The Patriot Newspaper Articles
If a Project Is Good for Our Community, It Should Be Able to Prove It
AI is here to stay, and data centers will play a major role in that future.
I am not opposed to data centers.
I am opposed to approving billion-dollar projects before the public receives complete information.
Data centers are often promoted as engines of economic growth that bring jobs, tax revenue, and investment. Those benefits deserve consideration. But so do the risks, costs, and unanswered questions.
PRIVACY: We are assured that data centers are not surveillance systems, but they provide the computing power behind facial recognition, behavioral tracking, predictive analytics, mass data analysis, and increasingly powerful AI tools. As these technologies expand, communities have every right to ask what safeguards exist to protect privacy, civil liberties, and personal data.
WHO PAYS? Minnesota already provides qualified data centers with a 35-year sales tax exemption on servers, cooling systems, power infrastructure, networking equipment, and software. Rep. Shane Mekeland's HF4990 would further expand exemptions and reduce certain oversight requirements. Additional incentives may also be available through Tax Increment Financing (TIF), property tax abatements, infrastructure assistance, utility upgrades, and other public subsidies (handouts for the rich).
Data centers also require substations, transmission lines, roads, utility upgrades, and water infrastructure. Sometimes developers pay. Sometimes taxpayers and ratepayers do.
Before approvals are granted, citizens deserve to know what incentives are being offered, what taxes will actually be paid, and who actually bears the risk.
JOBS: Construction jobs are real and important, but they are temporary. Modern AI data centers are highly automated and often employ only dozens or a few hundred permanent workers some of which may be remote. Before offering incentives, communities deserve clear information about long-term jobs, local hiring commitments, and who ultimately benefits.
SCALE: Kevin O'Leary's proposed Stratos Project in Utah could consume more than twice the electricity currently sold across the entire state of Utah each year. The project covers roughly 1,700 acres, making it one of the largest proposed AI data center developments in the world. How will this project be energized? Short answer, they don’t know yet. Plans have shifted many times. Questions also remain about long-term water use, land impacts, environmental effects, and who bears the risk if projections don't match reality. These are too many crucial unknowns for any community, and they are the ones at risk.
SECRECY: Across the country, many data center negotiations occur behind NDAs’ and confidential development discussions. If these projects are truly beneficial, why are communities so often asked to make decisions before all the facts are available?
What we're asking for is simple: complete information before decisions are made that could affect our water, our grid, our tax base, our privacy, and our quality of life for decades.
If a project is truly beneficial, it should be able to prove it.
But don't take my word for it. Do your own research. Don't rely on politicians. Don't rely on activists. Don't rely on corporations. Don't even rely on me.
Read the studies. Read the legislation. Ask questions. Follow the money!!
History is full of examples where products and technologies were embraced long before the public understood the consequences. Asbestos, lead in gasoline, and PFAS all taught us the same lesson: ask hard questions before the damage is done.
I'm not saying AI data centers are the same thing. I'm saying that once billions are invested, infrastructure is built, and resources are committed, it becomes much harder to change course.
Corporations have a responsibility to their investors. We have all seen that a lot of politicians are in the pockets of corporations. We have a responsibility to our families, our communities, our water, and our environment.
Is the juice really worth the squeeze?
Until we have complete information, independently verified data, and meaningful protections for our communities and environment, I believe caution is not obstruction. It's responsible leadership.
Prepared by the Davenport for Minnesota House District 27A. Learn more at https://www.davenportmn27a.house/ or attend one of my many events. Next event is Meet the SD27 Candidates 6/12 5:30 PM at Vittas Mexican Bar & Grill
Sources:
U.S. Department of Energy – Data center electricity demand growth.
U.S. Energy Information Administration – Utah electricity consumption.
Minnesota Department of Revenue – Qualified Data Center Tax Exemption.
HF4990 bill text.
Utah Clean Energy analysis regarding Stratos power and water concerns.
Minnesota large-scale data center law (2025) regarding water review and utility oversight
Shifting the Tax Bill
Sherburne County residents are facing significant property-tax pressure in 2027. Before we ask taxpayers for more, we need to understand where that pressure is coming from and whether there are better options.
Sherburne County has identified approximately $3.6 million in additional state cost shifts and formula changes, equivalent to roughly 5.4% of the county's current levy. These involve human services, probation, legal and other costs, including implementation of the bipartisan MAAFPCWDA.
MAAFPCWDA becomes statewide in 2027 and creates new requirements for county child-welfare agencies. The state has provided implementation funding, but counties are preparing to absorb additional costs.
When the state requires counties to provide services without enough funding, the expense doesn’t disappear. It lands on local property taxpayers.
Washington is adding pressure too. Federal changes under the Big Beautiful Bill are estimated by Sherburne County to shift approximately $1.4 million in SNAP administration and cost-sharing expenses onto the county, another 2.1% of the current levy. Additional Medicaid-related costs are projected in later years.
Together, the identified state and federal shifts equal roughly 7.5% of the current county levy.
So, what do we do?
First, if the state mandates it, the state should adequately fund it. Major new mandates should include fiscal-impact statements showing legislators and taxpayers what they will cost local governments.
We should review existing mandates, eliminate duplication, modernize outdated systems and make sure taxpayer dollars produce results.
But we can’t cut our way out of every problem.
We also need to grow and diversify our tax base by helping existing businesses expand and attracting manufacturers, skilled-trades employers, healthcare providers and small businesses. We should stop allowing unnecessary technical barriers to box out small businesses when those requirements haven't demonstrated a clear public benefit.
That also means maintaining good schools, safe and welcoming communities, and infrastructure that make businesses and workers want to locate here.
Responsible housing and commercial growth matter too. We should redevelop underused properties and encourage growth where infrastructure can support it.
One massive project shouldn’t be our entire economic-development strategy. A community supported by dozens of growing businesses and employers has a more resilient tax base than one dependent on a single enormous taxpayer.
We should also take a hard look at Minnesota's tax code. Tax credits, deductions and incentives benefiting large corporations and the wealthiest individuals should be examined individually. Those that produce jobs, investment or meaningful economic benefit may make sense. Those that don’t provide taxpayers a reasonable return should be closed.
Large developments deserve the same scrutiny. A billion-dollar project isn’t automatically a billion-dollar benefit after tax incentives, infrastructure, energy demands, water use and other
public costs.
Before offering incentives or committing public infrastructure, taxpayers deserve an answer to one basic question:
What is the actual return to taxpayers?
Fiscal responsibility isn’t simply raising taxes or cutting services. It’s determining what government should pay for, delivering it efficiently and making sure costs aren’t quietly pushed
onto someone else’s tax bill.