From New York to Texas, state and local governments have received the message: their residents are wary of data centers. Across political lines, many Americans agree that these facilities should pay taxes, cover the cost of upgrades to water and electricity networks, minimize noise, and hire local workers at decent wages. In other words, data centers should deliver tangible benefits to the communities whose land and energy they use.

Developers often say they are willing to do so—until they see the exact list of requirements. A bitter dispute in the Philadelphia suburbs offers a telling example of this dynamic.

Developer Brian O'Neill wants to build a 2-million-square-foot data center on the site of a former steel mill. Under Pennsylvania law, Plymouth Township, where the property is located, cannot simply reject every legitimate use of the land. It can, however, enforce zoning rules and require measures to mitigate the project's effects and protect public health and safety.

According to the township, O'Neill's company had said it would implement any provision proposed by local officials. The municipality subsequently produced a 43-point plan spanning nine printed pages.

On Monday evening, Plymouth Township issued a 12-page statement describing O'Neill's initiative as 'a blatant attempt by the applicant to demand approval by throwing a tantrum.' It added that the township would not indulge such behavior.

This week, township council chair Lynne Viscio told The Philadelphia Inquirer that O'Neill had 'bullied' and 'intimidated' municipal officials.

Council member Chris Manero offered the most conciliatory position in the statement, acknowledging that data centers can provide technological and financial benefits. However, he said officials should not be forced to sacrifice residents' health and well-being to obtain those benefits. He also opposes the application in its current form.