Staff Reports
Senator Dave McCormick put his finger squarely on the problem when he told reporters that data center builders must enter into a “covenant” with the towns that host them — a plainspoken demand that communities get real, enforceable promises before industrial-scale server farms move next door. His point is simple: economic development isn’t a blank check for tech giants; when these facilities arrive they should bring tangible benefits, not higher utility bills or drained local resources.
Across the country, citizens are raising legitimate alarms about the boom in data centers and the strains they place on power grids, water supplies, and local infrastructure. From Pennsylvania to Washington state, mayors and county boards are wrestling with questions about who pays for upgrades and who bears the long-term costs of these projects. The backlash isn’t anti-growth — it’s pro-accountability, and it demands that public officials stop treating communities like collateral in a Silicon Valley growth plan.
That’s why McCormick’s conservative case for local consent and enforceable agreements matters. Conservatives should be the natural champions of local control and property rights, insisting that developers negotiate in public, outline benefits up front, and be held accountable if they renege. If anything, the GOP’s message ought to be: welcome investment, but not at the expense of taxpayers and neighborhoods that will pay the hidden bill.
Big tech will tell you these projects create jobs and modernize infrastructure, and there’s truth in some of that — but history shows generous tax breaks and vague promises don’t automatically translate into broad-based prosperity. Critics in other states have pointed out that incentives meant to create jobs often result in modest local employment while leaving communities saddled with long-term infrastructure costs. It’s common-sense conservative stewardship to scrutinize every subsidy and demand measurable returns for the public.
If companies are serious about being good neighbors, they’ll commit to paying for the grid upgrades, water connections, and road improvements their facilities require, not foist those expenses onto local taxpayers. Journalistic reporting has noted instances where tech firms have signed on to fund necessary infrastructure when deals were negotiated transparently; that kind of upfront bargaining should be the rule, not the exception. McCormick is right to press for clear covenants so citizens see written, enforceable commitments before shovels break ground.
Patriotic conservatives should rally behind this sensible middle ground: embrace the jobs and innovation AI and data centers can bring, but do so with hard lines that protect communities and taxpayers. Washington should support state and local leaders who insist on binding agreements, not handouts and secrecy. America prospers when growth is paired with responsibility — and when senators like McCormick stand up for the people who live where progress wants to plant its poles and wires, hardworking Americans know someone’s watching their back.
