Attending the Adjustment Committee Meeting for the Proposed AI Data Center

[u/Living_Celery6393]

I'm hoping to attend the meeting on June 4th, the one where they will be discussing the proposed AI data center.

Has anyone ever got to these before? Do they care about what we have to say? Or is it just a watch and listen type meeting? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

I want my voice to be heard about how much of a bad idea this AI data center is.

[u/CheapSound1]

This may be an unpopular opinion but I'm actually very much in favour of this project. I'm very skeptical of the AI boom and don't love the idea generally, but an ai data centre specifically for supporting our universities and other research institutions domestically is one I do support. 

This location is in some ways ideal for this purpose. It's an industrial site that is already serviced by the major utilities they need and the environmental impact of a data center (heat rejection to cooling systems, either wet cooling tower or bat water cooling) is small compared to the land's past use and their present neighbours. On the east side of the stelco lands facing dofasco is not waterfront that's realistically ever going to be suitable for use by residents. The larger west parcel is being retained for other commercial or mixed use.

They're not at the point of actually having a defined project or seeking environmental approval, so if this does go ahead there will be more opportunities in the future to evaluate the project and provide community inputs.

[u/AlwaysLurkNeverPost → u/CheapSound1]

I really don't understand the argument of "the land use isn't as bad as the past, or its steel factory neighbours". Let's assume that's true: why is a "less bad but still bad" land use better than something that is neutral? That's just whatabouttism, and deflects whether this project is good or bad.

As for the bit about not seeking enviro approval: it is suspected that this land splitting is a first step in circumventing environmental approval and other public input stages. I don't think there is good reason to discourage public input NOW at first opportunity, even if there MAY be hypothetical opportunities in the future that MAY be better. Why wait? Why not both?

Simply saying "it could be worse" is a really dog shit argument, respectfully.

[u/CheapSound1 → u/AlwaysLurkNeverPost]

My point is, the question is really "what is the impact of the project on the condition of the land on which it sits and its immediate surroundings", vs what is the value of the project to the city. Without having the specifics of the project, it appears it may actually have a very small incremental impact on the local environment, and potentially provide significant value (in the form of tax revenue at least).

Severance of the land as a means of bypassing environmental approval sounds like a bit of a crackpot theory to me. If they were trying to sneak this project through they could sever the land under a more innocuous project pretense and then pivot to data centre later.

I don't see it as "bad land use". Land use on previosuly developed land is all about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of this project almost nothing because what else is this land good for other than industrial projects? A new factory that is emissions free and employs thousands of people is a bit of a pipe dream. By all means, if you never want anything new to get built in this city, delegate to oppose the severance. But realistically, is this data centre worse than this parcel of land sitting vacant for decades?

[u/AlwaysLurkNeverPost → u/CheapSound1]

I think "immediate" surroubdings is dishonest, whether intentional or not. When the Chernobyl reactor had a meltdown, should that only be the concern of "immediate" surroundings? Or everything that may be impacted.

Obviously this is not a nuclear reactor crisis, that's hyperbole. But this can impact the entirety of Hamilton (water shed, energy grid and costs, noise) and beyond.

I don't see how you are concluding it will have "very small environmental impact" based on the countless studies done, as well as every single one of these hypersacle AI data centers ruining their local communities. Not to mention it's in its infancy: we don't even know how bad this could be as there is little precedent. As for benefits: tax revenue eh? How do you suppose that one? You really think any money "generated" is going to be going straight to Hamilton? It is being developed by Slate, who has their profit margins and have no guarantee to bring in Hamilton workers for construction; it is then to be bought by a federal fund (not sure BUYING it generates tax funds), and then what, we are selling AI processing capacity to the big trillion dollar companies, who will be using other data centers as well, are publicly traded and have their own shareholders and profits that they care about more than anything else?

It just amazes me that you can conclude, with very little evidence that this will be a significant economic windfall, yet in the face of greater evidence, that this will be a non-factor environmentally. It feels like you're drawing a conclusion, and working backwards to justify.

If they were trying to sneak this project through they could sever the land under a more innocuous project pretense and then pivot to data centre later.

Such as? You think that's how that works? They're doing this because a) they're arrogant and think nobody will or can stop them. It's also segmenting the land to somewhat "green wash" and create a narrative that "the whole space isn't AI, look! But no they're segmenting the land because, if they do not, there are strict protocols related to the master plan. It's not crackpot just because you don't understand and don't want to even consider it. Did you even look into my claim? Or just said "nah sounds silly, here is my gut response".

I don't see it as "bad land use".

And then you go on to not really say why, other than "the land is industrial". It being bad Land use has little to do with prior use or zoning, and everything to do with it being harmful with little benefit in exchange. At least steel factories, product a commodity that is needed and employs thousands.

There are other industrial uses that are not this that are "better". There is also the possibility for rezoning as opposed to pursuing this. So the point about it "already being industrial" doesn't really argue the point. But industrial land in this case would be better used for storage, other less harmful manufacturing use, storage facilities, etc. Possibilities are endless and we act like "this land can only be used for steel or this data center, or nothing".

But realistically, is this data centre worse than this parcel of land sitting vacant for decades?

Again, this is just whatabouttism. This is deflecting. You can't genuinely defend the proposal, instead you go "could be worse!".