Live data from Hacker News

Data centers trigger voter backlash

newsweek.com

351–360 of 421 posts

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out that it's normal for hotels to be built in touristy areas is not snarky.

> your childhood home became more touristy and you're trying to blame somebody for that. Do you know this person or are you just making up a narrative and writing a stranger into it?

Are you following this thread at all? That's OP's description of the events. The "trying to blame somebody" is the only editorial I made, and it stems from:

- OP's belief that hotel construction is connected to shadowy back-room deals with local officials

- Hotels having weird discriminatory hiring practices based on minimum distance from hotel to applicant's house

Yeah, it's weird. And I didn't invent it. I don't think it's snarky to point out that those beliefs are overly conspiratorial and that those things can be better attributed to basic economics. Maybe you do and that's fine because you're entitled to your opinion.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, why do we let people without property vote in the first place? It's really only people with a vested interest who have something at stake.

Who said anything about property?

You are using the same logic as those who kept the franchise restricted to the property-owning class. Parent is rightly mocking you for it.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#353

I can tell you, based on local examples, that politicians are setting up deals to bring in data centers without trying to build community support first. Not only that, they are often signing NDAs that prohibit them from telling voters what they have agreed to. It's no way to operate in a democracy, and voters are right to be angry.

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

This devolves into NIMBY.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#354
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I know why they’re angry. Hell, I don’t even use gen AI, I still think it’s unreliable junk. However, most of the things that the people in my community are concerned about don’t apply to our region specifically. We’re actually in a position to benefit GREATLY. It’s useful to have that conversation.

What is the benefit? They provide no jobs and demand tax cuts.

This is extremely misleading. They provide a lot of tax that pays for all the externalities.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#355
post #14

Nothing this technology offers is, to me, worth the noise pollution or increase in water and electricity rates.

Not to mention the tax breaks they're given for no material benefit to the community. Future Illinois data center tax breaks on hold - https://www.illinoistimes.com/news/future-data-center-tax-br... - June 25th, 2026 State Data Center Policy Shifts as Governors Impose New Restrictions - https://www.multistate.us/insider/2026/6/22/state-data-cente... - June 22nd, 2026 Gov. JB Pritzker suspends tax breaks for data cent…

Again misleading. they bring back more in tax than the subsidies.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#356
post #35

Generally, I'm glad that "the people" appear to be pointed in the IMHO correct direction, even if for imprecise, or maybe even wrong, reasons. Regardless of what they are used for, we do not need more "data centers." This is true even outside of AI. Putting so much of us into "the cloud" is generally harmful; encouraging people to learn about, and to do more "computing" at home -- on local machines they, or someone w…

I'm happy to endure HN if it means I get to see hopeful, reasonable observations like yours.

You think this is reasonable? The person is just trying to conserve their job. It’s an act of self preservation and the opposite of virtue. And it’s not even historically accurate.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Since when is there a floor for the number of jobs a business has to create? Suzies Tanning Salon uses a lot of energy but only employs 3 people.

So maybe 50kW for 10 hours a day? Double it and call it 1Mwh a day. A 1GW DC would have to employ 75,000 people if that’s an acceptable ratio.

So what's the ratio for malls? Or strip malls? Or metal refineries? Or auto plants? Or giant office buildings?

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#358
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about property?

You are using the same logic as those who kept the franchise restricted to the property-owning class. Parent is rightly mocking you for it.

Did you vote for the new McDonalds that got built? The new strip mall? The new apartment complex? The new water treatment plant that makes noise and stinks? The new metal shop? The new gas station? Let's start voting on everything and see how that goes. But we obviously don't because that's fucking stupid.

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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) a…

[flagged]

Re: Data centers trigger voter backlash

#360
post #6

A few months ago the founders of the top AI companies walked into Capitol Hill. Tried to explain to a room full of elected representatives exactly how their technology was going to put almost half the working population into under/unemployment and they should consider UBI [0]. Then they went back to the airport, got on their corporate jets, and went home secure in the knowledge that they really showed them. That they…

> They absolutely want to know if these datacenters will bring jobs to their area. The answer to that is so obviously "no" that I wonder how much attention they've been paying.

It's the local v. federal thing. The US has been suffering from this for a while, as has Germany. The EU, too, is suffering from this.

The local politician's thinking is thusly:

- Datacenters are going to happen somewhere. And when this inevitably occurs, jobs everywhere, including here, will disappear. There is nothing I can do about that. It's as baked into my assumptions about the near future, as is the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.

- If I allow the datacenter to happen here then while the builders are here they might buy some stuff locally for the build, and after they are done, the datacenter will employ literally a handful of people to guard and maintain the place. Not much of a gain, but, hey, the alternative is that I have nothing at all.

In other words, the 'competition' aspect between states / bundeslander / EU countries is causing these entities to race to the bottom together.

The solution is... not to do that. As somebody living in a country that doesn't suffer from this particular malady (The Netherlands, which does have provinces, and provinces work in reverse from states: The only rights they have are ones explicitly allotted to them by the state; The Netherlands is not a 'federation of provinces', whereas the US is a 'federation of states', Germany is a 'federation of bundleslander', and the EU is a federation of countries).

It means a province in The Netherlands cannot just offer a would be major company some ridiculous boon to come settle in their province at the cost of other provinces, because provinces in The Netherlands do not have the right to dictate e.g. tax rates, and even any infra project they would do requires permission (and funds) from the 'federal level' (the country).

It's been going on for ten years and there have been nada, zero, zilch solutions to the problem. Thus my stance remains: You have to put a stop to that. The problem is, of course, this requires an entity that currently has some power (namely: states / bundeslander / EU countries) to voluntarily give up power to the federated entity that sits 'above' them, and it's always difficult to convince an entity with power to voluntarily relinquish it.

Still, that's the job.

Post reply on HN