How is this different than a cornfield? A data center is probably a better neighbor because it doesn't kick up dirt, pesticides, and fertilizer into the air.
There's plenty of room for that, all the planned datacenters that will never be finished or started, and enough solar panels to power it in a small fraction of the space used for ethanol corn.
Water consumption and localized atmospheric heating have been cited elsewhere as drawbacks. There have been some articles citing noise/vibration pollution (subsonic?) but I'm not completely convinced on that front. Personally, I would add electric grid load to the list.
In the worst case, if your local municipality sides with business over the little guy, that means potential brownouts and water shortages for you.
Farming consumes more water than datacenters. Infrasound is pseudoscience. The biggest issue imo is that they use a ton of electricity and this country has forgotten how to expand electricity supply so prices go up. The solution to that is to create more electricity though, not ban datacenters
But you don't see center-pivot or linear-movement farmland built up in areas with high population density, nor do you see them using the municipal, potable water supply for irrigation. That is where datacenters are being built and what datacenters are doing, however, and it is why datacenters are blamed for the exacerbation of municipal water systems in these communities. Groundwater, surface water, harvested rainwater, and reclaimed wastewater are the major sources used by farms. Dasani is the major source of water for datacenters, and it makes a massive difference on the water use math.
There's a lot of ways a datacenter in your backyard might be less desirable than a corn-field.
Most data center cooling works by evaporation. Hot air or hot water from the servers passes through cooling towers, and water is deliberately evaporated into the atmosphere to carry heat away. That water vapor rises, disperses, and eventually falls as precipitation, but not locally, and not on any useful timescale for the watershed it was drawn from. So the water still exists, but it's been removed from the local hydrological system
Then, there's the ecological angle. Even when companies claim green credentials, locals often scrutinize the actual power mix feeding the facility. If the regional grid is coal or gas-heavy, a data center's carbon footprint can be substantial. There are also concerns about diesel backup generators, potential groundwater contamination, and heat discharge.
Then there's an increased power bills for locals situation, although this one is not as clear and is often disputed. The argument typically goes something like this: utilities operate on cost-recovery models. If a massive new load comes onto the grid and requires infrastructure upgrades like new substations, transmission lines, grid hardening. Those capital costs get socialized across all ratepayers. The data center pays for its energy consumption, but not necessarily for the full cost of the infrastructure built to serve it. That gap gets spread to everyone else's bills.
How does HN feel about ai written blogs? Who wants to go stand next to a 30' warehouse?