Clayco/CRG's Bold Response to Data Center Concerns
Clayco/CRG addresses the data center debate in Festus, shaping the future of local infrastructure. #DataCenters #Infrastructure
The debate over whether to plant a major data center in Festus, Missouri, isn't just a local zoning dispute; it's a preview of a conversation happening in small and mid-sized communities across the country. How developers respond may determine whether the next wave of digital infrastructure gets built in the places that need economic investment most.
Clayco and its real estate development arm, CRG, are at the center of this one. Their response to community pushback tells us something important about how the industry is — or isn't — learning to communicate with the people who will live next to these facilities.
Understanding the Data Center Debate in Festus
Festus sits in Jefferson County, roughly 30 miles south of St. Louis. It's not a major metro area; it's the kind of community where a large industrial project lands differently than it would in, say, Northern Virginia's data center corridor — where residents have spent two decades watching server farms consume land, water, and power with varying degrees of local benefit.
The proposal to bring a data center to Festus triggered the kind of friction that's become increasingly common as hyperscale and large-scale colocation development pushes into new geographies. When digital infrastructure meets communities that have never hosted it before, the information gap between developer and resident can be enormous — and that gap breeds mistrust.
The key players here are Clayco, one of the country's largest design-build firms with a track record of delivering major commercial and industrial projects, and CRG, their real estate development entity that identifies and structures these deals before Clayco builds them. Together, they represent a fully integrated development-to-construction pipeline — which is part of why they can move fast on projects like this.
That speed, however well-intentioned from a business standpoint, can feel like a steamroller to a community that hasn't had time to process what's actually being proposed.
Clayco/CRG's Position
Facing public scrutiny, Clayco/CRG stepped forward to address concerns directly — a move that's notable in itself. Many data center developers operate behind holding companies or site acquisition intermediaries, keeping the true end user anonymous until entitlements are secured. The fact that Clayco/CRG engaged publicly suggests either a strategic decision to get ahead of opposition, a genuine commitment to community transparency, or both.
Their core argument follows the familiar economic development playbook: jobs, tax revenue, infrastructure investment. Data centers do generate these things — though the job numbers are often misunderstood. A 100-megawatt campus might employ only 30 to 50 full-time workers once operational, even though it creates hundreds of construction jobs during the build phase. The distinction between construction employment and permanent employment matters enormously for communities evaluating long-term benefits — and developers who blur that line lose credibility fast.
Clayco/CRG's responses to local concerns appear aimed at reframing the project as an infrastructure asset rather than an industrial intrusion. That's a reasonable position, but it requires more than talking points to land effectively with a skeptical audience.
What the Community Is Actually Worried About
Residents and local officials in Festus raised concerns that echo what we hear in data center debates from Texas to Ohio to the Carolinas. The issues cluster around a few consistent themes.
Power draw is usually first. A large data center can consume as much electricity as a small city. For communities served by regional utilities that are already managing capacity constraints, adding a massive new load raises legitimate questions about reliability and rate impacts for existing customers.
Water consumption follows closely. Cooling systems for large data centers — particularly evaporative cooling towers — can use millions of gallons annually. In communities where water infrastructure is aging or drought risk is growing, that's not an abstract concern.
Then there's the question of what the community actually gets back. Property tax arrangements, particularly when developers pursue tax abatements or incentive packages, can significantly reduce the fiscal benefit to school districts and local governments — sometimes for 10 to 15 years.
None of these concerns are irrational. They're exactly what a community should be asking. The data center industry's credibility problem isn't that these questions get asked — it's that for years, too many developers answered them poorly, incompletely, or not at all.
The Broader Pattern — and What Festus Reveals
Here's the non-obvious angle worth considering: Festus is actually a reasonable location for data center development by several technical criteria. Missouri's central geography offers network latency advantages. The region has cooler temperatures than Sun Belt markets, reducing cooling load. Land costs are a fraction of established corridors.
The communities that win data center investment over the long term won't necessarily be the ones with the best power rates — they'll be the ones that build reputations for predictable, constructive engagement with developers.
That cuts both ways. Developers who treat community engagement as a box to check will keep running into organized opposition. Communities that reflexively block digital infrastructure without engaging substantively will watch those tax dollars and construction contracts go to the next county.
What Clayco/CRG is navigating in Festus is a negotiation — not just with local government, but with public trust. That's harder to build than a data center, and it takes longer.
Infrastructure Development at the Local Level
The Festus situation also highlights something the industry often underestimates: the role of local infrastructure readiness. Data centers require substantial electrical substation upgrades, fiber connectivity, water service capacity, and road access for construction and ongoing operations. In established markets, much of this exists. In emerging markets like Jefferson County, it often doesn't — which means the developer's capital investment extends well beyond the building itself.
This is where integrated firms like Clayco/CRG potentially have an edge. Their ability to manage design, construction, and development under one roof means they can assess and address infrastructure gaps more efficiently than a developer who has to coordinate multiple separate contractors. Whether that efficiency translates into a better deal for Festus depends on how the negotiations ultimately unfold.
What Comes Next
The Festus data center debate isn't resolved, and its outcome will matter beyond Jefferson County. If Clayco/CRG successfully navigates community concerns and the project moves forward, it establishes a template for how integrated developers can bring this asset class into new markets. If the project stalls or fails, it will add to a growing case file that the industry uses to understand where community opposition becomes prohibitive.
For infrastructure investors and developers watching from the outside, the practical takeaway is straightforward: projects that invest early in genuine community education — not just public relations — move through entitlements faster and face less litigation risk downstream.
That means showing up before the opposition organizes. It means publishing actual operational data on power consumption, water use, and employment. It means engaging local utilities, school boards, and emergency services as partners rather than informing them after the fact.
The data center industry is still learning how to operate at the community level. Festus is one more classroom. How well Clayco/CRG learns the lesson here will say a lot about whether firms of their scale are ready to lead that education — or still waiting to be dragged into it.
Explore more about InfraSale Marketplace