[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.