I find it funny that the same OCGFC, Owners and Controllers of Global Financialized Capital, that brought us the green revolution to save the planet are behind all these methods of generating power for their AI data centers that will actually make things worse, especially when locating them near major cities and residential areas. But I highlight this article as there is a major push to quell resistance to data centers in the conservative media, exposing who is controlled opposition. This rush for AI data centers is really about a digital Panopticon to control populations and foundational for the Mark of the Beast system inbound, and all these big tech megacorps have proven their cooperation with the government by all the data they collect and sell to the government skirting our Fourth Amendment. Further proof is all the companies rolling out AI ALPR cameras with signal intelligence sensors to track all the RF signals from devices, cars, tire pressure sensors… which they created and specified for surveillance. And they overhype the jobs, as modern hardware can be managed remotely with just a few jobs for changing out failing hardware, and the tech megacorps will probably use foreigners they bring in as indentured servants through the H1-B program, and they could very well end up manged by workers in other countries… So for the conservatively minded among us, resisting data centers in their backyard is justified, right, and necessary, so don’t let the lying media persuade you otherwise. And we end up finding out they’re bad actors as well when they do pollute the water (Meta here in Cheyenne), run unclean generators that weren’t permitted… which their bribed government officials try to cover up on their behalf.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/11/the-war-on-data-centers-we-don-t-need-to-fight/
Across the country, data centers are becoming political targets.
By Dave Ball
A data center is coming! Organize the protests. Hire lawyers. Doom and death are upon us! Sound familiar?
Across the country, data centers are becoming political targets. Opposition is growing, litigation and demands for additional regulation are increasing, and calls for construction moratoriums are becoming more numerous.
Overzealous, politically driven reactions have created costly economic mistakes before. Are we about to make another?
Data centers are essential to American commerce, industry, scientific research and national defense. They house AI chat platforms, store information, and manage financial applications. Artificial intelligence promises enormous changes in manufacturing, business process, technology, and international competition. This infrastructure presents opportunities, along with legitimate environmental and community concerns.
Are we examining those opportunities and problems objectively? Or are we proposing to restrict an entire industry without understanding what it might contribute to the American economy? Will a strident “Not in my backyard” mentality smother a better, stronger America?
There already exists a way to evaluate major industrial developments on their individual merits. I propose we use it before considering sweeping bans and additional regulation.
A proposed development in Washington County, Pennsylvania, provides an example.
Prime Data Centers proposes a data-center complex and electrical generating facility at Starpointe Business Park in Hanover Township. Residents have raised concerns about electricity consumption, water use, noise, emissions, and property values. and community impacts.
These concerns deserve examination. Public hearings involving engineers, environmental specialists, and other experts are providing it.
Pennsylvania zoning law offers a mechanism for evaluating such proposals individually: conditional use.
Starpointe is an established industrial park on property previously strip-mined, then reclaimed and prepared for industrial development. Its zoning ordinance contemplates manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and other industrial activities.
The proposal under consideration includes seven data-center buildings totaling approximately 1.8 million square feet and an electrical generating facility. Both require conditional-use approval.
A conditional use is not a prohibited use. It is contemplated by the zoning ordinance, subject to additional review. Following hearings, the township may impose reasonable conditions and safeguards beyond those specified in the ordinance to protect public welfare, consistent with applicable law.
Examine the development, identify problems, and establish reasonable requirements to address them. That is how industrial proposals should be evaluated.
Whose public interest is being protected?
Nearby residents concerned about electric rates, noise, emissions, and property values have legitimate interests. So do workers, taxpayers, property owners, local businesses and the broader community.
Opponents deserve to be heard, but they do not represent the entire public interest. Neither does the developer.
The objective is neither to approve a project because it promises investment nor reject it because opposition is politically attractive. The proposal must satisfy the law, address legitimate concerns and proceed consistent with public welfare. Its potential economic and national contributions also merit consideration in the broader policy debate.
What has the Starpointe examination revealed?
A common criticism of data centers concerns enormous electrical requirements and consequences for utility rates and grid reliability. These concerns are legitimate for facilities drawing substantial power from the commercial grid.
Starpointe is different.
According to hearing testimony, the facility will generate all of its own electricity using natural-gas-fired generators. It will not connect to the PJM electrical grid and therefore would impose no electrical load on the commercial power system.
The generating plant will produce emissions and requires Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approval.
Some data centers consume enormous quantities of water for cooling. Starpointe proposes a closed-loop system with air-cooled chillers. Water is needed for the initial fill, but continuing consumption is expected to be primarily for employee sanitary use.
Noise deserves attention. The applicant’s acoustical engineer projects approximately 40 to 43 decibels at the nearest residences, below the township’s residential limit. These are predictions, not operating measurements. Subsequent testing and enforcement will be important.
Abandoned wells, subsurface conditions, and stormwater management are also being evaluated. Additional permits remain necessary.
Have all the questions been answered? No. But the hearings are helping distinguish actual problems from generalized fears.
Construction would provide employment over several years. Testimony projects several hundred permanent jobs, many involving skilled technical, electrical, mechanical, and computer-related work. These generally well-paid occupations could support other local businesses.
The operator will build and maintain interior roads, limiting municipal infrastructure obligations. Property taxes and taxes generated by employment could provide continuing revenue, although amounts remain uncertain and may be affected by abatements.
These are potential benefits, not guaranteed results. They deserve scrutiny, just as environmental concerns do.
What is the alternative?
The property is already designated for industrial development. Manufacturing, distribution, and transportation operations could locate there, each with employment, traffic, and environmental consequences.
No competing development has been identified, nor is there reason to assume an alternative would necessarily produce greater benefits or fewer problems.
Political decisions are not always driven by a project’s merits. Opposition may be politically attractive, although any benefit may be uncertain and short-lived. Economic consequences can last much longer.
Unreasonable environmental requirements, lengthy permitting, regulatory uncertainty and litigation increase industrial development costs. Faced with uncertainty or a hostile business environment, companies sometimes invest elsewhere, including overseas, taking jobs, payrolls and tax revenues with them. Regulation matters.
Reasonable environmental protection is essential. The question is whether regulations accomplish their intended purpose at a reasonable cost or are feel-good political statements.
There is considerable irony here.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has made faster permitting part of his economic development program. Senators Dave McCormick and John Fetterman have supported reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles. So has Congressman Guy Reschenthaler.
Politicians of both parties regularly announce billions in investment and thousands of jobs they claim to have attracted.
How can government encourage investment while adopting policies that make it increasingly difficult?
Businesses can invest in Pennsylvania, another state, or another country. How much investment never occurs because of regulatory uncertainty? How many jobs are never created? Those figures do not appear in economic development announcements.
Artificial intelligence and advanced computing are increasingly important to industrial competitiveness, research, and national security. Other countries are investing aggressively. We cannot ignore those interests whenever opposition becomes politically fashionable.
At Starpointe, residents have raised concerns, experts have presented evidence, and potential hazards are being evaluated. The township must determine whether the application satisfies the ordinance and applicable law. It may approve the proposal, impose additional conditions, or deny it if legal requirements are not met.
Government should establish reasonable environmental and safety standards, protect the public, and enforce compliance. It should also encourage investment that satisfies those requirements.
Sweeping, unsubstantiated restrictions on data centers threaten to replace examination of individual projects with assumptions about an entire industry, discouraging investment without corresponding public benefits.
We already have a mechanism for making these decisions. At Starpointe, it is called conditional use. It does not guarantee approval, nor should it. But it offers something increasingly absent from the political debate: decisions based on evidence rather than emotion.
Before we invent new restrictions on what America can build, perhaps we ought to make better use of the process we already have.
Dave Ball is a retired engineer, international business executive, elected public official, and political strategist who writes on politics, technology, and regional issues.