Data center neighbors deserve a vote and a way out

I have two issues of Popular Mechanics in front of me. One, marked to display until Nov. 23, 2026, promises "the alien file" and "surprising evidence that we're not alone." The other, the November/December 2026 issue, carries the cover line I keep coming back to: "Nobody asked for this. How to fight the data center coming for your backyard."

I'm quite independent when it comes to politics, and seeing those covers side by side, I noticed they touch on subjects people tend to file under liberal or right-wing. But I'm less interested in which camp a data center fight belongs to than in what it's like to live next to one, and what the people who live there are owed.

The cover story, by Gloria Liu, is a serious spread: It opens on page 44, and the main text runs from page 46 through page 55. Its opening reads: "When Elon Musk's xAI started building massive data centers in the Memphis area, it brought unpermitted gas turbines, toxic emissions, and a barrage of punishing noise. Then the people fought back."

Liu centers the piece on Jason Haley, 47, who had lived in his once-quiet, tree-lined neighborhood in Southaven, Mississippi, since his 20s. He loved entertaining in the big backyard of his three-bedroom brick ranch and in the park next to it, where friends would run a hose from his house to fill a kiddie pool, smoke pork butts and play softball and kickball all day. Around the first week of August 2025, Liu writes, he started hearing what sounded like someone running a leaf blower at night. It went on until 1 a.m. Haley went on to get a decibel reader, post sound levels on a new TikTok account and email public officials. He called the noise torture and said it physically hurt to hear.

Notice is not the same as a say

Southaven makes me think about what a company owes its neighbors before it operates a site like that. It needs to be more than notice, more than "hey, we're coming in to do this." There should be city council meetings and public hearings where the company lays out what it's doing, what will come of it, the effects residents are probably going to notice and the effects it may have on the environment. All the pros and cons, so people can make informed decisions. People should be informed, not just notified, before anything starts.

The decision neighbors should be able to influence is whether construction should start in the first place. This is where people live. We've had similar debates over power lines, electrical distribution centers and even things that might seem innocuous, like giant wind turbines. I don't see why a data center that uses a lot of water, makes a lot of noise and puts out pollution should be any different.

I did some work before that showed me how seriously we treat contaminated land. If a car repair shop spilled a lot of oil into the ground, for example, the site goes into a certain status and has to be cleared by the Environmental Protection Agency before anything can be built there, because of the effects on groundwater. People deserve that same kind of accounting of what could happen and what the aftermath could be. They should have the final say on whether something like a data center moves into their residential area, or at least that close to it.

This shouldn't be a decision made only by local municipal authorities, because those people have a conflict of interest. A lot of times, municipalities are receiving payments from the companies moving in to build these data centers. If the municipality gets a financial incentive, why shouldn't the residents? Right now those incentives aren't offered to the people living next door, and they should be.

This shouldn't be a decision made only by local municipal authorities, because those people have a conflict of interest.

What leaving should cost the company

I understand there are benefits. Some people will want to stay for the jobs, the taxes and the boost to the economy. The companies benefit, and the municipal authorities benefit financially. We already know there will be financial incentives for anyone who sees those as a pro. My argument is about a different group: the people who can't tolerate living next to a data center and need to move on.

For them, compensation should match the discomfort or displacement. If residents find the conditions intolerable, if they're forced out by what the law calls pain and suffering, the company should cover:

• Whatever is still owed on their mortgage and taxes, so the home they're leaving is completely free and clear
• All relocation costs, including moving every one of their belongings
• The down payment to start buying a new home
• Job placement services, if they have to go to a new city or neighboring town to get away
• Mental health and medical care, potentially, if they need it

I know that sounds like a lot of money. But the AI companies building these data centers are making a lot of money from being able to set up in these areas. That's the reason they're doing it. They're not doing it because it's fun.

Anyone who has to leave should be put back on solid ground: at least in the black, where they're even.