States don't have "rights", people do. I don't support any state's power to take away any human's rights. And bootlickers who do shouldn't have the chance to act out their fascistic fantasies
It's reasonable to believe that a blanket ban on data centers constitutes a regulatory taking, and therefore run afoul of people's property rights. A data center doesn't pose some unreasonable risk to the public interest to justify this degree of action.
I feel like this is always the case with new technology. People had the same reaction to the invention of the printing press. New is scary. It doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns, but unfortunately this feels a bit like an inevitability. The focus shouldn't be on stopping it, but how to maximize the gains and minimize the losses to the local communities where these are being built.
That are paid (if not avoided) at the location of the owner, not the location of the dc. Datacenters really aren't that good for the locals. Low property tax, just tens of jobs but very high infrastructure needs.
I live in Northern VA, the world capital of data centers and can co-sign this. they bring absolutely nothing other than our electric bills have literally doubled in the last 24 or so months
The DCs are in VA because its fed / spook central, which induces a large number of well paid policy / compliance / paperwork / tech jobs etc.
NoVa literally one of the richest regions on the planet and it's all sorta tied up in the same thing. Seems unfair to say DCs "bring nothing", the whole ecosystem is a manifestation of concentrated defense spend.
Bingo. Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. Giant, employ far fewer people than a grocery store after they’re built, crank up electricity costs, use tons of water, air pollution if it’s self-powered, noise pollution (it’s really worth watching Benn Jordan’s video on infrasound,) ugly… the only local entities that win are the landowner and the municipality that collects taxes on them. Though I’ve seen so…
> Data centers are a net negative wherever they are. They really shouldn't be. There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging. There's no reason they can't be placed under some environmental regulations that cancel all their negatives, at least on some places. And they would still pay taxes. But no, datacenter owners are using their connections to remove any regulation instead.
It's a free state. Like the Swiss banned minarets in Geneva the Mainers should be allowed to vote to ban datacenters. AI bros can always opt to build their stuff elsewhere, like Texas or Abu Dhabi.
That’s not what a free society is. That’s like saying “Mainers should be allowed to ban speech they don’t like, and private sex acts they find offensive”. Your view of what constitutes freedom is nonsensical.
Your examples are both unconstitutional (see Lawrence v. Texas for the second), so no, there are limits. Also the majority of sane individuals would not bother to vote on that kind of stuff to meet a qualified majority, not in a democracy and not without a massive brainwashing campaign (which should be banned btw).
Also, as others have pointed out, this is not a ban but a moratorium. AI bros just have to wait until the hype cools down to build data centers in Maine, or build them elsewhere.
Such a law illustrates the beauty of federalism. Texas and other states can have them if they want them! Maine has not nearly as much space and much more natural beauty to protect [per square mile], so it can and maybe should have a different set of rules. That's cool.
This is a recipe for creating dead retiree states. Just NIMBY everything, NIMBY the power sources[1] [2], then complain about a lack of power so NIMBY any type of new industrial . Now do this for housing, new sources of water anything a person younger than 40 would need and you basically get a state full of retirees..and oh would you look at that! [3]. Now the question is, why wouldn't all states eventually do this w…
Are TX and AZ really dead retiree states…as an example of states recognized as more business friendly? I work in a heavily-per state-regulated industry. Some states have regulations that increase the cost to do business there, and so we will (1) never have offices there and (2) those states get products last if at all. I also see tons of jobs being created in TX and AZ.
I feel like this is always the case with new technology. People had the same reaction to the invention of the printing press. New is scary. It doesn't mean there aren't valid concerns, but unfortunately this feels a bit like an inevitability. The focus shouldn't be on stopping it, but how to maximize the gains and minimize the losses to the local communities where these are being built.
Why is consent so scary to you guys?
Presumably, the owners of the land do consent to it being built.
> I don't support any state's power to take away any human's rights. Absolutely agreed. Which is why I'm firmly against Maine's proposal here
Maine is saying "hey give us until 2027 to research this and provide a good regulatory framework for massive data centers that don't impede on human rights to clean water and air". The moratorium expires after 2027. What human right is being violated here? Would you also say the requirement to get a driver's license is a violation of a human right?
"We need to put a """temporary""" moratorium to infringe on your right to $thing until we figure out what the hell is going on"