But amazingly, they might not be the biggest morons of the story. This data center will make Google billions in profit per year. What beancounter is choosing to jeopardize that for avoiding $3M/year in taxes? How out of touch do you have to be to be to make that call, and why does that person still have a job?
> We should be castrating them and limiting their size and power as much as possible, everywhere.
You may have different intent but that is what your wrote. These representatives are the voice of the people, if you limit their power then Google can build datacenters without even needing to ask.
But if both of those are met, I'll be pro-datacenter if it can offset checks the size of Hermantown $800 per household per year in taxes.
When the article says "most" people spoke against the proposal, that's an unfortunate gap in the reporting. Was it 60% or was it 95% or where in between?
I frankly have to think $3m is low.
Maybe if a company complies they get expedited federal review or something.
When it comes to data centers, that connection simply isnt there. It is often private land, construction, and power.
Any leverage to collect revenue comes instead from 3rd party ability to obstruct and extort, not ownership. Often times objectors dont even have damages or externalities imposed on them.
What rights are they losing?
You know, the opposite of a very few deciding without paying attention to the many that stood outside locked doors in the cold.
If they didn't listen, it wasn't for lack of physically hearing the arguments and seeing significant support.
There's the lack of a specific community vote on a large decisive issue affecting the entire town and utility availability and prices for at least a decade.
For small towns such things are over and above the usual day to day of town council business and often warrant a community referendum and some time spent on presenting options.
But specifically in terms of how much representation they allowed at the meetings, I give them a C.