As Scioto County considers offering a significant tax abatement to attract a proposed $1 billion data center, I find myself neither cheering nor rejecting the idea outright. Instead, I’m asking a question many communities like ours have learned to ask the hard way: What does economic development actually cost, and who bears that cost over time?
On the surface, the proposal carries obvious appeal. A billion-dollar investment is rare in Southern Ohio. Construction would likely bring hundreds of skilled, well-paid jobs for several years — electricians, HVAC technicians, equipment operators, concrete workers. Infrastructure upgrades to power, roads and fiber could follow. In a region that has struggled to replace lost industry, those benefits matter.
But experience urges us to look beyond the headline number.
Data centers are capital-intensive, not labor-intensive. Once construction ends, the permanent workforce is typically small — often dozens of jobs, not hundreds. Those jobs are real and valuable, but they may not significantly shift local employment. When long-term tax abatements are factored in, the public cost per job can quietly become very high, particularly for schools and local services that depend on property tax revenue.
My caution here is shaped not just by theory, but by experience.
During my years as a journalist, I’ve watched similar incentive-driven booms unfold across the country. One example that still stands out is Oklahoma’s horizontal drilling tax exemption. The state offered oil and gas companies a five-year tax break intended to encourage innovation and production. What followed was predictable: nearly every new well was suddenly classified as “horizontal.” The majority of the gas was extracted within the first three years — well before the exemption expired.
Meanwhile, the physical costs were borne locally. Forty-plus-ton drilling trucks traveled county roads never designed to carry that kind of weight. WPA-era bridges and county bridges rated for 10- to 20-ton vehicles were damaged or destroyed. At the same time, the cost of asphalt, gravel and patch seal skyrocketed. Counties were left scrambling to repair infrastructure with limited funds, while tax revenue lagged behind the pace of damage.
The companies operated legally. The incentives worked exactly as written. But the public costs were underestimated — and once the boom passed, local governments were left holding the bill.
That history does not mean a data center is the same as an oil or gas operation. It isn’t. Data centers do not extract resources or operate heavy truck traffic at the same scale. But the lesson is relevant: incentives shape behavior, and when agreements fail to account for real-world impacts, communities can absorb costs they never intended to subsidize.
Environmental concerns further complicate the picture.
Southern Ohio already lives with elevated levels of fluorination and chemical complexity in its water systems, shaped by decades of upstream industrial activity, legacy pollution and regulatory decisions. For many residents, water quality is not an abstract issue — it is personal and ongoing.
Data centers consume enormous amounts of electricity and water and rely on advanced cooling and fire suppression systems, some of which involve fluorinated compounds now under increased scrutiny nationwide. While data centers do not manufacture these chemicals like past industrial facilities, the cumulative impact of adding new, high-demand operations to an already stressed watershed deserves careful evaluation, ongoing monitoring and transparency.
At the same time, it would be unrealistic to pretend that rejecting large-scale investment carries no risk. Communities that say no too often can find themselves bypassed entirely, watching opportunity flow elsewhere while tax bases shrink and services erode.
So the real question before Scioto County is not whether data centers are inherently good or bad. It is whether this deal is structured to protect the people who live here.
How long does the tax abatement last?
Are schools and emergency services protected through guaranteed payments?
Are there clawback provisions if promised investments or jobs fall short?
Who pays for long-term utility expansion and infrastructure maintenance?
What environmental safeguards will remain in place decades from now?
These are not anti-growth questions. They are pro-community ones.
Being balanced does not mean being passive. It means learning from experience while remaining open to opportunity. Scioto County deserves development that strengthens its future without repeating the mistakes of its past.
This decision will shape more than a balance sheet. It will shape trust — and trust, once lost, is far harder to rebuild than any data center.
So the question before Scioto County is not whether data centers are inherently good or bad. It is whether this deal is structured to protect the long-term recovery of the region.
That means asking clear, practical questions:
What steps will be taken to mitigate environmental impact, not just at launch, but decades into operation?
How will water use, discharge and chemical handling be monitored and reported?
Are tax abatements structured in a way that supports long-term economic recovery, or do they disproportionately benefit private interests while limiting public revenue?
Are there safeguards to ensure schools, emergency services and infrastructure are not left underfunded?
If promised benefits fail to materialize, are there mechanisms to correct course?
These are not questions rooted in opposition. They are questions rooted in stewardship.
-
Environmental impact
“Can you walk us through, in plain terms, what this company will do to limit environmental impact over the long run — especially when it comes to water use, cooling systems, and any chemicals involved — and how the public will be able to track that over time?”
-
Water concerns
“Southern Ohio already has ongoing water-quality and supply concerns. What’s been done to evaluate how much additional strain this facility would put on local water systems, and who’s responsible if problems show up down the road?”
-
Tax breaks vs. community benefit
“This project relies on a significant tax abatement. How does the county make sure that this deal actually helps long-term recovery here, rather than limiting revenue for schools, roads, and emergency services for years to come?”
-
Accountability
“If the number of jobs or level of investment ends up being lower than what’s been promised, what happens then? Is there a way for the county to recover lost revenue or revisit the agreement?”
-
Infrastructure costs
“We’ve seen in other industries that heavy use can wear down local infrastructure faster than expected. What impacts are anticipated here — on roads, utilities, and public systems — and how will the county ensure taxpayers aren’t left paying for that damage?”
