How AI Data Centers Plan Ahead To Force Data Centers On The Public
Current tactic: Big Tech using NDA's on local officials to buy out politicians ahead of time....
The pattern described in this tweet from Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) is occurring across our nation.
It reflects a recurring strategy where data center developers (often representing hyperscalers like Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, or others via shell companies or code-named “projects”) approach local officials early—sometimes a year or more in advance—sign broad non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), and advance key elements like land deals, zoning tweaks, tax incentives, or infrastructure planning with minimal or no public visibility until significant momentum exists.
How this Secrecy Playbook Typically Works
Early private approach: Developers contact mayors, economic development corporations, county boards, or utilities with high-level pitches (jobs, tax revenue). They often use shell entities (e.g., “Balloonist LLC”) or project code names so the end-user (the actual tech company) stays hidden.
NDAs bind officials: These agreements frequently prohibit disclosing the existence of the project, the company’s identity, scale (e.g., power demand in MW, number of buildings, water usage), or even the NDA itself in some cases. Officials sometimes sign to “stay in the room” for negotiations or incentives, or under pressure that transparency could scare away investment.
Quiet groundwork: While secrecy holds, work proceeds on land options/purchases, zoning ordinance changes (sometimes quietly redefining “warehousing” or industrial uses to include data centers), tax-increment financing (TIF) districts, or incentive packages. Public records or agendas may reference vague “projects” without details.
Late public reveal: Announcement or formal approvals often come only after land is secured, and preliminary steps are advanced, making organized opposition harder. Public input, if any, is compressed into rushed hearings.
Impacts on communities: Data centers are massive (hundreds of acres, enormous electricity and water demands for cooling, noise from fans, traffic during construction and operation). Critics argue that secrecy prevents informed debate on grid strain, water resources, land conversion (often farmland), tax breaks, and limited long-term local jobs versus temporary construction work.
This isn’t universal — some projects are more transparent, but investigations show it’s common enough to prompt legislative pushback and community revolts. Industry defenders say NDAs protect competitive strategy and enable frank talks on incentives; critics (including some elected officials and U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal) call it anti-democratic when public resources and quality of life are at stake.
Examples Of This Pattern
Wisconsin (detailed Wisconsin Watch investigation): At least four communities signed NDAs for major projects. In Beaver Dam, the economic development corp signed with “Balloonist LLC” (later tied to Meta) in December 2023; public awareness came approximately 14 months later, after land deals and TIF work. In Menomonie, NDA in Feb. 2024 with the same shell; two months later, the council quietly changed a land-use ordinance to explicitly include data centers under “warehousing.” The $1.6B project faced backlash, went on hold, and zoning was later reversed after community input. Similar patterns occurred in Kenosha and Janesville.
Missouri — “Project Cumulus” (Saint Charles): A 440-acre proposal via shell company Spark Innovations LLC stayed secret under NDAs. The mayor couldn’t share details despite resident requests. It sparked massive grassroots opposition (thousands involved); the project was withdrawn. Saint Charles became the first U.S. city to enact a year-long data center construction ban.
South Carolina — “Project Liberty” (Marion County): An approximately $2–2.4B project approved by council in Jan. 2025 during a rare winter storm when school closures, power outages, and hazardous travel kept many away. NDAs bound officials; the agenda listed only the code name. The rural, majority -Black, high-poverty county (limited internet access, farming-dependent) was pitched with minimal permanent jobs (approximately 20) amid concerns over groundwater use and drought vulnerability. It was approved with tax deals favoring the developer.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has seen the same discussions. In Limerick Township (Montgomery County), a proposed data center on approximately 191 acres near the nuclear plant prompted developers to seek an NDA; township officials declined and aimed for public discussions, but the episode fueled broader debate about secrecy. State Rep. Joe Ciresi introduced legislation to restrict or prohibit NDAs tied to data center projects. Sen. Tracy Pennycuick introduced a bill specifically banning state and local agencies from entering NDAs for data center development, arguing residents deserve transparency on projects affecting their communities.
Other states: Virginia has widespread NDAs (one study found 25 of 31 localities with data center activity under them, limiting debate on scale and impacts). Arkansas officials cited NDAs when stonewalling questions. Kentucky (e.g., Mason County land deals and Boyd County meetings), Arizona (Pima County/”Project Blue” Amazon proposal faced leaks and rejection partly over secrecy), and others show similar early NDAs with shell companies or code names.
National level
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has investigated nationally, writing to utility regulators in all 50 states (including Pennsylvania’s PUC) seeking info on NDAs that restrict disclosure of energy/water use, infrastructure strain, and other impacts.
The national pattern applies anywhere developers target available land, power access, or incentives. Local vigilance (Right-to-Know requests, monitoring planning/zoning agendas for vague “projects” or sudden ordinance tweaks, watching for shell company land activity) is how communities elsewhere caught on.
Pushback and Reforms
Community actions: Opposition groups, Facebook pages, raucous public meetings, recalls, lawsuits, and moratoriums have killed or delayed projects.
Possible Corporate shift: Microsoft voluntarily announced it is ending NDAs with local governments to improve transparency and trust.
Legislation: Multiple states (including proposed PA bills) are considering bans or limits on NDAs for data centers or economic development deals involving public entities. Some argue public officials simply shouldn’t sign away their duty to inform constituents on high-impact infrastructure.
The AI-driven hyperscale data center boom is accelerating these deals nationwide, amplifying stakes around power grids, water, and local control. The tweet captures a real, recurring tactic backed by investigative reporting from outlets like Wisconsin Watch, NBC News, Capital B News, and others—not an isolated instance.
Stay vigilant. AND Magazine will continue researching, monitoring, and reporting on AI-related issues.
Missouri has a Substack that tracks our Legislature and it also reports on Data Center activity in the state. St. Charles was a good example and we have Camden County and Webster County elected officials and even electricity board member, and economic council members that have spent many months hiding behind NDAs and now trying to gaslight their citizens. The two substacker are on a speaking tour and currently in Owensville to talk Data Centers and Amendment 5 linked to “Eliminate State Income Tax” legislation that passed the Missouri senate under the cover of darkness. No doubt the globalist are running this state!
Thank you, Sam & Daniel. People are wishing up. There's a great lady named Alexandra Fasulo in Upstate NY, who is exposing these tactics on her Substack, and has encouraged other citizens to stand against this violation of our sovereignty.