Brian, you did a fantastic job diving into the numbers, way above OUR pay grade, that's for sure. But the data center issue is far more impactful than complicated economic analyses imply. And certainly more impactful than Big Tech Lobbyists and pro-data center legislators will admit. The data center hype is just another part of the "Necessary, Safe and Effective" mantra we've heard for decades on many topics. That mantra did not turn out well for humanity.
It's time we said NO to all of this! Idaho should remain Idaho and not compete for data centers that likely will:
- Cost taxpayers -- especially property tax payers -- more in the long run. Business tax incentives are wrong. They are a socialist concept that favors one group over another. The promises of "benefits" to citizens are empty and misleading.
- Fizzle with respect to promised long-term jobs and financial benefits. AI stocks are dropping as data center debt financing overwhelms revenues. (Some suggested articles from ChatGPT: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a71db84-e8bc-83e8-ba9f-a315ed7c2cfa)
- Decimate farmland. Once built, a data center cannot be unbuilt or reclaimed (can you imagine all the toxic waste such "unbuilding" would unleash?). Who will feed Idaho if data centers gobble everything?
- Pollute our air, soil, and water.
- Destroy our Idaho way of life and our health. Many people subjected to noise and electronic emissions from current data centers are suffering health issues. They cannot simply move away -- their properties would be subject to fire sales and likely snapped up by more data center companies. Today's courts are friendly to business, not to citizens, so litigation likely won't work.
- Guzzle more water and electricity than our state can produce. We barely have enough water to fight wildfires and some of our electricity is being redirected to California. Simply telling data centers they must pay for their own electricity makes them install huge, noisy, and often polluting generators to support electric demand. And likely, these electricity generation facilities will not be subject to standard regulations (example, Texas bypassing water and air pollution laws: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ai-data-centers-bypass-water-air-pollution-laws-permits/)
And, perhaps worse than all the above, data centers will not be used primarily for citizens to ask questions and employ Large Language Models (yes, we use these AI features). Instead they will massively surveil US and foreign citizens and implement the digital control grid, tokenizing every aspect of our lives -- spending, travel, banking, property ownership -- you name it!
Data Center surveillance creates the Patriot Act on steroids. Remember those Flock and Axon cameras people are so worried about? Well, that data goes somewhere for processing. It goes to data centers.
While there are some definite concerns that should be addressed, I don’t think a total ban is the answer either. New closed-loop systems use much less water than previous generations, and advances in nuclear energy could well render the power concerns moot in the near future. I don’t think AI is a flash in the pan. While many AI ventures might fail in the short term - just like the dotcom bubble in the late 90s / early 2000s - the industry itself is already revolutionizing technology.
Local communities should be able to decide what is best for their situation.
Brian, you did a fantastic job diving into the numbers, way above OUR pay grade, that's for sure. But the data center issue is far more impactful than complicated economic analyses imply. And certainly more impactful than Big Tech Lobbyists and pro-data center legislators will admit. The data center hype is just another part of the "Necessary, Safe and Effective" mantra we've heard for decades on many topics. That mantra did not turn out well for humanity.
It's time we said NO to all of this! Idaho should remain Idaho and not compete for data centers that likely will:
- Cost taxpayers -- especially property tax payers -- more in the long run. Business tax incentives are wrong. They are a socialist concept that favors one group over another. The promises of "benefits" to citizens are empty and misleading.
- Reduce property values. No one wants to live near a data center. Protests are emerging across the country. Example: https://flashlightsproductions.substack.com/p/inside-the-fierce-battle-over-a-6 (more at https://flashlightsproductions.substack.com/)
- Fizzle with respect to promised long-term jobs and financial benefits. AI stocks are dropping as data center debt financing overwhelms revenues. (Some suggested articles from ChatGPT: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a71db84-e8bc-83e8-ba9f-a315ed7c2cfa)
- Decimate farmland. Once built, a data center cannot be unbuilt or reclaimed (can you imagine all the toxic waste such "unbuilding" would unleash?). Who will feed Idaho if data centers gobble everything?
- Pollute our air, soil, and water.
- Destroy our Idaho way of life and our health. Many people subjected to noise and electronic emissions from current data centers are suffering health issues. They cannot simply move away -- their properties would be subject to fire sales and likely snapped up by more data center companies. Today's courts are friendly to business, not to citizens, so litigation likely won't work.
- Guzzle more water and electricity than our state can produce. We barely have enough water to fight wildfires and some of our electricity is being redirected to California. Simply telling data centers they must pay for their own electricity makes them install huge, noisy, and often polluting generators to support electric demand. And likely, these electricity generation facilities will not be subject to standard regulations (example, Texas bypassing water and air pollution laws: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ai-data-centers-bypass-water-air-pollution-laws-permits/)
And, perhaps worse than all the above, data centers will not be used primarily for citizens to ask questions and employ Large Language Models (yes, we use these AI features). Instead they will massively surveil US and foreign citizens and implement the digital control grid, tokenizing every aspect of our lives -- spending, travel, banking, property ownership -- you name it!
Data Center surveillance creates the Patriot Act on steroids. Remember those Flock and Axon cameras people are so worried about? Well, that data goes somewhere for processing. It goes to data centers.
We could offer many links to resources for people interested in exploring the dark side of data centers. For starters, there's Solari Reports (https://solari.com/digital-money-digital-control/) and Financial Rebellion (https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/financial-rebellion-with-catherine-austin-fitts/). And more resources here: https://eolson47.substack.com/i/207900123/surveillance-data-centers-and-privacy
While we have supported President Trump on many issues -- especially during his campaign -- we think he's on the wrong track with his data center stance (https://www.whitehouse.gov/?s=data+center). He and his family also stand to benefit immensely from their involvement in World Liberty Fund (https://worldlibertyfinancial.com/, https://www.trump.com/digital-assets/world-liberty-financial, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Liberty_Financial), which depends heavily on data centers.
Please everyone, think carefully about supporting data centers. Much more than economics and taxes are at stake.
I wrote about some of the other data center concerns a few months ago: https://gemstatechronicle.com/2026/04/whats-going-on-with-data-centers/
While there are some definite concerns that should be addressed, I don’t think a total ban is the answer either. New closed-loop systems use much less water than previous generations, and advances in nuclear energy could well render the power concerns moot in the near future. I don’t think AI is a flash in the pan. While many AI ventures might fail in the short term - just like the dotcom bubble in the late 90s / early 2000s - the industry itself is already revolutionizing technology.
Local communities should be able to decide what is best for their situation.