Most debates over data center projects in American communities follow the same script.
Opposition groups identify what residents fear losing — open space, quiet, local character, trust in government and large corporations. They frame the project as a threat. They show up early, speak loudly, and pressure elected officials before the public conversation has a chance to become fully informed.
It works. And it’s working at a scale that should concern anyone who cares about how communities make decisions that shape their economic future for decades.
The psychology behind it isn’t complicated. Kahneman and Tversky’s foundational work on prospect theory established that people respond more powerfully to the fear of loss than to the prospect of equivalent gain. Opposition groups understand this instinctively. They rarely lead with opportunity. They lead with loss — and by the time a project reaches a public hearing, fear has usually framed the entire conversation.
What’s missing from that conversation is the other side of the ledger.
The question communities aren’t asking
When a proposed data center project is rejected or withdrawn, local officials and residents typically experience it as a victory — a threat avoided, a community character preserved.
But something leaves too.
Potential tax revenue. Construction employment. Utility infrastructure upgrades that the community needed before the project was ever proposed. Supplier contracts and local spending. Emergency services revenue tied to the tax base. Workforce development opportunities. A chance to negotiate binding commitments on water, noise, environmental standards, and local hiring — on the community’s terms, before ground is ever broken.
Brookings has made the point directly: local governments need the capacity to negotiate with developers, establish priorities, and secure commitments that match long-term community goals. That negotiating position only exists when a project is still on the table. Once it moves to the next jurisdiction, the leverage goes with it.
The fear of missing out is real. But communities rarely apply it to infrastructure decisions the way they apply it to economic recruitment generally.
The Gallup problem
A recent Gallup survey found that 71 percent of Americans oppose data centers in their local area. That number deserves serious attention — not as a political obstacle to be managed, but as a signal that the public debate around digital infrastructure is badly incomplete.
Communities are forming strong opinions about facilities they largely don’t see, don’t fully understand, and haven’t had a genuine opportunity to evaluate on the merits. Opposition groups have become effective at filling that information vacuum with fear. The result is that many communities are making consequential, long-term economic decisions based on an incomplete picture of what they’re actually deciding.
That’s not how good local governance works.
What a complete debate looks like
Communities are right to ask hard questions about infrastructure projects. They should demand specifics on water use, grid impact, noise levels, traffic, environmental standards, and the real fiscal picture — including any tax abatements and what the net benefit actually looks like over time. Elected officials who accept vague assurances instead of enforceable commitments are failing the people they represent.
But a complete debate asks both sets of questions.
What are the genuine risks and impacts of this project? And what does the community stand to lose if it doesn’t happen here?
What would additional tax revenue mean for local schools and public services? What would upgraded grid and utility infrastructure mean for future economic recruitment? What would it mean for young residents looking for technical careers without leaving home? What would it mean for a community to help shape where AI infrastructure gets built — and on what terms — rather than reading about it happening somewhere else?
Those aren’t developer talking points. They’re the questions a community that takes its own economic future seriously should be asking alongside the questions about risk.
The role of local leadership
Too many elected officials approach major infrastructure decisions as political landmines. They wait for opposition to define the narrative, then retreat into procedural language and process. By the time a public hearing arrives, the project has already been framed almost entirely as a threat.
Leadership requires something more than that.
A more grounded response sounds like: “We have serious questions, and we expect serious answers. But we are not going to let fear alone determine the economic direction of this community.”
The same applies to chambers of commerce, labor organizations, school boards, economic development groups, and civic institutions. When only opponents engage publicly, opposition becomes the default public face of the debate. Silence from community stakeholders who support balanced, fact-based evaluation isn’t neutrality — it has consequences.
The real debate
The goal isn’t blind approval of every proposed infrastructure project. Communities should be rigorous, skeptical, and demanding. Bad projects shouldn’t be rescued by better messaging.
But the community that approaches a major infrastructure decision with only one question — what could go wrong? — isn’t making a fully informed choice. It’s making a fear-driven one.
The infrastructure decisions communities make today will shape their economic position for a generation. The communities that ask both questions — about risk and about opportunity — and that demand real answers to both, are the ones most likely to make decisions they can stand behind.
Fear of loss is a legitimate starting point for a community conversation. It shouldn’t be the ending point.
Critical Infrastructure of America is an independent 501(c)(4) social welfare organization advancing infrastructure policy, public education, and community engagement across the United States.
Sources
