As with the federal highway system, the introduction of automobiles and desire to connect states to ship military equipment during World War I and to promote interstate commerce, the opportunity to innovate with a new transportation system to deliver people, goods and services relied on a new delivery method.
As with the federal highway system, there are people and communities who are directly impacted by the new digital highway. Many years later, scholars and activists discuss the impact of inserting federal highways onto vulnerable communities — especially at the time where institutional racism did not allow for most Black and other ethnic communities from participating in this republic.
One of the most recent examples in Georgia is Interstate 20.
We know I-20 played a pivotal role in connecting motorists while destroying the Black communities that existed before I-20’s displacement of residents. And, the thought is that if we increased highways and connected motorists and communities, displacement of people was a small consequence as compared to the economic development, jobs and expansion of the region.
At the same time, those who are concerned with development and equity will point to which communities were the federal and state highways or municipal streets/roads placed.
Historically, these large, community altering projects usually were placed through communities, where eminent domain would be an easier path, where the poor and ethnic minority groups lived because the land is cheap and the people did not have political power.
As we look at the present and toward the future, many of the talking points and community impact from the federal/state highways and municipal road/street projects are very similar to the talking points and impact from data centers.
Go to any city, county or state in the country and one of the most familiar concerns from voters is data centers. Georgia is quickly becoming a hub for data centers, ranked number 3 in the country for data centers behind Texas and Virginia, which come in at first and second, respectively.
Proponents for data centers express the inevitability of data centers because of our increased reliance on technology for work, play, and idol scrolling. As a society, we moved away from in-person and “analog” life to a more technology based one.
Many people read books on a device rather than physical books, online and phone banking replacing going to a brick-and-mortar bank, and many online academic programs are supplementing face-to-face classes or replacing whole academic degree programs, as well as the ever-growing podcast space.
Proponents note that because of the growing reliance on and interest in technology, the need for data centers is crucial to maintaining access for the increased demand. Further, data centers will expand access to internet deserts, closing the digital divide for areas of our community that have no, slow or unreliable internet service.
Proponents of data centers and those advocating for artificial intelligence also understand the growth of AI is dependent on data centers to ensure there is enough digital space for AI along with the general public’s increased reliance on technology.
We are increasingly hearing that if the United States does not have data centers, then we will acquiesce this technology to other countries, which will have the United States at the mercy of these other countries.
Thus, the space race is now the digital race.
So, we have to do more in order to have control of the digital space without relying on foreign countries who may spy on our citizens or use data centers to control our digital access.
At the same time, there are opponents to these data centers.
Opponents to data centers note the environmental impact where land, air, water and noise pollution impact the community. The construction of the data centers create pollution inside of the existing communities including water run-off, disruption of native wildlife and vegetation and the noise of the construction as well as the low-grade hum once the data center is functioning.
Opponents also discuss the increase of water and electricity usage required to operate the data center. Power companies have been ramping up their production efforts to have enough power production to accommodate the data centers as well as the existing community. Yet the data center owners pay a lesser rate of kilowatt usage as compared to the community members and the reliability for the people could be impacted to ensure the data center maintains electricity.
As for the water, this is an interesting position for Georgia.
Georgia spent decades going through the court system fighting the “water war” with Alabama and Florida. Georgia’s position was about the population and having enough potable, aka drinkable, water.
After years of arguing in court for Georgia to have enough water, now the water that was argued for the people to be able to drink is now, potentially, going to cool data centers. And, just as with the electricity, the amount of water is potentially lessened for the people while cost will increase.
Then, there is the challenge of where to put these data centers. Especially for these larger data centers, such as the planned center in Coweta County, one of the largest planned in the state and country — spanning multiple hundreds of football fields.
Where do we have so much land to put these data centers? How are these data centers impacting land? Are landowners selling their land for the data center? Is eminent domain being used by the state and local government to obtain the land? What was the land used for before the data center? Farming? Habitat for wildlife? Forestation?
As we all learned in earth science class, the lack of green space for farming, habitat for wildlife and forestation means carbon dioxide is not being cleaned by the plants to create clean air. Meaning there could be health implications, such as asthma, for these communities because they will not have clean air.
Finally, in terms of economic development, developers typically provide the best-case scenario for their business. Typical talking points discuss jobs and long-term economic benefits in exchange for the business and tax incentives. So communities are paying for the business to come into their community without tangible returns on their investment. What happens if the economic development promises do not occur? What are the consequences of the lack of ROI?
One item we have not fully explored is the impact data centers have on property values. If the data center comes into the community with all of the challenges and homeowners leave, the property value of the area decreases because those who can afford to sell will sell and leave. The consistent movement creates transient communities and lowers property values. Does this increase unaffordable housing — when the amount of land is lessened and people are forced into already crowded spaces? Isn’t this typical supply and demand?
All in all, the existence of data centers can appear to be inevitable.
Perhaps, the concern is not the inevitability. The concern is that data center developers and elected and appointed officials are not listening to and acting on the concerns of the people.
Perhaps, the issue is there are tangible concerns of the people that developers and government officials are not acknowledging. Which means developers and government officials are not working to put in guardrails and community and environmental protections.
Perhaps, the concern is the dismissiveness and inaction of officials to mitigate the noted impact of data centers.
Could there be creative solutions to address the community’s concerns? Could state and local governments impose provisions on these data centers to address community concerns?
To mitigate the strain on the electrical grid, the data centers could have compatible solar panels to lessen the electrical grid constraints.
To mitigate the water usage, there can be a recycle water system.
To mitigate the noise pollution, there can be sound barriers to reduce noise from the data centers.
Could there be other mitigation efforts to address community concerns? Yes. There are other mitigation efforts.
If we collectively have the creativity to develop AI, self-driving cars and smart glasses, we have the ability to develop ways to mitigate harm to communities while advancing technology.
The contention between communities and developers and/or government officials seems to be less about the what and more about the how.
Dismissing community concerns spreads the feeling of government not listening the people as well as amplifying the “evils” of capitalism.
This subject can be a prime example of elected officials listening to concerns and acting early with thoughtful public policy rather than waiting then claiming the cost of retroactively addressing the concerns.
Effective governing and public policy involve learning and anticipating. Lately, we are waiting and complaining then decrying there is nothing we can do.
The creation of this republic reminds us we can do exactly what we want to do as long as we have the will and imagination to make something happen.
As homage to the film “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,”, we are AmeriCANS, not AmeriCANTS.
Tammy R. Greer has a PhD in political science and teaches public policy.
