[maerF0x0]

I hear and understand those, but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?

Ambient noise must be contained, excess heat must be mitigated, free hot water must be provided to nearby buildings. etc. Also this is a city's opportunity to do something like assess penalty tax points. (ie, datacenter usage tax, just like we do to hotels)

[zardo]

> I hear and understand those, but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?

It's a waste of time and money for each town and county to come up with those requirements. If your community puts any limits on the datacenter builder they'll just build it somewhere else, so you might as well save the effort and just say they can't do it.

[maerF0x0]

the US is a republic of states. By design it wastes time and money to allow disagreement, variety, and self-determination of states.

> they'll just build it somewhere else

Why should we have rights to say they cannot do it somewhere else? It's not a moral issue, it's a tragedy of commons issue or unpriced externality issue.

[zardo]

My point is the town has three options:

1) allow the build

2) develop a set of regulations to ensure the datacenter is a "good neighbor"

3) block the build

2 & 3 have the exact same effect

[maerF0x0]

> 2 & 3 have the exact same effect

On the datacenter builder, maybe.

But on enacting freedom as a public value and good, no they're not the same.

And on ensuring the next "Datacenter"-like thing is fairly and equally treated? no they're not the same.

2 is superior because it sets the standards and rules for the game, and allows anyone willing to comply to play.

3. Means we have to make the decision over and over, and scratching the back of the decider might mean a favorable outcome for the next builder etc.

[ratelimitsteve]

>they'll just build it somewhere else

what seems to be happening in practice is that the companies building these data centers will just take you to court over the limits being illegal and make that fight cost more than the town's entire annual budget, thus inducing the town to give up.

[christina97]

Because the people in charge of site picking also shop for low regulation environments.

[maerF0x0]

isn't that their freedom to? And the right/freedom of those who democratically created the low regulation environment?

I do not understand this idea that someone from one place should have their preferences taking precedence the preferences, rights and freedoms of folks who actually live in another place.

The main caveat being the boundary lines, but i think that's very much an edge case.

[AngryData]

And it is the citizen's freedom to say they don't want it, the same as pig farms and oil refineries trying to build next door to them.

[GhastBartender]

> but why isn't it a regulation or requirements issue?

It's America. They don't do regulations there.

The more serious answer is that this political movement is leading to more strict regulation being enacted, it just wasn't in place because of reason #1 and the problems being much less severe.

Additionally, the tech industry is notoriously hostile to any kind of regulation. Especially now with AI. Just look at how many people in this thread will insist that it's "Chinese Propaganda", despite clear evidence that this is just a response to the actual problems datacenters cause. One news crew interviewing people with jet turbine noise will do more than a million of Beijing's finest trolls.