Ro Khanna calls for the right to oppose data centers to be protected

Steelman: both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

The strongest case emphasises that data centres represent heavy industrial facilities whose environmental and health impacts—including pollution from backup generators, massive water consumption, and strain on local infrastructure—warrant community input through democratic processes. Proponents argue that exempting data centres from environmental laws and limiting state authority breaks with established practices of protecting residential areas from industrial risks, particularly when facilities lack transparency about operations and clean energy requirements. Rather than opposing development, the resolution seeks reasonable safeguards like distance buffers and clean energy mandates that permit responsible projects whilst preserving communities' ability to protect residents' health and environmental quality.

The case against

The strongest case holds that data centres are essential infrastructure supporting critical services—from healthcare systems to emergency communications—and that local veto power enables obstructive opposition rather than genuine environmental protection. Proponents contend that modern data centres increasingly employ renewable energy and have minimal physical footprints relative to their economic benefit, and that centralised federal and environmental review is more efficient than fragmented local processes that systematically block infrastructure. Rather than abandoning development, they argue for rigorous environmental standards applied consistently across jurisdictions, which prevent communities from using local politics to exclude necessary facilities that generate jobs and economic growth whilst serving national interests in technological competitiveness.