Data Centers Are Inevitable, Shady Deals Shouldn’t Be

My business ethics class took a survey on our attitude toward AI a couple of weeks ago. As I finished sifting through the initial questions, the room was silent apart from the clicking of touchpads and a few yawns. I assumed the “create your own statement” section at the end would be an afterthought. It wasn’t.

Slowly, mouse clicking turned to keyboard clacking. Responses started rolling in, and students began to vote on their peers’ opinions. As the survey went on, one issue came up repeatedly — the environmental impact of AI. 

When most people talk about AI affecting the environment, they’re talking about the immense water and energy demands that manifest as ugly, huge, invasive buildings known as data centers. It’s not AI itself killing the planet and driving up America’s energy bill. It’s the infrastructure behind it. 

Nationally, resistance to data center development has become a bipartisan issue. According to a recent study by Absecon Group, there are 717 individual candidate campaigns — on all levels and in both parties — running ads mentioning data centers, with 636 in clear opposition or advocating for restrictions. A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll found that only one in nine Americans support the construction of data centers in their community.  

While my in-class survey was small — only 36 students — the results followed a rhetorical trend I’ve noticed. It feels like almost every argument against data centers starts and ends with some combination of “AI is taking our jobs” and “AI is killing the planet.” 

Aligning with my experience, a recent poll by Gallup News found the five most common anti-data center development topics are water and energy use, utility costs, the environment and AI replacing human jobs. 

Unfortunately, if a state enacts a one-year ban on data center construction, AI development only slows by five to 10 hours. Although it may seem counterintuitive, AI development, as currently regulated, is inevitable with or without more data centers. 

For those interested in slowing AI to keep their jobs, arguing against data centers is futile. 

Opposition to the environmental impact of data centers has a stronger argument. There’s no doubt these monstrous temples of tech infrastructure have dire water and energy usage consequences. 

My concern is the job loss and environmental arguments are too broad and easily swept aside by developers. Sustainability pledges and job creation promises are initiatives developers have had lots of experience with, similar to the fossil fuel industry. 

When pitching to public officials, developers promise tax revenue, economic stimulus and creation of jobs in exchange for approval. They frame these deals as good for communities, though their negotiation tactics say otherwise. 

Use of NDAs is a common method. In Janesville,Wis. — a city of about 64,000 people — officials spent a full year in talks with a data center developer under an NDA before residents even knew a deal existed. If the deal was mutually beneficial, there would be no reason to negotiate with such a shady approach. 

Saline, Mich., provides a wonderful example of how I believe public focus needs to shift. 

In August 2025, an OpenAI and Oracle development partner, Related Digital, attempted to rezone agricultural land for a data center. Saline Township’s Board of Trustees voted no four to one. 

Instead of backing down, Related Digital sued the township.

Saline is home to just 3,000 residents. They couldn’t afford to fight the lawsuit and were forced to settle for $14 million. Today, there is a 250-acre data center built on a 1,000 acre compound in Saline.

Saline didn’t need an NDA to get taken advantage of. When its board tried to offer Related Digital the minimum allowable tax break, they were threatened with a second lawsuit, and the township was forced to cave with a 12-year, 50% tax abatement.

The reshaping, both physically and fiscally, of unwilling communities by these giant corporations is frustrating. Constituents are against development, the board votes no, then it’s built anyway. The current system is being taken advantage of.

Cities that approve development are banking on the promise they’ll reap significant tax income and create jobs in the future. Data centers underdeliver on both. 

Tax benefits are completely reliant on the deal the municipality negotiates with these corporations. As seen in Saline, developers cherry-pick easy targets and negotiate huge tax abatements. 

The number of jobs created is below what is promised by developers. A study conducted by the Brookings Institution suggests that data centers create fewer employment opportunities than what the industry claims. On average, a new data center creates only 20 to 50 permanent jobs. 

Additionally, these communities are often forced to expand local utilities infrastructure to provide enough electricity and water. If the AI bubble pops before tax abatements expire, this expansion in infrastructure will force taxpayers to fully support infrastructure upgrades for a data center they never wanted to begin with. 

Communities will be left with no jobs created, no tax benefit and a giant brownfield for the community to clean up or sell. 

AI is shaping our world. No ban or protest will stop that. What isn’t decided yet is how it happens to these communities, whether a city council gets a fair negotiation or a lawsuit, a public debate or a year of silence under NDA. 

Saline lost because Related Digital sued instead of argued. Janesville nearly lost before residents even knew there was a fight to have. Inevitable shouldn’t mean unaccountable. 

If data centers are coming either way, it’s time to start talking about how communities can actually benefit.