Data centres are not doomed to be hated

There is one figure from the US elections that should concern those who believe in innovation: in forty of the forty-one local referendums on data centres held on 3 November, voters chose to restrict or reject their development, according to Ballotpedia. Warehouses full of servers have become political targets in both Republican and Democratic states. They did not single-handedly determine Trump’s defeat: the cost of living and other factors weighed more heavily. But they provided candidates with an effective line of argument: why accept a facility that consumes electricity and water if we are the ones who end up paying higher bills? It is not unreasonable to ask this question. It is unreasonable to respond by saying that citizens are enemies of modernity.

There is, however, another America – and a part of Europe – where data centres have become investments with which to forge a partnership. There is no shortage of protests and environmental issues, but these places demonstrate a third way between unconditional approval and ideological opposition. A lesson that Italy could also learn from. In Quincy, in the state of Washington – a farming town of 8,500 inhabitants – Microsoft and other operators have been building data centres for almost twenty years. According to local estimates, these operations provide around three-quarters of the council’s property tax revenue. Quincy has improved its schools, hospital, fire station and services, and the local property tax rate has fallen compared with the past. To tackle the water issue, Microsoft has contributed to a system for treating and reusing the water used for cooling, without continuing to draw on drinking water supplies. This is not an abstract promise: these are tangible benefits.

Not even Quincy is a paradise: some fear unsustainable demand for electricity. But that model has inspired a strategy at Microsoft. In January, the company promised to cover the additional costs of electricity and networks without passing them on to households, as well as limiting water use, contributing to the tax revenue and training workers. Promises yet to be verified. President Brad Smith explained that infrastructure only progresses when a community deems the benefits to outweigh the costs. This is more useful than a hundred advertising campaigns on AI. In Finland, the approach is more intuitive. In Mäntsälä, the Nebius data centre recovers heat from its servers and feeds it into the town’s district heating system. In 2025, it supplied 19.5 gigawatt-hours of recovered heat to the network, helping, according to the company, to reduce local heating costs by around ten per cent. There’s no need for a conference on the wonders of algorithms: all it takes is a lower energy bill. The server also becomes a source of heat that would otherwise be wasted.

In Hamina, Google has chosen a former paper mill. The city reports an investment of 3.5 billion euros, around 500 jobs and millions paid annually in property tax. The heat from the servers is supplied free of charge to the city’s district heating network, with a system designed to meet up to 80 per cent of local district heating demand. In September, the local council signed an agreement with Google regarding land for potential expansion: a long-term industrial partnership. In Odense, Denmark, heat recovered from Meta’s data centre helps to heat thousands of homes. Heat recovery does not eliminate electricity consumption, but it returns at least part of it to the city. The most interesting aspect concerns the regulations. In St. Louis, Missouri, in April the city council authorised a data centre subject to binding conditions: a closed-loop system to save water, noise limits, rules on generators, at least fifty per cent renewable energy within five years, environmental monitoring and the possibility of revoking the permit if breaches are not rectified. The project remains controversial, and there is no point in hiding that. But Mayor Cara Spencer has upheld a principle: the city is open for business, yes, “but on our terms”. From reassurances to restrictions.

In Lancaster, Pennsylvania, an agreement with an operator sets a daily cap on water consumption, noise regulations and commitments to clean energy. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, tax incentives were negotiated alongside recruitment obligations, minimum wages and multi-year contributions to the community. In Henrico County, Virginia, sixty million dollars of revenue from data centres has been allocated to a fund to make home ownership more affordable. The word ‘development’ ceases to be a slogan and becomes a home, a school, one less expense. A practical guide, therefore, does exist. The right site is chosen: industrial estates, derelict buildings, places where electricity and water networks can be upgraded without inconveniencing residents. The figures are published: megawatts, water consumption, noise levels, permanent jobs, the costs of new infrastructure and who will pay for them. Contracts ensure that energy costs do not end up on households’ bills. And a return for the community is agreed: district heating, where possible, schools, training, services and housing funds. Independent monitoring, penalties and guarantees for decommissioning are required.

There is also a crucial political rule: consult with a city before making decisions on its behalf. Confidential agreements, fast-track approvals and announcements of billion-euro investments are often the surest way to spark protest. And it is pointless to promise thousands of permanent jobs when, once construction is complete, many data centres employ relatively few people. It is better to acknowledge this and negotiate real benefits than to peddle illusory employment. The mid-term elections have shown just how quickly a necessary piece of infrastructure can become a symbol of privilege: profits for the few, costs for everyone. The cities that have struck a balance point the way forward. Do not ask citizens to love data centres simply because they love technology. Give them good reasons to regard them as acceptable neighbours. The rule, after all, is very simple: if the future wants to enter a city, it must learn to foot the bill. There are examples of successful coexistence in both the United States and Northern Europe. How do you win over citizens? Through protected utility bills, heat recovery, funded schools and enforceable agreements. A practical guide to ensuring innovation isn’t left to its enemies