upvote
The other option is to not offer the tax breaks and if the company wants to build a data center, they also need to pay the taxes for it. If a state is dumb enough to offer tax breaks that's on them.

There's also not "competition" here. It isn't as if data centers have almost any positive local effects, beyond their property tax revenue. They have very few employees and if the property tax is cut they ultimately don't generate any income for the locality.

I can tell you that as someone living in Idaho, I see no differences when I work with the datacenters in Oregon, Washington, or Utah. I'm not benefited in the slightest by the few Idaho datacenters that I interact with currently.

It's the same argument that's been used to give sports stadiums sweetheart deals. These things have almost no local benefits and a lot of negative side effects with their presence.

reply
> But I don't see what other options are available for states to compete with each other if not through tax breaks.

They should compete based on actual policy including tax policy. "Tax breaks" for specific projects are just unfair and a quick race to the bottom. Instead, areas should be required to treat all entities equally. Even tax breaks for specific industries like tv/film production are unfair but at least industry wide tax breaks treat individual entities more fairly.

If a state's taxes are too high to attract investment, then they should have to lower taxes for everyone (of the same type).

> exempt from state and local sales and use taxes on its data center equipment for the next 20 years

That said, the real issue IMO is that "use taxes" are just absurd to start with. Why should a random city/town be taxing products neither made nor sold in their jurisdiction. If anything, the sale of the datacenter product/services should be taxed but the external inputs "imported" from other states or countries is crazy to tax.

Again, I will die on the hill that a land value tax makes this all very simple. A LVT is the perfect strategy for extracting public value from data centers since electricity & water availability is a major input to a lands value.

reply
> But I don't see what other options are available for states to compete with each other if not through tax breaks.

Federal ban on tax breaks for companies over a certain market cap?

Why can't they compete on "we have a good regulatory setup" or "we have good schools for your employees" or "we are a nice place to live"? Why compete on "we'll soak or own taxpayers more than the next state over so you can make even more obscene profits"?

reply
The important consideration is whether states are competing for community benefits truly worth the bids made as tax breaks or whether the competition is just among politicians leveraging their personal control over tax breaks towards private benefit as power brokers.
reply
The endgame of competing with lower taxes is handing out $99 in incentives to get $100 of mobile corporate spending in your area. The only winners are the corporations. There needs to be a collective spine.
reply
The other winners are whoever the companies is selling goods or services to.
reply
building a ton of renewable power is a pretty good one

data centers could be a great thing for helping with the duck curve and the like, if they can throttle up and down based on energy cost

reply
Infrastructure is a good one. Universities and high quality labor too.
reply
Do datacenters really require good infrastructure? Given they are planned all around I suspect that’s not really the case. I’m also not convinced university or the quality of labors are strong arguments. Aren’t those datacenters made fairly cheaply and full of automation?
reply
Universities...for a data center?
reply
Compete for what exactly, in this case?
reply
Seriously. A few thousand construction jobs, short term, and a few tens of jobs long term. For $3,000,000,000 dollars.
reply
First to touch the bottom!
reply
Capital, assets, jobs.
reply
A datacenter complex provides basically none of those things to a state, beyond capital in the form of taxes. But if the state gives tax breaks, then there is no benefit to the state for having a giant warehouse draining its electricity supply and/or polluting its air.
reply
deleted
reply
compete for graft, kickbacks, energy parasites.
reply
You know I’m sure this is true on some level but if you think this is all or a majority of the motivation I think that sounds pretty conspiratorial.
reply
Stadiums routinely get tons of public funds and never return the same value to the city.

It's not really a conspiracy, perhaps more a delusion.

reply
Why do you see data centers as "energy parasites"? They are basically the best customers of the grid possible - consistent high usage. This is an opportunity for the US to pursue energy abundance and grow the economy. The only issues these cause is when states make it impossible to deploy more energy.

Anti growth environmentalism is so toxic when we could just be pursuing wide spread clean energy and growth.

reply
> Why do you see data centers as "energy parasites"?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48123090

> They are basically the best customers of the grid possible - consistent high usage.

The grid exists to serve the populace. It's why we tend to call it a "public utility".

reply
This is a truly delusional take. A high-consumer that needs constant input provides zero benefits to its neighbors. If datacenter providers want to benefit the grid, they ought to build clean energy production sufficient for their needs and then some as a prerequisite for approval. That would be beneficial to everyone.
reply
The big Meta data center in Louisiana is paying $30 million property taxes to a county that is collects $22 million a year in taxes. It pays tons of money to the utility for power. Utilities should just build more generation to serve demand and everyone wins.

The part of this that is broken is we’ve made it way too hard to spin up more power in this country. Growth can be good for everyone.

reply