Across many conversations at the start of this year, at PTC and other conferences alike, the word on everyone’s lips seems to be “community.” For the data center industry, that single word now captures a turning point from just a few short years ago: we are no longer a niche, back‑of‑house utility, but a front‑page presence in local politics, school board budgets, and town hall debates. That visibility is forcing a choice in how we tell our story—either accept a permanent NIMBY-reactive framework, or actively build a YIMBY narrative that portrays the real value digital infrastructure brings to the markets and surrounding communities that host it.
Speaking regularly with Ilissa Miller, CEO of iMiller Public Relations about this topic, there is work to be done across the ecosystem to build communications. Miller recently reflected: “What we’re seeing in communities isn’t a rejection of digital infrastructure, it’s a rejection of uncertainty driven by anxiety and fear. Most local leaders have never been given a framework to evaluate digital infrastructure developments the way they evaluate roads, water systems, or industrial parks. When there’s no shared planning language, ‘no’ becomes the safest answer.”
A Brief History of “No”
Community pushback against data centers is no longer episodic; it has become organized, media‑savvy, and politically influential in key markets. In Northern Virginia, resident groups and environmental organizations have mobilized against large‑scale campuses, pressing counties like Loudoun and Prince William to tighten zoning, question incentives, and delay or reshape projects.1
Loudoun County’s move in 2025 to end by‑right approvals for new facilities, requiring public hearings and board votes, marked a watershed moment as the world’s densest data center market signaled that communities now expect more say over where and how these campuses are built. Prince William County’s decision to sharply increase its tax rate on data center equipment and Fairfax County’s ban on data centers within a mile of rail stations, reinforced the message that growth would be more conditional and contested.
Opposition is also spreading beyond Virginia, with towns like Peculiar, Missouri, blocking billion‑dollar proposals over noise and siting concerns, and local coalitions using tools from lawsuits to yard‑sign campaigns to challenge projects. Between May, 2024 and March, 2025, Data Center Watch reports that $64 billion of data center projects have been blocked or delayed amid local opposition.2 Heatmap News cites $98 billion of data center projects blocked or delayed across 25 project cancellations, 21 of which occurred in the second half of last year.3 The resistance is gaining ground and the costs are rising.
In this environment, simply reacting to “No” is no longer a strategy; it is a slow surrender of narrative ground to groups that define data centers solely by what they might take away, rather than what we actually create.
What Data Centers Really Bring
For host communities, the promise of data centers is not as abstract as some treat it. The value readily shows up in tax receipts, infrastructure upgrades, and long‑term employment, even if those benefits are often loosely explained at the outset of a project, depending on construction timelines and operational decisions that will be made much later than the initial site acquisition. In Loudoun County, data centers now provide nearly half of all property tax revenue, supporting public services at a scale few other industries can match and helping the county anticipate between $800 million and $1 billion in data center tax revenue this year alone.4
That kind of fiscal capacity changes local politics: officials have cited the industry’s impact on keeping residential tax rates lower and funding school construction and renovation without imposing new burdens on homeowners. Prince William County reports data center‑related revenue in the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it flowing into the general fund that pays for education and core services. Across the United States, the broader data center industry contributed an estimated $162.7 billion in tax revenues to local, state, and federal governments in 2023, reflecting a 146 percent increase since 2017.4
Jobs, while sometimes debated locally, are both direct and indirect: from high‑skill roles paying into six figures to thousands of construction jobs and a steady demand for electricians, HVAC technicians, security, and local vendors. In emerging regions like Southside Virginia, proposed campuses are pitched as catalysts for economic diversification, offering “high‑skill high‑paying” positions and investments in onsite power that expand the tax base and modernize energy infrastructure simultaneously.5 The real story, if told clearly, is not just about support of the ever-increasing digital world, but about durable, capital‑intensive assets that anchor local revenue and enable broader technology advancement and application for businesses, schools, and local mission critical needs.
Taxes, Incentives, and Shared Upside
Incentive packages often become the flashpoint where NIMBY arguments crystallize, with critics charging that data centers receive “giveaways” at public expense. Yet in practice, many of these tools (property tax abatements, sales tax exemptions on equipment, and expedited permitting) are structured to trade near‑term relief for long‑term, outsized revenue streams and infrastructure upgrades. As states have discovered over the past several years, incentives have evolved from one‑off bargaining chips into core elements of a broader economic strategy, with dozens of jurisdictions racing to refine programs that can secure high‑value digital infrastructure while still delivering tangible returns for local residents.6
Reports from organizations like the Data Center Coalition document how, in markets such as Texas, data centers generate substantial recurring tax revenue at the state and local level, even after accounting for incentive programs.7 Industry analyses highlight that for every dollar spent in local services for data centers, counties like Loudoun can receive well over twenty dollars back in revenue, a ratio difficult to replicate with other commercial uses.5 These returns fund not only schools and emergency services, but also upgrades to roads, substations, and broadband that benefit the wider community, not just the project site.
As more states and localities compete for AI‑driven campuses, incentives are also aligning with policy goals: tying tax benefits to energy‑efficiency standards, limiting pass‑through of infrastructure costs to consumers, and encouraging co‑investment in resilient power and digital equity initiatives. The political debate is shifting from whether incentives are justified at all to how to ensure they produce visible, measurable gains for residents over the lifecycle of the facility. That is fertile ground for a YIMBY frame that positions communities as partners, not passive recipients, in structuring these deals.
From NIMBY to YIMBY: Reframing the Narrative
“Not in my back yard” has become shorthand for fears about noise, visual impact, energy use, and environmental risk—concerns that are real but often amplified by a lack of clear, accessible information. A YIMBY approach for data centers does not dismiss those objections; it gets ahead of them by acknowledging that these concerns persist, and then lays out what saying “yes” unlocks when projects are designed and negotiated well.
One emerging theme from industry and civic conversations is that many community planners do not yet have a mental model for digital infrastructure; they think in terms of roads and water lines, not fiber routes or compute density. This “translation gap” can push risk‑averse local officials to default to “no” simply because they are unsure what questions to ask or what leverage they actually have.
Miller provided her insights into what these conversations might entail. “Many county planners aren’t opposed to data centers, they’re simply being asked to make long-term land-use decisions without a clear understanding of what questions to ask or what leverage they actually have. YIMBY doesn’t mean saying yes blindly; it means empowering communities with information to effectively assess what they have, what they need and ultimately what they want. The outcome, we hope, is clarity. They can say yes or no based on the specific conditions that reflect their community’s priorities.”
YIMBY‑oriented engagement flips the script. Instead of approaching a locality with a fully baked plan and a narrow permit request, developers and operators can frame data centers as tools to achieve shared priorities: improved tax stability, digital inclusion, better connectivity for local businesses, and modernized energy systems. The language shifts from “let us build here” to “here is how this facility can help your community do what it already wants to do—if we discuss those needs together.”
Communities That Say “Yes”
Even as headline‑grabbing battles play out, there are quieter stories of communities that have not only accepted data centers, but actively pursued them as part of long‑term development strategies. Counties such as Danville‑Pittsylvania in Virginia5 have unanimously approved data center proposals, seeing them as a path to new investment, infrastructure, and jobs in regions transitioning from traditional industries.
Local officials in these areas talk about data centers as economic engines, citing projected millions in annual tax revenues and hundreds of high‑paying jobs as justification for support. In some cases, early projects have already lowered tax pressures on residents or financed school improvements, reinforcing the perception that our facilities can coexist with rural character and quality of life when sited and managed responsibly.
On a broader scale, states that have built predictable, transparent policy frameworks combining clear zoning, targeted incentives, and expectations around sustainability, are positioning themselves as YIMBY jurisdictions for digital infrastructure. Their message to both industry and citizens is that data centers are welcome, but on terms that reflect local values and long‑term planning priorities. These examples are the raw material for a new narrative: not just “no more data center sprawl,” but “yes, to the right projects, in the right places, with the right commitments.”
The Architecture of “Yes”
“Communities don’t need to be convinced that digital infrastructure matters. Technology is everywhere; we know it matters,” noted Miller. “Communities need to be empowered with information and tools to evaluate their community needs on their own terms. When local leaders understand what they can negotiate for, from siting and design to infrastructure investment and community benefits, the conversation shifts from opposition to partnership.”
One of the most promising developments in this shift from NIMBY to YIMBY is the work underway to give communities practical frameworks, language, and tools to engage with digital infrastructure on their own terms. Within the OIX Association, the Digital Infrastructure Framework Committee, led by board member Ilissa Miller, is building exactly this kind of toolkit.
The Digital Infrastructure Framework is designed to help local governments assess what digital assets they already have, where the gaps are, and how new infrastructure, from fiber routes to data centers, can close those gaps in ways that support everything from healthcare and education to small‑business growth. Miller emphasizes that the goal is not to convince every community to host a data center, but to ensure they understand their options and the negotiating leverage they bring to the table. As she has argued, planners are often saying “no” before they understand that they can ask for better design, stronger community benefits, or different siting approaches instead.
OIX is pairing this framework with active outreach to organizations like the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, embedding digital infrastructure considerations into mainstream municipal conversations. By meeting civic leaders where they already gather and speak, the initiative helps normalize data centers as part of the planning lexicon, not as exotic or opaque projects. That normalization is a quiet but powerful form of YIMBYism: it makes “yes, with conditions” a more comfortable, informed choice than “no, because we don’t understand this yet.”
Industry associations such as the Data Center Coalition are also contributing to the “Architecture of Yes” by publishing accessible data on economic and tax impacts at the state and local level. Their reports give mayors, supervisors, and community advocates concrete numbers to weigh against fears, showing how tax revenue, job creation, and infrastructure investment play out over time. When used alongside frameworks like OIX’s, these resources equip communities to negotiate from a position of knowledge rather than anxiety.
Shifting the Dialogue
Data centers have gone mainstream; they are now part of how cities and counties think about economic development, climate goals, and digital opportunity. That new visibility means our industry can no longer afford to define itself reactively against NIMBY critiques, repeating opponents’ vocabulary and responding on their terms.
A YIMBY mindset asks different questions: What does a “good” data center look like for this community? How do we measure success not only in megawatts and megabits, but in tax stability, educational outcomes, and resilience? Who are the local voices that need to be at the table early—planners, school boards, small businesses, neighborhood associations—and what information, tools, and negotiable levers do we put in their hands from the start?
Data center operators with “community” at the core of their approach, groups like OIX’s Digital Infrastructure Framework Committee, advocates such as Ilissa Miller, and industry bodies including the Data Center Coalition are sketching the outlines of an answer: standard language, shared data, and repeatable playbooks that help communities say “yes, and here is how we want this to work for us.” The next phase is for developers, operators, and investors to internalize that approach, integrating it into site selection, design, and community engagement rather than treating it as crisis management after opposition emerges.
Miller concludes, “The next phase for this industry isn’t about winning individual projects, it’s about earning long-term trust that the digital infrastructure projects are indeed for the greater good and not just corporate greed. That happens when digital infrastructure is integrated into master planning early, discussed transparently, and measured not just in megawatts, but in community outcomes over decades.”
If “community” is the word on everyone’s lips, then “Getting to Yes” needs to be the story our sector learns to tell—clearly, confidently, and collaboratively. Not because every project deserves approval, but because every community deserves the chance to understand the benefits of what saying yes could truly mean in their own back yard.
References:
