Does Building Data Centers Threaten Our Society?

When Senator Bernie Sanders claims that building a data center "kills jobs, equality, connection, democracy, and maybe the human race," most people in the infrastructure industry roll their eyes. Another politician grandstanding about technology. But dismissing that framing too quickly might cause you to miss the legitimate tension underneath it — one that developers, investors, and municipal planners are already navigating on the ground.

Data centers are, by most measures, a triumph of modern infrastructure. They are the physical backbone of everything from cloud computing to AI model training, financial transactions to telemedicine. The global data center market is projected to exceed $500 billion by 2030. Hyperscalers like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google are signing land deals and power purchase agreements at a pace that would have seemed impossible five years ago. Northern Virginia alone hosts more data center capacity than any other market on earth — roughly 35% of the world's internet traffic flows through Loudoun County.

That's staggering scale. And scale always has consequences.

The Societal Costs Nobody Puts in the Press Release

Here's the uncomfortable truth about the impact of data center development: these facilities create enormous economic value for a very small number of people.

A hyperscale data center might represent a $1 billion capital investment. It might employ 30 to 50 people once it's operational. Compare that to a manufacturing plant of similar footprint, which might employ 500 to 2,000 workers. The math on local job creation is brutal — data centers are capital-intensive, not labor-intensive, and that distinction reshapes communities in ways that don't show up in ribbon-cutting announcements.

The development phase does generate construction jobs — electricians, ironworkers, concrete crews. But those workers move on when the build is done. What remains is a fortified, restricted facility that locals can see but cannot access, interact with, or benefit from in any direct way. Property tax revenue flows in, yes, but that revenue rarely compensates for what gets displaced: agricultural land, small businesses, residential neighborhoods, and water resources.

Water is worth pausing on. A single large data center can consume millions of gallons annually for cooling. In drought-stressed regions of the American West, that's not an abstraction. It's a direct conflict between a trillion-dollar industry's infrastructure needs and the irrigation requirements of farming communities that have operated for generations.

Data Centers, Power, and the Democratic Deficit

The democracy argument sounds hyperbolic until you look at how these projects actually get approved.

Large data center campuses often sidestep the normal zoning and public comment processes through economic development fast-tracks. State legislators, eager for tax revenue and the political optics of landing a major tech investment, create special carve-outs. Local officials sign non-disclosure agreements with developers before community meetings even happen. Residents find out a 200-acre campus is coming to their township around the same time the bulldozers do.

When the economic stakes are high enough, democratic deliberation tends to get treated as an obstacle rather than a process.

This isn't speculative. Loudoun County, Virginia, has faced years of community conflict over data center sprawl. Residents near proposed facilities have repeatedly cited a lack of meaningful input. In rural Georgia and the Carolinas, agricultural communities have pushed back on land acquisition deals they claim were structured to minimize scrutiny. The economic implications of data centers aren't just financial — they reshape who has political leverage in a given region, and that power rarely flows toward existing residents.

There's also the energy dimension. A large AI training cluster can draw 100 megawatts or more — roughly the output of a small power plant, dedicated to a single private facility. Utilities are being asked to prioritize interconnection for these projects, which can delay renewable energy projects serving residential and commercial customers. In some markets, data center demand is actively straining grid capacity and pushing electricity prices upward for everyone else. That's a regressive economic outcome dressed up in the language of technological progress.

What This Means for Infrastructure Developers and Investors

If you're in the business of developing or financing infrastructure — whether that's land acquisition, power infrastructure, or adjacent development — the data center boom is impossible to ignore. The opportunity is real. So is the exposure.

Communities that feel steamrolled don't stay quiet, and the regulatory environment tends to follow public sentiment with a lag of two to four years.

We're already seeing early signals. Virginia enacted legislation in 2023 requiring more rigorous environmental review for data center projects. Some counties have implemented moratoriums while they update zoning codes. Maryland's legislature debated — and nearly passed — significant restrictions on large-scale data center development near sensitive watersheds. These aren't isolated incidents. They reflect a pattern of communities and state governments reaching for policy tools to reassert some control over development they feel has outpaced their capacity to manage it.

For developers, this means the cost of community relations isn't optional anymore. Projects that lack genuine stakeholder engagement — not the pro forma public meeting, but real dialogue with measurable concessions — are increasingly vulnerable to delays, litigation, and legislative intervention. A nine-month permitting delay on an $800 million project isn't just an annoyance. At carrying costs on that capital, it can eliminate the margin that made the project viable in the first place.

Investors should be pricing political and regulatory risk into data center deals the same way they price power and construction risk. Many aren't. That's a gap the market will eventually close, likely in the aftermath of a high-profile project failure.

The Policy Conversation Worth Having

Sanders' call for Congress to act is, characteristically, more useful as a signal than a blueprint. Federal legislation targeting data center development specifically would be complex, politically contentious, and potentially counterproductive if it creates a patchwork of conflicting rules that developers route around anyway.

But there are targeted interventions that would meaningfully address the legitimate concerns without choking off development.

Mandatory community benefit agreements for projects above a certain size threshold — say, facilities drawing more than 50 megawatts from the grid — would create a structured mechanism for local economic benefit without requiring case-by-case political battles. These agreements, common in large real estate developments, could require local hiring commitments, contributions to workforce retraining programs, and water offset requirements.

Grid interconnection reform is probably the highest-leverage federal intervention available. The current queue process, managed by FERC and individual RTOs, is chaotic and increasingly dominated by large commercial customers with the resources to navigate it. Reforming queue priority rules to account for community benefit and grid stability — not just raw project size — would reduce the regressive energy pricing dynamic without restricting data center development directly.

Disclosure requirements for water usage and grid impact, tied to federal permitting or tax incentives, would at minimum give communities the information they need to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them. Right now, many don't even know what they're agreeing to.

Where This Goes From Here

The data center construction wave isn't slowing down. AI compute demand alone is creating a step-change in facility size and power requirements that the industry is still scrambling to accommodate. The developers who will do well in this environment over the next decade aren't just the ones with the best site control or the lowest cost of capital — they're the ones who figure out how to build projects that communities can live with.

That's not idealism. It's risk management.

The infrastructure developers and investors reading this have an opportunity that's genuinely underappreciated: projects that proactively address water impact, support local workforce development, and engage authentically with community concerns will face faster permitting, less litigation, and more favorable regulatory treatment as the policy environment tightens. The cost of doing it right upfront is a fraction of the cost of doing it over.

Sanders may have overstated the apocalyptic stakes. But the underlying pressure he's responding to is real, and the industry would be wise to stop treating it as a political problem and start treating it as a design problem.

Explore the InfraSale Marketplace for innovative solutions in infrastructure development.

[INTERNAL LINK: data center development]

[INTERNAL LINK: community engagement strategies]

[INTERNAL LINK: infrastructure investment risks]