Would You Live Near a Data Center? People We Asked Said No

A Simple Question About the Future of Our Neighborhoods

Recently, my cameraman and I headed down to San Diego, California, with a relatively straightforward question that we wanted to ask everyday Americans.

"Would you live next to or near a data center?"

It seemed like a simple enough question.

After all, data centers are becoming one of the most significant infrastructure investments in the United States, driven largely by the explosive growth of artificial intelligence.

Technology companies are investing enormous amounts of money into constructing facilities to power the next generation of AI systems. Investors are enthusiastic, technology executives are optimistic, and politicians frequently celebrate the economic opportunities these developments promise.

But I wanted to hear from the people who might actually have to live alongside these enormous facilities.

Not billionaires. Not technology executives. Not the investors financing their construction.

Just ordinary Americans.

And what we discovered was particularly interesting.

Our First Stop: San Diego State University

We started with a specific demographic in mind.

College students.

Young adults who are preparing to enter the workforce, establish careers, purchase homes, and navigate an economy that may look drastically different from the one their parents experienced.

So naturally, we headed to San Diego State University.

As luck would have it, SDSU was hosting Startup Week, an event that brought together entrepreneurs and aspiring business owners who were enthusiastic about building the next generation of companies.

There was an unmistakable sense of excitement surrounding artificial intelligence.

Here we were, standing in a university environment filled with people celebrating the potential of technology, preparing to ask whether they would actually want to live near the physical infrastructure making much of that technology possible.

The contrast was fascinating.

Our first approach was to a Ukrainian gentleman working at the Startup Week event. We introduced ourselves and explained what we were doing, but he politely declined to participate.

Fair enough.

We continued looking for someone willing to share their perspective.

That's when we came across two young women who appeared to be students at the university.

They were friendly, approachable, and seemed happy to participate.

I asked them the same question we had come to San Diego to investigate.

"Would you live near a data center?"

Their response was immediate.

"No, absolutely not."

There was practically no hesitation.

And naturally, I wanted to know why.

Their Biggest Concern Wasn't Technology. It Was Their Health.

When I asked the young women to explain their opposition to data centers, one of them quickly expressed concerns about the environmental consequences of living near one.

She was worried about pollution, noise, and the potential effects on her long-term health.

She even expressed concern about whether living near a data center could expose residents to conditions that might increase their risk of cancer or cause some other form of DNA damage.

To be clear, living near a data center has not, by itself, been established as a cause of cancer or genetic damage. Those concerns would need to be evaluated against the actual emissions and environmental conditions of a specific facility.

But her fear was genuine.

She wasn't discussing the potential benefits of artificial intelligence or the economic productivity that these facilities might enable.

She was thinking about something much more personal.

Her health.

Her home.

Her quality of life.

And whether the introduction of a massive industrial facility near her neighborhood would make everyday living less desirable.

She also raised concerns about constant noise and potential water pollution.

These were not abstract economic theories. They were practical concerns about the environment in which she might eventually raise a family.

But I wanted to challenge her position.

What If Living Near a Data Center Made Housing Cheaper?

Rather than simply accepting the initial response, I attempted to steelman the opposing argument.

What if there were a tangible financial incentive?

What if living near a data center meant she could obtain housing at a substantially reduced price?

Would that change her mind?

Once again, the answer was a resounding no.

The two women were incredibly friendly throughout the interaction, but their position remained firm.

They simply did not want to live near a data center.

Now, I don't want to suggest that these two individuals represent the views of every college student in America.

They don't.

However, their responses were consistent with an attitude I've increasingly noticed among younger Americans toward artificial intelligence.

There is excitement about the technology, certainly.

But there is also anxiety.

We've seen viral videos of students criticizing AI, graduates using commencement speeches to express concerns about automation, and young professionals questioning what their career prospects will look like in an increasingly automated economy.

For many young people, artificial intelligence represents an uncomfortable contradiction.

It promises extraordinary technological advancement while simultaneously threatening to transform the very careers they are spending years preparing to enter.

And that got me thinking.

Perhaps the opposition to data centers isn't exclusively about pollution or noise. Perhaps it is also about what these facilities represent.

We Wanted a Different Perspective

After our experience at SDSU, my cameraman and I decided to change locations.

We had heard from young people preparing to enter the workforce.

But what about someone who had already spent years working?

Someone who might own a home, have a family, pay an electricity bill, and understand the practical realities of maintaining a household?

Would an older demographic have a different perspective?

We decided to head down to Coronado Beach.

The idea was simple.

Find someone with a little more life experience and ask exactly the same question.

After walking around Coronado, we approached a middle-aged gentleman who was spending time with his wife.

He was a local resident and seemed willing to share his thoughts.

I introduced myself and asked:

"Would you live next to a data center?"

His response?

An immediate no.

Again.

A Coronado Resident Raises an Entirely Different Concern

When I asked the gentleman why he wouldn't want to live near a data center, he brought up several familiar concerns.

Pollution.

Noise.

Potential increases in electricity rates.

He was particularly concerned about the possibility that massive data centers could place additional pressure on local infrastructure and negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods.

But then he raised something that I found even more interesting.

He questioned whether the opinions of local residents would matter in the first place.

In his view, companies developing these enormous facilities seem capable of pushing their projects through the system regardless of whether nearby communities actually want them.

He expressed frustration with what he perceived as the ability of powerful corporations to influence development decisions while ordinary residents are left to deal with the consequences.

That was a different argument from the one we heard at SDSU.

The college students were primarily worried about health, pollution, and their quality of life.

This gentleman was worried about those things too, but he also questioned the balance of power between corporations and the communities affected by their projects.

Who actually gets to decide whether a data center is built next to someone's home?

And perhaps more importantly, how much influence should the people living in that community have over the decision?

It's a legitimate question.

Would You Live Near a Data Center for 90% Off Your Housing?

Once again, I wanted to challenge the initial response.

So I presented the gentleman with a much more extreme hypothetical.

"What if your housing were 90% cheaper? Would you live next to a data center then?"

This time, his reaction was different.

He paused.

He genuinely considered the question.

And after thinking about it, he said:

"Maybe."

Finally, we had encountered a little hesitation.

But his answer came with an interesting qualification.

He was concerned about how the existing homeowners in that neighborhood would react.

If discounted housing became available because of a nearby data center, he believed neighboring residents might become angry about the potential effect on their property values.

He didn't want to be caught in the middle of that situation.

And that was something I hadn't necessarily anticipated.

Even when presented with an extraordinary financial incentive, his concerns extended beyond his personal circumstances.

He was thinking about the broader neighborhood.

The people who had already purchased homes.

The possibility of declining property values.

And the social consequences of introducing a development that the community might not support.

Of course, whether a data center actually reduces nearby property values depends on the location, facility design, local housing market, and other factors. A decline is not inevitable.

But the gentleman's concern illustrated something important.

People don't evaluate where they want to live based exclusively on price. They also care about stability, community, and their surroundings.

Are Data Centers Actually Bad for the Environment?

After conducting these interviews, I wanted to take a closer look at the environmental concerns that came up repeatedly.

Because while it is easy to dismiss public opposition as fear of unfamiliar technology, there are legitimate environmental considerations surrounding data centers.

According to research from the U.S. Department of Energy, data centers accounted for approximately 4.4% of American electricity consumption in 2023.

Updated projections suggest that figure could reach approximately 11.8% of total U.S. electricity consumption by 2030, although actual demand will depend on future technology and infrastructure development.

That represents a substantial amount of electricity.

But energy consumption is only part of the discussion.

Depending on their design and location, data centers can create several environmental challenges:

• ▸Electricity demand: Large data centers require tremendous amounts of power, potentially placing additional pressure on local electrical grids and infrastructure.
• ▸Water consumption: Some facilities use substantial quantities of water for cooling, which can create concerns in areas already experiencing water scarcity.
• ▸Noise pollution: Cooling equipment, ventilation systems, and backup generators can produce continuous noise that may affect nearby communities.
• ▸Air pollution: Facilities using diesel generators or fossil-fuel-powered equipment can produce emissions that require appropriate controls.
• ▸Electricity costs: Depending on utility pricing structures and infrastructure investments, increased demand can contribute to higher costs for other electricity customers.

The International Energy Agency has identified electricity prices, emissions, and water use as significant concerns surrounding the expansion of data center infrastructure.

That doesn't mean every data center produces the same environmental effects.

Modern facilities can use cleaner electricity sources, efficient cooling systems, and pollution controls that substantially reduce their environmental footprint.

And there is an important distinction between water consumption and water pollution. A facility using water for cooling does not automatically mean it is contaminating the surrounding water supply.

Still, these are real issues that deserve proper environmental review and public scrutiny.

After hearing the concerns expressed during our interviews, I think it's fair to say that residents should have access to clear information about a proposed facility's environmental impact before construction begins.

But I Think There's Something Bigger Happening

The environmental concerns surrounding data centers are significant.

But I suspect they are only part of the reason these facilities have become such a controversial topic.

Because when I think about what data centers represent in today's economy, I see a much larger conversation unfolding.

Artificial intelligence is being developed with the explicit ambition of automating enormous categories of human work.

And while automation has always been part of technological progress, the scale of what is being proposed today is extraordinary.

For decades, people generally assumed that obtaining a college education and developing professional skills would provide a degree of economic security.

Become an accountant.

Become a programmer.

Become an analyst.

Become an attorney.

Build a professional career.

But increasingly, many of those same occupations are being discussed as potential candidates for substantial AI-driven automation.

The International Monetary Fund has estimated that approximately 60% of jobs in advanced economies could be affected by artificial intelligence.

That doesn't mean 60% of jobs will disappear. Research from the International Labour Organization suggests that many occupations are more likely to be transformed than eliminated.

Nevertheless, the possibility of widespread disruption is real.

And that raises a question I find particularly uncomfortable.

What happens when the same infrastructure being built near our communities powers technology that could eventually eliminate some of the jobs those communities depend on?

Imagine being a young college graduate.

You've spent four years obtaining a degree, accumulated student debt, and prepared yourself for a professional career.

Then you watch some of the world's wealthiest technology companies invest hundreds of billions of dollars into systems designed to perform an increasing share of the work you were trained to do.

And somewhere along the way, you're asked whether you would welcome a massive data center into your own neighborhood.

I can understand why the answer might be no.

The Billion-Dollar Question: Who Actually Benefits?

There is another dimension to this conversation that I think deserves considerably more attention.

If artificial intelligence becomes capable of performing an enormous amount of economically valuable human work, who ultimately receives the financial benefits?

The technology companies?

Their shareholders?

The investors financing the data centers?

Or the ordinary Americans whose livelihoods may be disrupted?

Some technology leaders and economists have suggested that universal basic income, commonly called UBI, could become one possible response to widespread automation.

Under a UBI system, individuals would receive regular cash payments regardless of their employment status, generally funded through public revenue.

Supporters argue that such a system could provide economic security in a world where technology reduces the demand for human labor.

But I have serious reservations about what this kind of future could look like.

Imagine an economy where an increasingly concentrated group of corporations controls much of the productive technology, while large portions of the population become dependent on government-distributed income to maintain their standard of living.

To me, that raises uncomfortable questions about economic independence, concentrated wealth, and the relationship between citizens, corporations, and the government.

Some might view such a system as moving toward a more centrally managed economy, with elements reminiscent of socialism or communism.

Strictly speaking, UBI itself is not communism. It can exist within a market-based capitalist economy without abolishing private property.

But the underlying concern is worth discussing.

If technology creates extraordinary wealth while simultaneously reducing the economic opportunities available to ordinary people, how do we prevent that wealth and power from becoming concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group?

And if the proposed solution is to redistribute some of those gains through government payments, what does that mean for individual economic independence?

I don't think those questions should be dismissed simply because the technology is innovative.

Technological progress should ultimately improve people's lives.

Not just the balance sheets of the companies developing it.

Two Different Demographics. The Same Answer.

When I look back on our experience interviewing people across San Diego, one thing stands out.

We deliberately approached people in two very different stages of life.

At San Diego State University, we spoke with young women who appeared to be preparing for their professional futures.

Their primary concerns involved environmental consequences, personal health, and quality of life.

At Coronado Beach, we spoke with a middle-aged local resident who was more concerned about neighborhood stability, electricity costs, property values, and corporate influence over local development.

Different people.

Different circumstances.

Different priorities.

But when we asked whether they would live near a data center, both encounters produced essentially the same response.

No.

Now, I want to be clear about something.

This was a small, informal street interview, not a scientific survey. We cannot conclude that most San Diego residents oppose data centers based on these conversations.

But that wasn't necessarily the point of the exercise.

What interested me was the reasoning behind their responses.

These individuals were not opposed to data centers for precisely the same reasons.

They arrived at the same conclusion through different experiences, concerns, and perspectives.

And I found that fascinating.

My Biggest Takeaway From Our Interviews

I started this project wanting to understand whether ordinary Americans would be willing to live near a data center.

But I left with a much bigger question.

Are we building the infrastructure of the future without adequately considering the people who will have to live with its consequences?

Data centers are clearly important.

They support cloud computing, financial infrastructure, communications, healthcare systems, and countless digital services that people rely on every day.

And artificial intelligence may ultimately deliver extraordinary benefits to society.

But that doesn't mean every proposed data center should automatically be welcomed into every community.

Nor does it mean concerns about environmental consequences, affordability, employment, and corporate influence should be dismissed as opposition to progress.

The people we interviewed weren't technology executives or environmental researchers.

They were everyday Americans.

And they were thinking about their homes, their futures, and their communities.

Perhaps that's the perspective that's missing from much of the national conversation.

Because while technology companies are discussing how rapidly they can expand the infrastructure needed to power artificial intelligence, ordinary Americans are asking something much simpler.

"What does this mean for me and my family?"

I think that's a question worth answering.

And until communities are given convincing answers about environmental protections, electricity costs, transparency, and the broader economic benefits of these projects, I suspect public opposition will remain a significant obstacle.

Ultimately, our experience interviewing people in San Diego reminded me that technological advancement and public acceptance are not necessarily the same thing.

You can build the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems in human history.

You can raise billions of dollars.

You can promise extraordinary productivity.

But none of that automatically means people will want the infrastructure powering those systems in their own backyard.

So I'll leave you with the same question we asked the people of San Diego:

Would you live next to a data center, especially if it meant cheaper housing? Or are the environmental and economic concerns simply too significant to ignore?

I'd genuinely like to hear what you think.