Good to hear a rational view on the impact of AI data centers on local communities instead of the constant FUD. But to be fair, let's look at both sides. The man speaking in this Fox News segment is a Loudoun County resident. He probably has a better understanding of what DC actually mean for a local community than most people who have only seen the letters D and C next to each other on a keyboard. And Loudoun is not exactly a random example. Ashburn, in Loudoun County, Virginia, is home to "Data Center Alley" - one of the largest concentrations of data centers in the world. Data centers have become an enormous source of local tax revenue and a major part of Loudoun's fiscal base. The economic case is pretty straightforward. Data centers generate hundreds of millions of dollars in local tax revenue They have helped support lower residential property tax rates They fund schools, public services and infrastructure Construction creates substantial demand for skilled labor They strengthen America's digital and AI infrastructure For FY2027, Loudoun expects roughly $1.3B in tax revenue from data centers, representing around 45% of projected county tax revenue. That's not a marketing talking point. The county itself documents the extraordinary fiscal contribution of the data center industry. And Loudoun isn't the only example. Fox News recently reported on Quincy, Washington, where data-center tax revenue helped fund a new high school, hospital and aquatic center. At the same time, Fox makes an important point: a single data center may employ relatively few people once construction is complete. So what are the legitimate arguments against them? 1. Noise Yes, this is a real issue. But it is primarily a question of engineering, site selection and regulation. AI facilities are increasingly moving toward direct-to-chip liquid cooling because of the power density of modern AI racks. This reduces the cooling-related airflow burden, although it doesn't make a data center silent. And compared with many industrial facilities operating 24/7, a well-designed data center can be a relatively quiet industrial neighbor. The relevant question isn't simply: "Are data centers noisy?" It's: "What is the measured noise level at the property boundary?" That's something that can actually be regulated. 2. Transmission lines Another argument that needs some nuance. A data center doesn't simply "consume" a transmission line. It creates a very large electricity load that requires sufficient generation, transmission and distribution capacity. Increasingly, power availability is one of the key factors determining where new AI data centers can actually be built. Developers generally pay their direct interconnection costs and can be required to fund or contribute to grid upgrades needed to serve their load. So the question isn't simply: "Do data centers pay for the grid?" It's which costs are directly assigned to the project and which are recovered across the broader rate base. 3. Electricity consumption This one is absolutely real. AI data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity and demand will continue to rise as compute density increases. But the question isn't whether America will "run out of electricity." The real question is whether generation, transmission and distribution can expand fast enough to keep up with new load. If they do, large new loads can help justify investment in new generation and grid infrastructure. If they don't, electricity prices and grid constraints can become an issue. Recent research found evidence of both effects: data-center entry was associated with higher local employment, wages and business formation, but also higher electricity prices in some markets. The distinction matters. It's not simply about how much electricity AI consumes, but how the system responds to that demand and who pays for it. 4. Water This is where the technology is changing the discussion quite quickly. New high-density AI facilities are increasingly adopting direct-to-chip, closed-loop liquid cooling, which can eliminate evaporative water use for cooling. And this isn't just a Microsoft story. Oracle says the AI data centers it is building today in several U.S. states use closed-loop, non-evaporative cooling. Google introduced its Brazos liquid-cooling system in 2026, while NVIDIA's latest Rubin architecture is designed around 100% liquid cooling. So: "AI data centers require huge amounts of water" is becoming an increasingly incomplete statement. Water use hasn't disappeared across the industry, but the cooling architecture of new AI facilities is changing rapidly. 5. Land This is a legitimate issue. If an AI campus means clearing valuable farmland or natural land and building an entirely new power and infrastructure network, there is a reasonable question about whether that is the best location. But a brownfield site with existing power, fiber and industrial infrastructure is a very different proposition. The question shouldn't simply be: "Does the data center use a lot of land?" It obviously does. The better question is: "Why was this particular site chosen?" 6. "They create very few permanent jobs." Also true. An AI data center isn't a car factory. Once construction is complete, relatively few people may work inside the facility. But measuring the economic impact only by people employed inside the building misses a lot. Someone has to: > build it >maintain it > service the electrical infrastructure > provide cooling systems > provide security > upgrade the equipment > supply networking hardware > provide engineering and construction services And there can be broader local effects. Recent research on data-center entry found measurable effects on employment, wages and business formation, with stronger effects in metropolitan areas where agglomeration effects are more pronounced. The same research also found evidence of higher electricity prices in some markets. That doesn't mean every individual data center creates thousands of local jobs. It means the economic impact shouldn't be measured solely by the number of people sitting inside the building. So what's the actual answer? I don't buy either extreme. "AI data centers have no impact on communities." Wrong. They consume huge amounts of electricity, require infrastructure, occupy land and can create real local externalities. But: "They are giant warehouses that consume power, water and land while creating almost no economic value." That's also wrong. The economic benefits in places like Loudoun are measurable. The right question is much more boring and much more useful: Is this particular project well located, and is the developer paying an appropriate share of the infrastructure costs it creates? If yes, an AI data center can be an extremely valuable economic asset. If not, residents have every right to push back. That's a much more productive debate than simply being pro- or anti-data center.