Last week in Hamilton, Ontario, there was a city vote about a proposal for an AI data centre to be built. Against the backdrop of hundreds of people attending the meeting as on lockers and saying NO, the proposal was voted down. If they are built anywhere, these data centres need to pay 100% of water, electricity use and pay for the infrastructure for them, and pay full property taxes and make a financial contribution to the city/community they are locating in. They add nothing in the way of jobs or prosperity.
Interesting, Mary... and that Hamilton vote says something important...
communities are starting to demand a seat at the table.
I think many people would agree with your basic principle...
if a project consumes massive amounts of power, water, and infrastructure, the public shouldn’t be subsidizing it indirectly.
“Growth at any cost” gets a lot less popular when locals are left paying higher bills or absorbing the strain.
The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit from having these projects in their backyard.
Right now, a lot of people clearly feel the scales are tilted too far in one direction.
Fred, I didn't realize that the pushback was so extensive. This makes me modestly positive. This article makes it seem as though the real people actually may have a way to fight back against the oligarch class steamrolling their power over their lives. It is high time that this group of robber baron carpet baggers pays for their pillaging. That means that every dime of infrastructure be paid for by the developers, protecting the environment a non-negotiable prerequisite before a project can start, and that every single person affected in the region be compensated through royalties. There should also be ironclad legal agreements that will make it impossible for the AI companies to walk away scot free once they are done with the facilities.
I think what surprised me too was realizing the pushback is no longer isolated...
communities are organizing, showing up, and saying “not without conditions.”
And honestly, your point about accountability matters.
If projects move forward, many people would argue they should come with clear obligations...
infrastructure paid for, environmental safeguards upfront, cleanup responsibilities locked in, and communities sharing in the benefits rather than just absorbing the costs.
The old model of “trust us, it’ll be good for you” is clearly wearing thin.
I don't want them running on fossil fuels. Renewables only. And closed-loop grey water cooling. No sucking up all the fresh water that we need for the land and everything it sustains. Don't know how to make either of those demands work? Figure it out,**before** you build.
Last week in Hamilton, Ontario, there was a city vote about a proposal for an AI data centre to be built. Against the backdrop of hundreds of people attending the meeting as on lockers and saying NO, the proposal was voted down. If they are built anywhere, these data centres need to pay 100% of water, electricity use and pay for the infrastructure for them, and pay full property taxes and make a financial contribution to the city/community they are locating in. They add nothing in the way of jobs or prosperity.
Interesting, Mary... and that Hamilton vote says something important...
communities are starting to demand a seat at the table.
I think many people would agree with your basic principle...
if a project consumes massive amounts of power, water, and infrastructure, the public shouldn’t be subsidizing it indirectly.
“Growth at any cost” gets a lot less popular when locals are left paying higher bills or absorbing the strain.
The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit from having these projects in their backyard.
Right now, a lot of people clearly feel the scales are tilted too far in one direction.
Fucking awesome Fred!! Thank you. Clear, honest and succinct! What could be better?! 🇨🇦
Thank you, Patricia 😄
That means a lot.
I’m trying hard to cut through the noise, ask the uncomfortable questions, and keep things understandable without the political tap dancing.
Sometimes the biggest question is the simplest one...
Who benefits… and who pays?
Glad this one landed for you. 🙏
Fred, I didn't realize that the pushback was so extensive. This makes me modestly positive. This article makes it seem as though the real people actually may have a way to fight back against the oligarch class steamrolling their power over their lives. It is high time that this group of robber baron carpet baggers pays for their pillaging. That means that every dime of infrastructure be paid for by the developers, protecting the environment a non-negotiable prerequisite before a project can start, and that every single person affected in the region be compensated through royalties. There should also be ironclad legal agreements that will make it impossible for the AI companies to walk away scot free once they are done with the facilities.
You may be right, Frank.
I think what surprised me too was realizing the pushback is no longer isolated...
communities are organizing, showing up, and saying “not without conditions.”
And honestly, your point about accountability matters.
If projects move forward, many people would argue they should come with clear obligations...
infrastructure paid for, environmental safeguards upfront, cleanup responsibilities locked in, and communities sharing in the benefits rather than just absorbing the costs.
The old model of “trust us, it’ll be good for you” is clearly wearing thin.
People want terms... not promises.
I don't want them running on fossil fuels. Renewables only. And closed-loop grey water cooling. No sucking up all the fresh water that we need for the land and everything it sustains. Don't know how to make either of those demands work? Figure it out,**before** you build.
Thanks Fred, another informative post :)