Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

Transparency, NDAs, and Democratic Oversight

• Many commenters argue state/local governments should be almost fully transparent; secret corporate deals are described as inherently prone to corruption.
• Others note NDAs are now standard in large projects (plants, HQs, data centers), especially during early “maybe” stages, and sometimes even exempted in FOIA laws.
• Defenders say NDAs let cities get detailed information they otherwise couldn’t compel, and prevent premature public fights over projects that may never happen.
• Critics respond that “commercial confidentiality” shouldn’t override democracy, and that secrecy functions as arbitrage: companies exploit information asymmetry to secure land, water, power, and tax breaks on better terms than an informed public would accept.
• Several support time-limited NDAs: allowed during pre-feasibility, but banned once formal approval processes start.

Economic Rationale, Jobs, and Local Power Dynamics

• Strong skepticism that hyperscale data centers are good local deals: they bring many construction jobs, but only a few dozen permanent, high-skill roles.
• Some note persistent contract work (electrical, cooling retrofits) creates ongoing trades jobs; in small towns, even 40–50 jobs and higher tax base can matter.
• Others counter that tax abatements, TIF districts, and infrastructure costs (roads, substations, water systems) often leave residents subsidizing billion‑dollar firms, pointing to Foxconn and Virginia/Oregon examples.
• Several frame this as part of a broader “race to the bottom,” with municipalities bidding against each other instead of corporations competing for communities.

Water, Energy, and Environmental Impacts

• Major concern: huge new loads on local grids and aquifers, with rising electricity and water bills, outages, and long-term constraints on growth.
• Some claim “data centers guzzle water” is overstated propaganda, arguing per‑acre use is far below agriculture and that closed-loop cooling can minimize consumption.
• Others point to real cases of large groundwater draws, evaporative cooling towers, and Great Lakes diversion politics; they worry about a “tragedy of the commons” if many such projects proceed.

NIMBYism, Public Sentiment, and Trust

• Many see secrecy as a deliberate tactic to avoid organized opposition; once residents learn about projects, they often mobilize and sometimes stop them.
• Local sentiment in several places is openly hostile not just to the facilities but to “AI/Big Tech” itself; people see extraction of local resources for remote benefit, with little say and little upside.

AI, Data Centers, and Systemic Critiques

• Commenters debate whether LLMs and AI justify this build‑out: some get daily value; others see “LLM farms” as socially harmful, energy‑hungry, and enriching a tiny elite.
• Broader critiques target campaign finance, corporate lobbying, and the way states hollowed out industrial bases, leaving desperate towns vulnerable to opaque, one‑sided deals.