[maerF0x0]

IMO NIMB should be illegal, so long as the builder meets standards. Maybe those standards should rise to include ambient noise requirements, heat dissipation, capital contributions to water/electricity supply, additional tax burden points (for land use without, maybe?).

But I also feel there needs to be an assertion that if you own the land it's your property and you're free to do most things with it, safely and politely. This is about property rights and freedoms.

[mikestew]

This is about property rights and freedoms.

Your property rights stop where my ears are. Or I have the freedom to not listen to your gas turbine. Or however one wishes to flip that on its head. Whether you own the property or not, that property isn’t in a vacuum.

[maerF0x0]

That is all covered by my point about regulations rising to the task. Did you read the whole comment?

The point is you should be allowed to have a gas turbine (or whatever generator meets the requirements), if it meets emissions, noise, and heat regulations.

[mikestew]

Yeah, I read your comment.

IMO NIMB should be illegal, so long as…

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its ass when it hops. But there are examples of data centers being approved with minimal public comment, if any. Musk’s data center in Memphis is frequently trotted out, and for good reason. When the “as long as” part takes place, we can discuss the legality of NIMBY.

[JuniperMesos]

I am vehemently in favor of politicians in my state who are trying to change laws to remove the ability of public commenters to prevent the construction of new housing, because the status quo for decades has been that whenever developers try to build new housing, local public commenters come up with a million reasons why the local government shouldn't allow it to be built; and now there's a massive housing shortage that directly affects my own ability to afford a home.

I'm also eager to vote for politicians who craft state- or federal-level laws that bypass public comment on data center construction, although I do care more about the housing issue if I had to pick just one.

[BeetleB]

> IMO NIMB should be illegal, so long as the builder meets standards.

NIMB is part of setting those standards.

In a nearby town, the city was planning on putting a moratorium on new data centers, and so a lot of companies rushed their application in before the moratorium start date. They all got approved. The local citizens got really mad that they were approved, and the city simply said "Look: We legally cannot deny them permits if they're conforming to current requirements."

So yes, you're right. And yes, your statement is mostly irrelevant. NIMBYism is always about the future requirements. It's not as if enacting a rule disallowing high density residences will force existing ones to be torn down.

[f33d5173]

Rather than making everyone comply with the strictest noise and other restrictions of residential areas, it's much easier for everyone if you put industrial things in an industrial area and residences in a residential area.

[artisinal]

Good luck upgrading your home’s electrical service to charge an EV, only to be told it’s impossible because the nearby data center has already consumed all the available grid capacity.

Happened to family of mine. Not in the US though. They charge their EV with a 3kW charger now.

[maerF0x0]

That is an invested capital issue. If it's not worth building a plant, they wont. The supply will fall until the prices rise enough to incentivize new plants. If the elec prices rise enough the datacenters will find alternate solutions .

It seems like people are some how railing against basic economics?

Like if we dont like it we have a marketplace of alternatives, the opportunity to invest in new supply, and the choice to not consume said energy if the price is too high...