Democracy turns out not to include a skip option
SAN FRANCISCO, California – America’s technology billionaires are reassessing their commitment to democracy after voters across multiple states supported restrictions on new data centers, creating a crisis for executives accustomed to having their demands approved by government before the public discovers what they’re paying for.
According to Ballotpedia’s election coverage, voters faced 41 local data center measures across ten states on Election Day. Venable’s post-election summary found the results “almost unanimously” against data center development. In Janesville, Wisconsin, voters now get a vote on an $8 billion campus. Several Ohio towns capped facilities at 25 megawatts. Three Maine towns passed moratoriums of 180 days or six months, which in data center terms is roughly the length of a single press release.
Technology executives described the results as an obstacle to progress.
Homeowners described them as property rights.
Data Center Ballot Measures: Billionaires Discover Ordinary Americans Own Land
“We’re constructing the future of intelligence,” declared Silicon Valley executive Chad Cloudworth.
“Our company requires 800 acres, substantial electrical capacity, cooling water and a tax incentive package.”
A rural resident asked what the community would receive.
“Jobs.”
“How many permanent jobs?”
“We’re developing a sophisticated automated facility.”
“So not many?”
Cloudworth explained that the question demonstrated an outdated understanding of economic development.
The resident asked whether the company would therefore be comfortable eliminating its tax incentives.
Cloudworth suffered an unexpected internet connection problem.
The facility’s own application projects 31 permanent jobs on 800 acres, or roughly one employee for every twenty football fields. The temporary construction workforce is described as “robust.” The permanent workforce, according to the same document, will be “primarily thermal.”
Socialists and Silicon Valley Discover Common Ground
Despite publicly disagreeing about economic ideology, progressive politicians and technology corporations have developed an impressive arrangement.
Corporations receive subsidies, tax abatements and infrastructure assistance.
Politicians receive announcements about investment, innovation and jobs.
Taxpayers receive the bill.
A progressive development consultant described the arrangement as a public-private partnership.
A homeowner called it corporate welfare with better PowerPoint slides.
The consultant objected that government must support innovation.
The homeowner asked whether the same government would subsidize his landscaping business.
“Unfortunately, your business doesn’t involve artificial intelligence.”
The homeowner replied that his lawnmower had never requested a $400 million transmission upgrade.
The tax abatement agreement, which a county clerk photocopied for this newspaper, contains a clause on page nineteen under the heading “Community Benefits.” Subsection (a) is the jobs figure. Subsection (b) is “reserved.” Subsection (c) thanks the community for its patience.
Free Markets Mean Paying Your Own Bills
Data centers can create valuable economic activity.
Companies should generally be allowed to purchase land, negotiate commercial electricity contracts and build facilities that meet legitimate safety requirements.
But property rights apply to neighbors as well as developers.
A free market does not mean forcing unrelated households to finance private infrastructure.
Nor does it mean granting government officials unlimited power to block development whenever political fashions change.
A Texas rancher proposed a compromise.
“Let people build what they want on land they own. Make them pay their own costs. Protect everybody else’s property. That’s the whole deal.”
A consultant asked whether the policy required a new Department of Digital Economic Fairness.
“No,” the rancher replied.
“Then how will anybody know we’re helping?”
Democracy Becomes an Unwelcome Technical Problem
Technology companies routinely promise AI will transform government through greater efficiency.
Yet the simplest form of local accountability, asking residents whether they accept a major development, has become an inconvenience. Reporting from Route Fifty and Smart Cities Dive shows how many local governments ended up putting the question directly to voters, which the industry apparently regards as a bug in the operating system.
One executive suggested replacing public hearings with AI-generated summaries of what residents should think.
Another proposed giving developers two votes for every dollar invested.
A third recommended building a computer powerful enough to explain why the community had misunderstood its own ballot results.
The county clerk informed them that the election was already over.
The executives asked whether the results could be rolled back to an earlier software version.
The county board’s minutes from the session, which this newspaper reviewed, record the request in item 6, followed by the board’s response in item 7: “Denied.” Item 8 is the potluck.
Silicon Valley wants artificial intelligence to rule the future. Americans would settle for natural intelligence being allowed to vote on the electric bill.
Five Observations on the Data Center Ballot Revolt
- “Jobs.” How many? “It’s a sophisticated automated facility.” So zero. That’s not a job creation program, that’s a very expensive barn for robots.
- The farmer asks if they’ll give up the tax incentives and the executive’s internet suddenly goes out. First time in history the internet company’s internet went down because a farmer asked an honest question.
- The homeowner says his lawnmower never asked for a four-hundred-million-dollar transmission upgrade. Never. It asks for gas and a Saturday.
- They want to replace public hearings with AI summaries of what you should think. Great. I’ve got a wife who already does that, and she doesn’t need eight hundred acres.
- The county clerk says the election’s over, so the executives ask if they can roll it back to an earlier software version. That’s the first time a billionaire’s tried to Ctrl-Z a democracy.