SerpApi.Org
When I asked readers to help draft a community editorial on regulating data centers, I expected to hear sharply divided opinions.
Instead, a broad consensus emerged.
Readers disagreed over whether artificial intelligence will ultimately live up to its promise. They disagreed over whether nuclear power, renewables or another energy source should supply these facilities. A minority even rejected the premise that Ohio needs additional data centers at all.
But once readers accepted that more data centers are likely coming, they repeatedly returned to the same principle: Ohioans should not bear the costs while giant corporations collect the profits.
We sought the responses in an experiment aimed at generating a community-based editorial, and it worked wonderfully. You can read the editorial, including a minority viewpoint, here.
Make the companies pay
The strongest consensus involved electricity.
“I believe the companies responsible for the development and maintenance of data centers should be required to generate their own power. Putting the power generation fee onto the taxpayer not only makes it unfair for those who don’t currently utilize AI, but it waives an expense that for any other company would be considered overhead.”
“They should have their own power source and be off the grid.”
“Because of their huge power demands they should have their own power source and be off the grid. The type — solar, gas, mixed etc. — would be negotiable.”
“Absolutely — to cover at least 75% of their expected usage.”
Readers didn’t agree on exactly how companies should generate that electricity. They overwhelmingly agreed that homeowners shouldn’t end up paying for it.
End the subsidies
Readers were nearly as unified in opposing the enormous tax incentives Ohio has granted.
“No subsidies. Seriously, these are trillion-dollar corporations.”
“NOT TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED OR GIVEN TAX EXEMPTIONS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.”
“They shouldn’t be nickel and diming us for tax breaks.”
Several readers said incentives should be considered only if companies first deliver on promises made to communities.
“They could be refundable instead of up front so that the expected benefits to the community are realized before taxpayer monies are expended.”
Stop the secrecy
Another recurring complaint involved how data center deals are negotiated.
“Municipalities must be open about data center proposals and not keep plans secret from taxpayers.”
“A back door deal will bother any citizen.”
“Non-disclosure agreements ... should not keep the affected communities from being kept informed.”
Readers repeatedly argued that communities should know what is being planned before agreements are signed.
Give something back
Many readers said communities that host these facilities deserve direct benefits.
“The Data Center must contribute financially to the community.”
“If living near a data center led to a cheaper cost of living, a monthly stipend, or some other financial benefit ... it would at least be a step in the right direction.”
Others suggested dedicated tax revenue, infrastructure improvements or lower utility costs.
Think beyond today
Readers also worried about what happens decades from now.
“The state must prevent abandonment of these large buildings.”
“Builders must provide the state with a reserve fund for when the centers are no longer needed and must be razed.”
Ohio’s long history of abandoned industrial sites clearly remains fresh in many minds.
Not everyone agreed
A minority questioned the premise behind the discussion.
“We do NOT need more data centers.”
Others argued that local governments should retain the absolute right to reject projects or questioned whether the promised benefits of artificial intelligence justify the enormous investment now underway.
The consensus, though, was that Ohio doesn’t have to reject data centers.
It just has to stop asking Ohioans to pay for them.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit cleveland.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
