Data center construction is an essential part of both the AI build-out and all that we do online. A lack of data centers available to provide the capacity to support all digital tools could evolve into an economic threat: If the U.S. cannot keep pace with competitors in AI technologies, we may quickly surrender our global and economic leadership. However, the country has a data center problem.
Local communities continue to raise concerns that planned data centers may not be good neighbors. Americans are concerned about future inordinate water use, pollution, noise, unfair tax treatment and the impact to the power supply on an already-stressed electrical grid. These concerns over the local environment and well-being are real and must be addressed if data centers are to grow at pace with market demand. Data center operators need to talk proactively about their approach to building responsibly, and address community concerns without relying on local government bureaucracy as a buffer.
Local governments charged with permitting, zoning and the like seem to trend toward not addressing community questions and concerns, some of which arise from real-life data center missteps. Friends in the legal community cite pollution and noise concerns over Elon Musk’s xAI Memphis Colossus Data Center, arising from its many methane gas generators. There are also strong indications that some concerns about these data centers mimic foreign propaganda meant to erode the American economic edge. Unaddressed community worries frequently crystallize into skepticism and resentment, which then manifests as outright community opposition.
The incentive for local leaders not to participate in the debate is high. Engaging with those who question desirability of future data centers may, in those leaders’ analysis, hurt the local economic development strategy and negatively impact potential tax revenue. However, many counties nationwide face a perfect storm of financial distress: federal and state funding cuts, service shifts to already stressed local governments and inflation driving up the cost of basic services. Meanwhile, these same communities face stagnating or declining populations. Thus, local leadership may conclude that without a new data center’s additional tax revenue, residents could be paying more in taxes and suffer service cuts.
Independence City Council members ousted
Missouri is the Show-Me State. Given our well-earned reputation of demanding facts, our people will become increasingly frustrated at local governments that do not meaningfully respond to community concerns. In the state’s April 2026 elections, politicians ran and won on anti-data center platforms. Just outside St. Louis in Festus, every incumbent City Council member was voted out in favor of pro-transparency, anti-data center candidates. On the Kansas City side of the state, Independence voters ousted council members who voted for $6 billion in tax breaks for data centers. In both cases, media stated that a lack of transparency into data center decisions was a major factor in election outcomes.
This is yet another reason that failure to engage with the public is a major mistake. Although Big Tech may wish to let local government buffer bad press, this short-sighted strategy has already backfired, creating communities and local governments with anti-data center bias and causing future problems for those data center operators who are motivated to be good neighbors.
This battle over data centers is largely playing out locally with the private sector, but Silicon Valley could learn from the federal government experience. In its major projects, the federal government not only conducts public outreach, but it also responds to both written and oral public commentary. In doing so, confusion or concerns over aspects of the federal projects are addressed head-on, and open dialogue might clarify points otherwise obscured. While not a perfect system, it has to date proven vastly superior in comparison to the projects in which proponents fail to engage meaningfully.
There may be good responses to community concerns, such as the White House’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge to protect power supply and costs. Communities should be informed about what data center planners have learned from previous mistakes. They should also be informed whether there are engineering solutions available to effectively address water pollution, excessive electricity consumption and noise abatement. And the public should be fully informed as to the tax revenue benefits of any proposed data center, as well as the logic behind any requests for preferential tax treatment. Direct tech industry participation in community outreach could also highlight what issues are most important to the local population and perhaps identify challenges before they become real issues, either on the ground or at the ballot box.
Without having a knowledgeable entity engaging with the public, people are left to trust (or distrust) their local politicians, who either are disinterested, not knowledgeable, or afraid to come to grips with the impetus behind the public’s concerns. Big Tech should not continue to rely solely upon underfunded, non-expert local governments to present their data center story when it can engage directly with the community. At the end of the day, there is no substitute for data center developers to directly engage with local communities, as good neighbors should do.
Mary Anne Zivnuska is a resident of Leslie, Missouri, and practicing attorney with the Sander Group law firm. The views expressed above are solely those of the author.
© 2026 The Kansas City Star. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
