Hi CleverBeast. I'm from Kentucky and have been based in New Jersey for three years. What exactly does living on the East Coast have to do with the piece here? We have data centers being built here and are struggling with these same issues, as seen in Andover.
What does living on the East Coast have to do with why you frame the very ordinary back-and-forth between industry and residents as some sort of Manichean struggle?
Good question. I wish I knew why the East Coast intelligentsia insisted on framing their neo-ludditry NIMBYism as the pinnacle of democracy.
I'm not arguing for or against AI or data centers, only for democratic process and transparency.
NDAs binding elected officials to silence before residents know what's planned and contracts structured to financially ruin communities if they vote to back out are corrosive to local democratic process.
> contracts structured to financially ruin communities if they vote to back out
The other way to frame this is that without such tools, these communities will never have the opportunity to benefit from massive investments. It’s reasonable for companies with strict time horizons to make their investment contingent on a real commitment.
Similarly, there is nothing inherently more “democratic” about NIMBY organizing tactics undermining the deals made with a democratically-elected mayor. The kind of people who have the time and energy to campaign against data centers are not that mayor’s average constituent, but you’re more or less blindly taking their side.
Liberal democracy is not supposed to entail total “community” control over every economic matter. The early Puritan settlements of this country were like that, as are many contemporary Amish and Mennonite communities.
The defining features of such a society are a stable cultural conservatism and an economy which consistently benefits the landed elite over the median worker.
Zoning authority, which is what this fight is actually about, has been a core feature of local governance in America since the 1920s and was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1926.
Sure, I'll agree with you that community veto power over all economic activity isn't realistic, but that's not really the issue here.
The issue is about zoning authority, officials who sign NDAs, and economic pressure applied by Big Tech in California over a small town in Ohio.
The question posed is whether state legislatures should strip local communities of the rights and specific zoning tools they've had for a century in response to corporate lobbying.
> economic pressure applied by Big Tech in California over a small town in Ohio
…not exactly the strongest defense against an anti-West Coast bias.
> The question posed whether state legislatures should strip local communities of the rights and specific zoning tools they've had for a century in response to corporate lobbying.
The vetocracy you’re defending here is not merely the result of zoning, nor is your bizarre implicit assumption that zoning is good and democratic because it dates back to the Jim Crow era very coherent.
Your writing portrays a simplistic worldview in which “democracy” is pitted against “big tech.” I think that is parochial, elitist, and anti-intellectual, and Persuasion owes it to its readers to present arguments that appeal to people beyond latte-socialist Brooklyn yuppies and and well-to-do Boomer luddites.
> Now based in the New York City area, he writes on artificial intelligence, democratic governance, and the political economy of Big Tech
It really is always the East Coast journalists who write inane and poorly sourced articles about Big Tech.
Hi CleverBeast. I'm from Kentucky and have been based in New Jersey for three years. What exactly does living on the East Coast have to do with the piece here? We have data centers being built here and are struggling with these same issues, as seen in Andover.
What does living on the East Coast have to do with why you frame the very ordinary back-and-forth between industry and residents as some sort of Manichean struggle?
Good question. I wish I knew why the East Coast intelligentsia insisted on framing their neo-ludditry NIMBYism as the pinnacle of democracy.
I'm not arguing for or against AI or data centers, only for democratic process and transparency.
NDAs binding elected officials to silence before residents know what's planned and contracts structured to financially ruin communities if they vote to back out are corrosive to local democratic process.
> contracts structured to financially ruin communities if they vote to back out
The other way to frame this is that without such tools, these communities will never have the opportunity to benefit from massive investments. It’s reasonable for companies with strict time horizons to make their investment contingent on a real commitment.
Similarly, there is nothing inherently more “democratic” about NIMBY organizing tactics undermining the deals made with a democratically-elected mayor. The kind of people who have the time and energy to campaign against data centers are not that mayor’s average constituent, but you’re more or less blindly taking their side.
Liberal democracy is not supposed to entail total “community” control over every economic matter. The early Puritan settlements of this country were like that, as are many contemporary Amish and Mennonite communities.
The defining features of such a society are a stable cultural conservatism and an economy which consistently benefits the landed elite over the median worker.
Zoning authority, which is what this fight is actually about, has been a core feature of local governance in America since the 1920s and was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1926.
Sure, I'll agree with you that community veto power over all economic activity isn't realistic, but that's not really the issue here.
The issue is about zoning authority, officials who sign NDAs, and economic pressure applied by Big Tech in California over a small town in Ohio.
The question posed is whether state legislatures should strip local communities of the rights and specific zoning tools they've had for a century in response to corporate lobbying.
> economic pressure applied by Big Tech in California over a small town in Ohio
…not exactly the strongest defense against an anti-West Coast bias.
> The question posed whether state legislatures should strip local communities of the rights and specific zoning tools they've had for a century in response to corporate lobbying.
The vetocracy you’re defending here is not merely the result of zoning, nor is your bizarre implicit assumption that zoning is good and democratic because it dates back to the Jim Crow era very coherent.
Your writing portrays a simplistic worldview in which “democracy” is pitted against “big tech.” I think that is parochial, elitist, and anti-intellectual, and Persuasion owes it to its readers to present arguments that appeal to people beyond latte-socialist Brooklyn yuppies and and well-to-do Boomer luddites.