + of memory, when the core information I care about is << 1 MB of text. at the path of least resistance for many people is to have claude code hit 20 of such pages.
This is something that would be perfect for cloudflare to host and sell as a service - static web pages via their CDN network.
I do not work in web development, so im sure there are plenty of details im ignorant of, but the TLDR of "how to fight accidental DDOS because of AI tooling " is make it easier for them to get the content they want.
How many small websites served by Cloudflare risk being DDOS'd? How many small website owners would incur serious loss of livelihood if they are DDOS'd for a few days?
Is DDOS risk so important that the web needs a protection racket?
> If small websites can just be DDOS'd out of existence
DDOS doesn't destroy websites. It just makes them unreachable until the disgruntled person decides it's been running long enough.
Please stop exaggerating a very real problem only a few entities on the web have; what you are perpetuating is FUD, which enables companies like Cloudflare to kill the web.
> The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket
> Please stop exaggerating a very real problem only a few entities on the web have; what you are perpetuating is FUD, which enables companies like Cloudflare to kill the web.
I'm not exaggerating, I'm just playing what if. That's a game where you think of random things that could go wrong, and then deciding if it is worth the expense. Just because maybe you can't think of things of varying plausibility does not make me exaggerating. We already see ransomware working from the hacker's perspective. There's no reason to think that greed will not come into play. If I can think of it, there's no reason to think that hackers are not also considering various ways to expand on ransomware as a service
>> The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket
> How do you not even see the irony of this?
How do you not? If every hacking group can come along and extort any site they choose to pay them a protection fee, there's no way websites will accept any of this. Compare that to paying a single legit service protecting against all of those hacking groups. Can't imagine why people would be willing to do that.
If you run a website then you quickly learn that 99% of traffic is bots/spam/scam/ai, and will overwhelm your resources. You can block it with the click of a (Cloudflare) button. There is nothing to consider here.
It's amazing how after all these years, tech world still believes it's a good idea to sell the entrance to their websites and services to the same bouncer. Cloudflare not in the mood for your IP/ISP/Country? Tough cookies.
In this case a site is geoblocking. It's an affiliate station is Wisconsin, serving up local news. Sites have been using things like MaxMind and blanket blocking entire regions long before Cloudflare.
If you've run a site like that, pretty soon you realize 100% of the traffic that hits you from Asia, Russia, the Middle East and even Eastern Europe / the Baltics is exploit detection scripts and is just noise in your logs. Okay, 99.999999% as once every decade something ends up on HN and gets a broader audience.
This is such a narrow PoV and I don't see how it relates to Cloudflare currently being de factor gatekeeper for every web properly of consequence.
What's the point of publishing news or content on the web if you don't want it to be accessible? What about locals who travel? What about locals who share links with others?
You brought up Cloudflare, when in reality this site went into their caching services configuration and purposefully enabled geofencing restrictions. They could have done this a million ways, and Cloudflare is basically irrelevant to this conversation, and is utterly fungible.
>What's the point of publishing news or content on the web if you don't want it to be accessible
Because you don't want the burden of far away users who will never represent a penny of income for your content? This is a weirdly entitled comment.
Quite aside from certain countries disproportionately account for malicious traffic, often there are legal issues that come into play as well. This is why many regional sites block EU locations because they don't want the compliance costs for users that aren't their base.
Microsoft has decided not to move forward with its proposed site for a data center in the Village of Caledonia after facing significant community pushback from residents.
Posted
and last updated
VILLAGE OF CALEDONIA, Wis. — Microsoft has decided not to move forward with its proposed site for a data center in the Village of Caledonia after facing significant community pushback from residents.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Microsoft data center proposal continues to divide Caledonia residents as rezoning plans move forward
“Based on the community feedback we heard, we have chosen not to move forward with this site,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.
The tech giant’s decision comes after hundreds of residents voiced opposition to the project over recent weeks. More than 2,000 people signed a petition opposing a rezoning proposal that would have allowed the data center to be built on 244 acres of land.
Watch: Microsoft pulls plug on plans for 244-acre data center in Caledonia after community pushback
The proposed site was situated on County Line Road and State Highway 32, southwest of the WE Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, and was surrounded by farmland and residential properties.
47032805-Concept Site Plan - Project Nova by TMJ4 News
Despite abandoning this particular location, Microsoft indicated it remains interested in investing in Southeast Wisconsin.
The spokesperson said the company looks forward to “working with the Village of Caledonia and Racine County leaders to identify a site that aligns with community priorities and our long-term development goals.”
TMJ4’s Jenna Rae, who has been following this story, reached out to Todd Willis, the village administrator, who provided the following statement:
“Nothing official has been submitted to the Village regarding their pending application, and have no comment until such time.”
- Todd Willis, Village Administrator
Resident Prescott Balch told TMJ4 that his phone did not stop ringing on Wednesday morning, as people delivered the news.
PRESCOTT BALCH
TMJ4
Prescott Balch lives in Caledonia. Balch welcomed the news that Microsoft is changing plans to bring a data center in the area.
"We're ecstatic that those arguments held water and ultimately convinced a large corporation to back off, so great day here in Caledonia," Balch said.
Village trustee Nancy Pierce says she learned about the change from a news article.
"I have a lot of respect for Microsoft, making the decision when they say they listened to the constituents. They also listened to board questions both at the planning commission at the board level. I believe that they took a lot of different pieces of information into play," Pierce stated.
Nancy Pierce
TMJ4 News
Nancy Pierce is a village trustee in Caledonia.
Both Pierce and Balch made it clear that they are not opposed to working with Microsoft in Caledonia.
As the tech giant looks for a new site, there is hope that there are improvements to the overall process.
"I would’ve liked to been able to engage directly with Microsoft much earlier in the process. We were not allowed to do that. I think that became an obstacle for a lot of different points and reasons," Pierce explained. "I feel like now they would come forward much quicker and engage directly with the community, really get to understand the community."
"There are people that have an opinion about what they want to do with their village, and that was absent in this to me. That's the real message of this thing," Balch explained. "Let's help Microsoft find the right spot in southeast Wisconsin."
I'd say they should come build them in Canada instead since our energy is cheaper, but anti-industrial development policy and NIMBYism is even more embedded than America, which is probably why no one is bothering.
They're already backtracking on, at least, the consumer Copilot being shoved everywhere in Windows. I think Nadella is already on his way out though (voluntarily). Judson Athoff is already taking over as "CEO of Commercial Businesses" so Nadella can be closer to engineering, which he's said he misses.
I wonder if USA would have futuristic Datacenter Towns much like coal mining towns - they might have their own lore, vibe and aesthetic about them.
Certain new emerging towns would get the moniker of "DC towns". New economies might flourish - perhaps not jobs from DC but certainly the tax money should help.
This could happen if the NIMBY movement weren't so extreme.
But a datacenter doesn’t employ that many people, compared to mines. To develop a town you need to give a bunch of people a job, build small commerces, invest in the local infrastructure, so a real local economy can sustain itself. There is none of that with datacenters
If it actually helped the economies flourish, then that would be interesting. NIMBY is in some part a reaction to the belief (likely true) that there would be neither jobs nor tax money from a data center in their community backyard--it's all downside with no upside.
The Loudoun county has Datacenters that pay enough in taxes equalling the salary of 30k residents earning $40k dollars each (in a county of ~400k population).
This is a shockingly high upside relative to any other industry, like Car or Steel industry which pollute way more.
These taxes can be used to create better infra and have other things going on. Better schools and maybe even research facilities.
But I do think the opposition is largely ideological in nature so these arguments don't matter at the end.
Taxes have relatively little to do with how good schools are, that is dominated by the quality of the students who live close enough to attend the schools.
Wealthy white exclave succeeds in using environmental justice language to keep cheap coal-fired power to themselves. Very American outcome.
Although I obviously don't care about Microsoft's outcome here, this was clearly a great site at the intersection of two transmission lines and with essentially infinite water resources.
Some of us would like to keep our “infinite” water resources which actually aren’t infinite.
I live beneath two transmission lines (overlapping, I guess, but not intersecting) and would prefer no data centre built here. Why? Because it will provide me no benefit whatsoever, reduce my property value, and worsen my quality of life due to things like light pollution and noise.
If data centre operators would fix these things perhaps people would feel differently. For example - provide multi gigabit fibre Internet to everyone nearby.
> provide multi gigabit fibre Internet to everyone nearby.
Kind of a cool idea, actually. These data centers could turn the towns where they build into startup incubators. Offer free high speed internet and heavily subsidized compute to residents in exchange for building there. At least gives back economically somewhat, as a data center itself doesn't provide much in return.
I support in principle the rights of towns to set their own land use rules, but on the larger societal picture I don't support people benefiting from things like intermodal shipping, goods distribution, and information services that they refuse to host. So I perceive a certain hypocrisy in this story.
Surely I benefit from a host of things for which I want nowhere near me. Strip mining, petroleum refining, chemical processing, coal fired electricity, etc.
Am I allowed any autonomy or must we all accept that if a rich group wants to plop down a leather tanning factory across the street, I should have no recourse?
That's a mix of different issues. The site of a natural resource isn't one of the things that political systems control, whereas the site of a petrochemical refinery or a power station is chosen by those systems. So yes, it is obviously hypocrisy to consume petrochemical products while insisting that the refinery can't be in your "rural character" exclave with the arbitrary line drawn around it, but allowing the same facility to be built over the county line in the poorer, browner community that you consider sacrificial. Anyway, the impacts of a data center are not in the same ballpark as the other things you mentioned.
Maybe everyone in this village already has their own local AI rig. From a technical perspective, data centers aren't providing public goods - rather they're more like attractive nuisances that foster centralized control.
Mentioned earlier in the thread, but maybe these data centers should start providing public goods to the towns/counties in which they build? Free high speed internet, heavily subsidized compute, maybe partner with local colleges to offer labs & internships, etc.
There's no reason they can't be economic accelerators for the towns they are in.
I agree it would help their image, but this all sounds like more corporate centralization to me. I've got a functioning electric coop that provides gigabit internet for a flat fee every month. I think they're even doing trial runs of 10Gb, but I haven't looked into it because I simply don't need it. Internet access can be a solved problem these days, where there is the political will. And if anything local colleges should be offering compute resources to the larger community, not themselves relying on scraps of generosity from commercial buildouts.
In America electric rates are increasing due to 20 years of stagnation and failure to invest in transmission, and new data centers are on average associated with lower, not higher retail electric rates. This is because large consumers drive down marginal prices.
In your country things may be proceeding differently, but that's the story here.
One of the rare cases where nimbys can't do damage because the hyper scalers will (and are) building their data centers across MENA, South Asia and SEA where they're welcomed with generous tax breaks and incentives.
Sending kilobytes of text over thousands of miles is a lot easier than piping energy or housing across distance!
Building a datacenter typically employs thousands of people in the trades, often for hundreds or a thousand plus hours, per person, from the start of a big build to the campus being complete. It’s quite literally millions of billable hours in trade labor.
Modern datacenters also require very high standards of construction and are complex, so these projects create jobs and also represent a real training, upskilling and work experience opportunity for labor. There are many examples of electricians, plumbers and groundwork teams who did Microsoft’s site getting future work from Meta, Google or Amazon in the same part of the state because the experience has value.
It’s easy to dismissively say datacenter is bad, or that it consumes too much water (despite many datacenters accused of this being a closed-loop cooling system), and ignore the billions of dollars spent during the project on labor which supports that local economy, or the improvements negotiated for the local area and paid for the hyperscaler, bundled in by the city/county planning as part of the permits and approvals.
It’s also rare the tax for a campus is fully rebated, although it’s normal for the improvements to be partially rebated for some period (this is an investment incentive). Viewed over 20-40 years these sites are often tremendously lucrative in tax for the county/city as well.
There are very few jobs during operation. Mostly site security and a few tech support staff. There will be some steady work for maintenance contractors, but that's much less than the initial construction.
I mean, you’re right, but when the alternative is all that investment and those construction jobs AND the post-commissioning operational jobs go to a different community and a different economy, …
What would you prefer? To me, local communities tend to benefit in multiple different ways during and after these projects, poorer communities become richer, communities with little opportunity now have more opportunity. I’m always a bit baffled by someone saying “Please don’t invest $5B and create 100s of jobs and taxable improvements in my back yard”.
This is a common argument: wanting 1000s of jobs during construction and 1000s of jobs after construction, but this isn’t a car manufacturing plant. That’s a “we want our cake and we want to eat it too” argument — not saying it’s your argument just that this comes up frequently.
But what often happens is that the company is granted a ten year tax abatement in exchange for the jobs, the jobs end up being fewer than promised, and then in ten years the company closes the site and now the community has an empty industrial brownfield that was built for one thing and can't be easily repurposed.
It makes more sense when you realize that the same people also don't want anyone new living in their town, so they do not perceive any value to new jobs, only costs.
What is the actual procedure through which this happens? You buy the land and then are granted permission on a discretionary basis? It seems to me that if you were a small business this becomes much harder to participate in because you need to acquire and hold the unproductive asset.
This would mean that land use tends towards that which large firms (which can sustain the costs easily by self-financing) find useful.
My employer went through a similar process, not for a data center but for a large recycling yard/center. We had to buy the land first, and it was basically unproductive for 2.5 years of mostly waiting for permits, and it was already zoned industrial so no zoning changes were needed.
The whole project was several million in expenses before even making a dollar. We aren't huge either, the permitting was not supposed to take that long it but a real strain on the business.
So yeah, you're correct. The current process favors large firms, at least those large enough to absorb the cost for multiple years or however long permitting takes, which in some municipalities can be a very, very long time.
It’s unusual to buy the land and take a gamble on its utility, at least whenever datacenter construction is involved. Purchasing parties are risk averse to this exact scenario and work hard to craft contracts that reduce risk.
Often the choices are —
1. Buy land at $/acre that reflects very little premium, based on a short feasibility study, but without any ultimate contingency that permitting will occur. This is your example. But problematically all permitting applications are typically public record, so when you fail, the land can’t be sold on to someone else as if that didn’t happen, any sophisticated buyer will know the exact issues the city/county had with your usage. Land often transacts onward at firesale prices under these circumstances.
2. $/acre for land is bid upon at a substantial premium reflecting the future value as a datacenter, it remains under contract for potentially years pending outcome of approvals, then it transacts. Permitting being denied usually results in either no money changing hands or a small termination fee reflecting the carrying cost of the land during that period. If permitting works out the seller of land walks away very happy as the $/acre was extremely lucrative.
The second option also incentivizes the seller, who is often a local real estate magnate, to pressure local officials to issue the permits.
2 seems good as the seller can still make money from the land in the meantime. It does make it unsellable to anyone else in that time though.
Fun fact: Large businesses are often tapped to write the laws intended to target large businesses. The process is called “model legislation.” Fox and henhouse.
It's also called "regulatory capture" and it's been around in some form (implicitly or explicitly) since there's been laws in existence.
Well, businesses — and all parties — who will be affected by legislation should be able to provide input. Otherwise we too often get clueless legislation that is massively mocked and rightly bemoaned on this site — because the legislators have no real clue of the technical issues involved.
Of course, the businesses should be only one part of the expertise that goes into writing the laws; other experts MUST be involved, or it will indeed be a fox and henhouse situation where the fox designs the legal locks so they can always be opened by foxes...
That's not what model legislation is.
That can be an example of model legislation but, broadly, model legislation is created by an organization for use as an example for multiple different legislatures (usually states). Everyone from think tanks, busineses, the EFF, the ACLU and PETA draft model legislation.
Here in Orlando several large builders bought about a 90% of downtowns empty lots promising new high rises in 2022, then threw in the towel after evicting all the tenants and now most Church street station is completely empty. Of course local government had put nothing in the agreement about timeframe of completion, what happens if the builder gives up, etc.
So now, all of it sits abandoned, no construction started, and now its not even worth building.
I’ve had multiple friends try to start businesses that got stuck on this: You can’t really get permits until you have the property and start drawing up plans.
For simple businesses like a retail store in a location that has other retail it’s not too risky to bet that you’ll be approved, too.
For businesses with unique needs or that happen to be in the public crosshairs, you’re putting a lot at risk in the process.
The process favors big companies and developers who have established relationships and “connections” with the planning boards.
The situation is even wilder in some other countries, both more and less corrupt than the average US municipality. In some places you’re not getting a permit at all without a sizable bribe, or having an in with the planning board.
In my city one of the aspiring developers tried to run an expensive political campaign to get a family member into an office that could have helped with their approvals. People caught on and didn’t like it one iota.
Depending on things, you might enter a land purchase (or lease) contract that's contingent on issuance of a building permit.
But a seller would probably prefer to sell without contingency, so what terms are available depends on market conditions.
Title insurance for residential real estate may sometimes cover properties that are unbuildable due to unsatisfiable permit requirements.
All told, it's easier as a buyer if you purchase an existing structure that was built under permits and is currently in use under appropriate occupancy permits.
From what I can tell Microsoft hasn't purchased the land yet. It's apparently owned by WE energies as part of the power plant next door.
Zoning laws. Many parts of the US but not all have land use zoning. The zoning for any property you buy is public record, so any business knows well in advance of what they are buying. If you want to deviate from the zoning you have to submit an application for that zoning variance which requires usually a community hearing.
Neither small or large businesses really have any big advantages here. Got to win over the community. If anything, the small business may be local and the operators more readily able to convince the community for a variance than some corporate lawyer.
Zoning is only part of it. If a plot is already zoned industrial, but is empty, you still need to get the permitting for building construction, utility hookup, waste water & stormwater, environmental inspections, etc.
It varies from state to state (and city specific laws), but to go from empty land to productive asset can take several years.
Also for a large enough utility hookup you will need to coordinate with the utility and or government since you can’t just plop down a large consumer on any old power line or pipe.
Notably, this location is not far from where the Foxconn facility was going to be installed (the "eighth wonder of the world", 10k+ jobs, yada yada). After that debacle, I can imagine local residents are deeply skeptical of new big development projects.
It's about 15 miles north. Microsoft is already building a data center on some of the land that Foxconn didn't use
My first reaction is that 244 acres for a data center sounds absolutely obscene. But I have to admit that I'm coming from a place of ignorance.
How big "should" a data center be? How big are some other data centers? How big is us-east-1, for an example of a large one? I'm finding this to be rather difficult information to google.
That's the land allocation rather than the building-size / data-centre size.
The average data centre is 10,000 square metres (2.5 acres).
As well as compute and network facilities, DCs also need to accommodate parking, personnel areas, cooling, fire-suppression, power substations, power redundancy (generators), ground-security…
244 acres is absolutely at the upper end of any DC site.
Utah’s 40,000 acre datacenter proves it’s not absolutely at the upper end.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/933687/u...
Most hyperscalers now prefer to build larger sites as “campuses” which may consist of many buildings each consuming 40-100MW, and then yes each building needs most of what you mentioned, so it adds up.
A few sites are now also contemplating BTM or ‘behind the meter’ power generation which takes additional space.
Then some sites like Microsoft’s Fairwater design are optimized for a very large number of Accelerator cabinets — think GPU, TPU, etc. Those cabinets are each consuming 140kW today and with a path to 700-1000kW cabinets soon, so that’s one super dense building instead of a campus of less dense buildings filled with Compute.
> Utah’s 40,000 acre datacenter proves it’s not absolutely at the upper end
So far it seems to be more of a concept of a plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if they build smaller scale data centers first, then cancel the 40000 acres expansion. That sorts of feel like a marketing tactic. If not and they are serious, are we close to peak bubble?
The density of modern racks makes me wonder why they would want so much space. There's just no way to power all of that.
Storage? Even that is now ultra-compact.
40,000 acres, aka 77 × Monaco's!
TIL.
10 micro-Russias
400 vaticans
Caledonia is an exurb of Milwaukee, so it's pretty sparse and spread out. There isn't that much demand for land on the outskirts of Milwaukee and most of the demand out there is industrial. Compared to the other industrial uses you'd get, data centers are almost certainly preferable.
I assume you mean AWS us-east-1. It isn't a single data center. It is a cluster of data centers around Northern Virginia.
us-east-1 is a region. That means that it is 3 to 6 “availability zones” within a 100 km or so. Each of these availability zones consists of a cluster of data centers. Each cluster is perhaps 3-5 that are a few km from each other. The data centers will have tens of thousands of servers each.
So that is the mental model you should have for “how big is us-east-1”. But also, the data centers are not going to be, individually, anything like 244 acres. Best guess is that individual data centers are between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet. That is 5 to 10 acres.
Do the math above and us-east-1 may be 300 acres of floor space spread over a very large area.
AWS publicly stated I think in 2021 that the larger availability zones in US East 1 consisted of 17-18 datacenters each. It’s likely grown a lot since, and they recently announced AZ7 will be online in Maryland soon, so they must be running out of ability to grow the ones in NoVA.
I can’t find a link now but it was one of the re:Invent talks like Peter DeSantis briefly explaining AZs before he dug into how Amazon optimizes their concrete mixtures to be more environmentally friendly or something…
All things point to that being the biggest region any hyperscaler has in the world, and several gigawatts of power consumption.
James Hamilton also gave a talk in 2021 about AWS having crossed 20 million Nitro cards deployed and 12GW power consumed —
https://mvdirona.com/jrh/talksandpapers/JamesHamilton2022101...
Based on a majority of games regions, US-East-1 is scattered properties in a <100 square mile area near Dulles Airport in Virginia, associated with an Internet backbone junction and former AOL campus in small town called Ashburn.
Almost all of the site would have been open space, existing transmission corridors, an electric substation, and two flood control ponds they threw in to try to sweeten the deal by offsetting the new impermeable surfaces. The data halls are a small portion of the site.
My data center is bigger than yours.
it's not the size of the chip, it's the motion of the digitalocean.
Well my IP (regular plain residential Asian ISP) is blocked on this site. Zealous Cloudflare-blocking is breaking the web.
(also thanks for the useful message telling me to "contact the website owner... while blocking me from the website where the contact info should be)
I'm not defending Cloudflare, but what is a better solution? If small websites can just be DDOS'd out of existence because some group thinks it'll be funny, what protections do they have? It takes too much equipment and know-how to stop an attack for people to be able to survive online. The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket just like the mob.
The site's also blocked for me, also on a normal residential IP. Making your site inaccessible for people out of fear that somebody might make it inaccessible for people feels reminiscent of blockading the strait because you don't want the strait blockaded.
occasionally a major site that I subscribe to blocks me with cloud flare. It was either nyt or a similar news site I subscribe to. I couldn't even get to any 'give me feedback' page because cloudflare was blocking. When cloudflare decides to block you, it should give you a contact page for that website so you can send them an email or tell them.
I work around this by using my phone connection with phone chrome.
> feels reminiscent of blockading the strait because you don't want the strait blockaded
I think this is a poor analogy, unnecessarily politicizing the topic.
It might be a good analogy the other way around, if hackers DDOSed the website as revenge for partial IP-based blocking, in order to apply pressure to the website operator to remove IP-based blocking. But that wasn't the topic.
The internet is killing itself.
And no I do not blame small website owners they just have to live with this mess same as everyone else.
The better solution to blocking entire continents is probably doing nothing.
For DDoS resistance... Well I can imagine a world where a tech in the same area as IPFS or freenet gives backup access to websites that are overloaded.
> tech in the same area as IPFS or freenet
Are we getting that before or after personal jet packs, flying cars, and my tacos delivered via tacocopters?
I'll protect my sites with Cloudflare until then, thanks.
> For DDoS resistance... Well I can imagine a world where a tech in the same area as IPFS or freenet gives backup access to websites that are overloaded.
As a small website owner, I can use Cloudflare or I can wait for this imagined tech.
You can use CF and lose relevance. Or even go beyond that and outright geoip-block .
Ofc it's your choice.
For some reason there are many small sites I have no problem visiting and then there are those CF users which may or may not work at any given moment, forcing me to ignore them.
Well, good luck. You are cutting yourself from the internet, not cutting me off.
Would IPFS need to be a part of the browser? Or is there an easy to use browser out there that runs on IPFS? If you need the average user to go find proxys, it won't work.
Makes me wonder if the company protecting against the DDOS would have motivation to encourage or facilitate the DDOS efforts too, makes them the protection racket itself.
If DDOS is really the problem we want to solve then it would be awesome if one can do it without looking into the packet. SSL terminating at some centralized third party provider is way too much power.
Websites should have a lean markdown or .txt page for each human friendly webpage. A lot of the surge in bots is because of LLMs. Its insane that a technical documentation web page can use 200MB + of memory, when the core information I care about is << 1 MB of text. at the path of least resistance for many people is to have claude code hit 20 of such pages.
This is something that would be perfect for cloudflare to host and sell as a service - static web pages via their CDN network.
I do not work in web development, so im sure there are plenty of details im ignorant of, but the TLDR of "how to fight accidental DDOS because of AI tooling " is make it easier for them to get the content they want.
And don't forget about kids safety!
How many small websites served by Cloudflare risk being DDOS'd? How many small website owners would incur serious loss of livelihood if they are DDOS'd for a few days? Is DDOS risk so important that the web needs a protection racket?
> If small websites can just be DDOS'd out of existence
DDOS doesn't destroy websites. It just makes them unreachable until the disgruntled person decides it's been running long enough.
Please stop exaggerating a very real problem only a few entities on the web have; what you are perpetuating is FUD, which enables companies like Cloudflare to kill the web.
> The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket
How do you not even see the irony of this?
> DDOS doesn't destroy websites. It just makes them unreachable until the disgruntled person decides it's been running long enough.
You can be absolutely destroyed if your hosting provider later hits you as a Website Owner with an excess traffic bill.
While it is entirely possible to enter such a contract with a provider, it is your fault in the end. Don't maybe enter them?
> Please stop exaggerating a very real problem only a few entities on the web have; what you are perpetuating is FUD, which enables companies like Cloudflare to kill the web.
I'm not exaggerating, I'm just playing what if. That's a game where you think of random things that could go wrong, and then deciding if it is worth the expense. Just because maybe you can't think of things of varying plausibility does not make me exaggerating. We already see ransomware working from the hacker's perspective. There's no reason to think that greed will not come into play. If I can think of it, there's no reason to think that hackers are not also considering various ways to expand on ransomware as a service
>> The next thing you'll hear about is a monthly service fee to the hackers as a protection racket
> How do you not even see the irony of this?
How do you not? If every hacking group can come along and extort any site they choose to pay them a protection fee, there's no way websites will accept any of this. Compare that to paying a single legit service protecting against all of those hacking groups. Can't imagine why people would be willing to do that.
This is the same mindset that wants to make it illegal to sell kitchen knives with sharp tips.
How do you come to that conclusion? It's so far off of what I said that you've got some splainin' to do
nah they will be selling their service to both hackers and their targets
I don't understand why cloudflare is loved by tech people. They ARE breaking the web.
If you run a website then you quickly learn that 99% of traffic is bots/spam/scam/ai, and will overwhelm your resources. You can block it with the click of a (Cloudflare) button. There is nothing to consider here.
It's amazing how after all these years, tech world still believes it's a good idea to sell the entrance to their websites and services to the same bouncer. Cloudflare not in the mood for your IP/ISP/Country? Tough cookies.
In this case a site is geoblocking. It's an affiliate station is Wisconsin, serving up local news. Sites have been using things like MaxMind and blanket blocking entire regions long before Cloudflare.
If you've run a site like that, pretty soon you realize 100% of the traffic that hits you from Asia, Russia, the Middle East and even Eastern Europe / the Baltics is exploit detection scripts and is just noise in your logs. Okay, 99.999999% as once every decade something ends up on HN and gets a broader audience.
This is such a narrow PoV and I don't see how it relates to Cloudflare currently being de factor gatekeeper for every web properly of consequence.
What's the point of publishing news or content on the web if you don't want it to be accessible? What about locals who travel? What about locals who share links with others?
You brought up Cloudflare, when in reality this site went into their caching services configuration and purposefully enabled geofencing restrictions. They could have done this a million ways, and Cloudflare is basically irrelevant to this conversation, and is utterly fungible.
>What's the point of publishing news or content on the web if you don't want it to be accessible
Because you don't want the burden of far away users who will never represent a penny of income for your content? This is a weirdly entitled comment.
Quite aside from certain countries disproportionately account for malicious traffic, often there are legal issues that come into play as well. This is why many regional sites block EU locations because they don't want the compliance costs for users that aren't their base.
> (also thanks for the useful message telling me to "contact the website owner... while blocking me from the website where the contact info should be)
I hit this a lot with Firefox VPN and it's ridiculous
You could use a search engine to find their contact information
Microsoft has decided not to move forward with its proposed site for a data center in the Village of Caledonia after facing significant community pushback from residents. Posted and last updated
VILLAGE OF CALEDONIA, Wis. — Microsoft has decided not to move forward with its proposed site for a data center in the Village of Caledonia after facing significant community pushback from residents.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Microsoft data center proposal continues to divide Caledonia residents as rezoning plans move forward
“Based on the community feedback we heard, we have chosen not to move forward with this site,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.
The tech giant’s decision comes after hundreds of residents voiced opposition to the project over recent weeks. More than 2,000 people signed a petition opposing a rezoning proposal that would have allowed the data center to be built on 244 acres of land.
Watch: Microsoft pulls plug on plans for 244-acre data center in Caledonia after community pushback
The proposed site was situated on County Line Road and State Highway 32, southwest of the WE Energies Oak Creek Power Plant, and was surrounded by farmland and residential properties.
47032805-Concept Site Plan - Project Nova by TMJ4 News
Despite abandoning this particular location, Microsoft indicated it remains interested in investing in Southeast Wisconsin.
The spokesperson said the company looks forward to “working with the Village of Caledonia and Racine County leaders to identify a site that aligns with community priorities and our long-term development goals.”
TMJ4’s Jenna Rae, who has been following this story, reached out to Todd Willis, the village administrator, who provided the following statement:
- Todd Willis, Village AdministratorResident Prescott Balch told TMJ4 that his phone did not stop ringing on Wednesday morning, as people delivered the news. PRESCOTT BALCH TMJ4 Prescott Balch lives in Caledonia. Balch welcomed the news that Microsoft is changing plans to bring a data center in the area.
"We're ecstatic that those arguments held water and ultimately convinced a large corporation to back off, so great day here in Caledonia," Balch said.
Village trustee Nancy Pierce says she learned about the change from a news article.
"I have a lot of respect for Microsoft, making the decision when they say they listened to the constituents. They also listened to board questions both at the planning commission at the board level. I believe that they took a lot of different pieces of information into play," Pierce stated. Nancy Pierce TMJ4 News Nancy Pierce is a village trustee in Caledonia.
Both Pierce and Balch made it clear that they are not opposed to working with Microsoft in Caledonia.
As the tech giant looks for a new site, there is hope that there are improvements to the overall process.
"I would’ve liked to been able to engage directly with Microsoft much earlier in the process. We were not allowed to do that. I think that became an obstacle for a lot of different points and reasons," Pierce explained. "I feel like now they would come forward much quicker and engage directly with the community, really get to understand the community."
"There are people that have an opinion about what they want to do with their village, and that was absent in this to me. That's the real message of this thing," Balch explained. "Let's help Microsoft find the right spot in southeast Wisconsin."
block was enabled by site owner, not cloudflare. If they used something else they'd just blanked block ASN IP blocks
And as stated by others, it's about not complying with GDPR et al. Heck, this is not even Cloudflare, it's AWS Cloudfront!
I'd say they should come build them in Canada instead since our energy is cheaper, but anti-industrial development policy and NIMBYism is even more embedded than America, which is probably why no one is bothering.
Probably a wise decision on their part Microsoft already is all in on Copilot AI if it fails, the CEO probably is gone.
Are you sure? AFAIK, Satya did a great job from the point of view of a shareholder - +1,200% from 2014 to today [0]
[0]: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/sto...
That was then. Today the stock is trading at a lower price than in May 2024. Google is up over 100% in that time.
They're already backtracking on, at least, the consumer Copilot being shoved everywhere in Windows. I think Nadella is already on his way out though (voluntarily). Judson Athoff is already taking over as "CEO of Commercial Businesses" so Nadella can be closer to engineering, which he's said he misses.
For a moment I thought they were referring to the Scottish Highlands, but I guess the name fell in disuse when the Roman Empire fell...
I wonder if USA would have futuristic Datacenter Towns much like coal mining towns - they might have their own lore, vibe and aesthetic about them.
Certain new emerging towns would get the moniker of "DC towns". New economies might flourish - perhaps not jobs from DC but certainly the tax money should help.
This could happen if the NIMBY movement weren't so extreme.
But a datacenter doesn’t employ that many people, compared to mines. To develop a town you need to give a bunch of people a job, build small commerces, invest in the local infrastructure, so a real local economy can sustain itself. There is none of that with datacenters
If it actually helped the economies flourish, then that would be interesting. NIMBY is in some part a reaction to the belief (likely true) that there would be neither jobs nor tax money from a data center in their community backyard--it's all downside with no upside.
The Loudoun county has Datacenters that pay enough in taxes equalling the salary of 30k residents earning $40k dollars each (in a county of ~400k population).
This is a shockingly high upside relative to any other industry, like Car or Steel industry which pollute way more.
These taxes can be used to create better infra and have other things going on. Better schools and maybe even research facilities.
But I do think the opposition is largely ideological in nature so these arguments don't matter at the end.
Taxes have relatively little to do with how good schools are, that is dominated by the quality of the students who live close enough to attend the schools.
Do you see coal mining towns as a model to pursue?
Yes they contributed enormous growth without which USA could not have been a dominant power. There are better alternatives now however.
(2025) OP.
Wealthy white exclave succeeds in using environmental justice language to keep cheap coal-fired power to themselves. Very American outcome.
Although I obviously don't care about Microsoft's outcome here, this was clearly a great site at the intersection of two transmission lines and with essentially infinite water resources.
The data center would have been built in this scene. https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8440852,-87.8474228,2445m/da...
Some of us would like to keep our “infinite” water resources which actually aren’t infinite.
I live beneath two transmission lines (overlapping, I guess, but not intersecting) and would prefer no data centre built here. Why? Because it will provide me no benefit whatsoever, reduce my property value, and worsen my quality of life due to things like light pollution and noise.
If data centre operators would fix these things perhaps people would feel differently. For example - provide multi gigabit fibre Internet to everyone nearby.
> provide multi gigabit fibre Internet to everyone nearby.
Kind of a cool idea, actually. These data centers could turn the towns where they build into startup incubators. Offer free high speed internet and heavily subsidized compute to residents in exchange for building there. At least gives back economically somewhat, as a data center itself doesn't provide much in return.
Gigabit internet doesn't power startups. It powers consumer streaming. As long as you can run Zoom, you don't need high internet speeds for startups
You pretty much need low latency 1G+ to work from home these days.
how exactly is high speed fiber + subsidized compute a recipe for making startups?
This water usage meme needs to die. Although, it is nice to have an indicator for people who believe whatever they told without trivial verification.
I support in principle the rights of towns to set their own land use rules, but on the larger societal picture I don't support people benefiting from things like intermodal shipping, goods distribution, and information services that they refuse to host. So I perceive a certain hypocrisy in this story.
Surely I benefit from a host of things for which I want nowhere near me. Strip mining, petroleum refining, chemical processing, coal fired electricity, etc. Am I allowed any autonomy or must we all accept that if a rich group wants to plop down a leather tanning factory across the street, I should have no recourse?
That's a mix of different issues. The site of a natural resource isn't one of the things that political systems control, whereas the site of a petrochemical refinery or a power station is chosen by those systems. So yes, it is obviously hypocrisy to consume petrochemical products while insisting that the refinery can't be in your "rural character" exclave with the arbitrary line drawn around it, but allowing the same facility to be built over the county line in the poorer, browner community that you consider sacrificial. Anyway, the impacts of a data center are not in the same ballpark as the other things you mentioned.
I kind of agree but I live in a city in Sweden.
Should I not be able to use youtube or order online because we don't have a DC right next door?
Maybe everyone in this village already has their own local AI rig. From a technical perspective, data centers aren't providing public goods - rather they're more like attractive nuisances that foster centralized control.
Mentioned earlier in the thread, but maybe these data centers should start providing public goods to the towns/counties in which they build? Free high speed internet, heavily subsidized compute, maybe partner with local colleges to offer labs & internships, etc.
There's no reason they can't be economic accelerators for the towns they are in.
I agree it would help their image, but this all sounds like more corporate centralization to me. I've got a functioning electric coop that provides gigabit internet for a flat fee every month. I think they're even doing trial runs of 10Gb, but I haven't looked into it because I simply don't need it. Internet access can be a solved problem these days, where there is the political will. And if anything local colleges should be offering compute resources to the larger community, not themselves relying on scraps of generosity from commercial buildouts.
With a new data centre, your electric coop rates can go up with no benefit to you whatsoever.
In America electric rates are increasing due to 20 years of stagnation and failure to invest in transmission, and new data centers are on average associated with lower, not higher retail electric rates. This is because large consumers drive down marginal prices.
In your country things may be proceeding differently, but that's the story here.
One of the rare cases where nimbys can't do damage because the hyper scalers will (and are) building their data centers across MENA, South Asia and SEA where they're welcomed with generous tax breaks and incentives.
Sending kilobytes of text over thousands of miles is a lot easier than piping energy or housing across distance!
Welcomed by corrupt politicians perhaps the locals not so much.
Data centers do not provide jobs and they are run by sociopath Americans who couldn't give a shit about human rights or the environment.
> The data center would have been built in this scene
You mean the carefully cropped photo of pristine rolling farmland in the article is in reality next door to a coal-fired power plant? Say it ain't so.
"a great site" -- you frame it like Microsoft was working for the public good
Building a datacenter typically employs thousands of people in the trades, often for hundreds or a thousand plus hours, per person, from the start of a big build to the campus being complete. It’s quite literally millions of billable hours in trade labor.
Modern datacenters also require very high standards of construction and are complex, so these projects create jobs and also represent a real training, upskilling and work experience opportunity for labor. There are many examples of electricians, plumbers and groundwork teams who did Microsoft’s site getting future work from Meta, Google or Amazon in the same part of the state because the experience has value.
It’s easy to dismissively say datacenter is bad, or that it consumes too much water (despite many datacenters accused of this being a closed-loop cooling system), and ignore the billions of dollars spent during the project on labor which supports that local economy, or the improvements negotiated for the local area and paid for the hyperscaler, bundled in by the city/county planning as part of the permits and approvals.
It’s also rare the tax for a campus is fully rebated, although it’s normal for the improvements to be partially rebated for some period (this is an investment incentive). Viewed over 20-40 years these sites are often tremendously lucrative in tax for the county/city as well.
There are a lot of jobs during construction.
There are very few jobs during operation. Mostly site security and a few tech support staff. There will be some steady work for maintenance contractors, but that's much less than the initial construction.
I mean, you’re right, but when the alternative is all that investment and those construction jobs AND the post-commissioning operational jobs go to a different community and a different economy, …
What would you prefer? To me, local communities tend to benefit in multiple different ways during and after these projects, poorer communities become richer, communities with little opportunity now have more opportunity. I’m always a bit baffled by someone saying “Please don’t invest $5B and create 100s of jobs and taxable improvements in my back yard”.
This is a common argument: wanting 1000s of jobs during construction and 1000s of jobs after construction, but this isn’t a car manufacturing plant. That’s a “we want our cake and we want to eat it too” argument — not saying it’s your argument just that this comes up frequently.
But what often happens is that the company is granted a ten year tax abatement in exchange for the jobs, the jobs end up being fewer than promised, and then in ten years the company closes the site and now the community has an empty industrial brownfield that was built for one thing and can't be easily repurposed.
It makes more sense when you realize that the same people also don't want anyone new living in their town, so they do not perceive any value to new jobs, only costs.
This is the last stand for Satya Narayana Nadella Copilot has to work…