Daily Herald opinion: The data center ‘sweet spot’: Grayslake offers a glimpse as county plans moratorium

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post this week. “If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame.”

Said Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders upon introducing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act last March: “Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of these data centers until we have a framework to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to our society. We must choose humanity over profit.”

Somewhere between those two invectives, there surely must be a framework for accommodating data processing centers while protecting the environment and electricity rate payers. Did the village of Grayslake find that sweet spot Tuesday in its approval of an 800,000-square-foot data processing center, despite widespread opposition?

That’s impossible to say at this early stage in the complicated evolution of these facilities. But it is clear that Grayslake’s leaders are striving for it.

In a 14-page document of FAQs on the project, the village foresees a future “that expands the nonresidential tax base to provide opportunities for property tax relief for residents, creates employment opportunities, generates new revenue for vital community services, and delivers lasting benefits through responsible private investment.”

Then it adds, “This is all being achieved through the same thoughtful planning and fiscal stewardship that Village of Grayslake leadership has consistently demonstrated over the years for our citizens.”

As evidence of that stewardship, the document goes on to note not only the $1.4 billion in non-residential property taxes the project is expected to produce over 20 years, but also the transparency, lack of incentives, “minimal water use” and independent electricity-rate responsibilities it says were part of the planning and thinking that went into the decision to permit the center.

The long-term question, of course, is whether that all will prove true or be enough. On that score, the village promised in its statement announcing the project to enforce “strict environmental and local safeguards.”

“Like every structure built within the municipality, the facility must meet stringent local and state regulations. By no means is this permit a blank check; as Grayslake grows, doing so in an environmentally responsible way remains a top priority,” the statement said.

Such promises may not be enough to calm nervous skeptics who warn the preliminary indications suggest the ugly realities of data centers will prove far more damaging and consequential than regulators will be able to control. But they do represent an awareness of magnitude of the responsibility facing community leaders in the management and development of these projects.

It is interesting to note that Grayslake’s action comes as the Lake County Board prepares to consider an eight-month moratorium on data processing centers and that the two approaches are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Obviously, no community wants to end up “backward and poor.” The challenge is to ensure they can prioritize “humanity over profit.” It certainly makes sense for Lake County officials to make sure they have the policies in place for that. For Grayslake, the issue is making sure that theirs succeed.