Will Anti-Data Center Sentiment Impact Upcoming Local Races?
The political earthquake that swept the nation and decimated GOP ranks in Congress has reset our national political conversation. With MAGA on the ropes, Democrats are preparing for a session marked by the promise of accountability for the Trumpian excesses of the past two years. A key factor in many of these races was public opposition to data centers, which surveys have consistently showed was a major point of dissatisfaction among voters. This was especially true in Texas, where a large number of the nation’s planned data centers are to be located. The election’s outcome was so dramatic that the Lonestar State now has a Democrat in the US Senate, while the state government also flipped blue for the first time in a generation.
Locally, data center development has been controversial, with many voters loudly opposing the proposed data center located in Midtown. As I have mentioned in the past, the convoluted path and outcome of the local data center conversation has not satisfied those opposed to hyperscale data centers in the city. From critics’ point of view, it has led to the passage of regulations by the local government that many see as window dressing. Those in disbelief that the regulations will meaningfully impact data center developments include lobbyists from Ameren and the Midtown project’s developer, who has already sued to overturn portions of the regulations that they feel are unenforceable and illegal under state law. On the other side, activists believe the community benefits agreement for the project is unenforceable and primarily a public relations ploy.
The regulations in question were part of Board Bill 49 (BB49), which passed without a single “no” vote. While two aldermen were absent for the vote, the rest of the board, including President Megan Green, voted to pass the regulatory framework. Given that many are unsatisfied with BB49, what is arguably the widest open lane in American politics remains fully accessible to local challengers who want city government to take a harder line against hyperscale data center construction. With springtime local elections around the corner, it creates a potential opportunity for would-be challengers to choose a populism-inflected strategy in their quest to unseat incumbents.
For their part, current aldermen will say that the regulations they passed were some of the strongest in the nation, but the truth is that other local jurisdictions implemented moratoria, a policy which the city briefly considered. As such, challengers could justifiably say that local elected officials’ approach to data center construction in our community was more lax, compared to even more conservative and business-friendly jurisdictions in the region. That is hardly in step with the current populist political climate among left-of-center voters.
In the spring’s flagship race, President Megan Green will face Ald. Michael Browning and former firefighter and current union official Demetris Alfred. While Alfred didn’t have to record a vote on local data center regulations, the limited information available in his October fundraising report indicates that he would be an unlikely outlet for this populist energy. Though his fundraising has been somewhat anemic, his report shows donations from former Slay Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford and attorneys who routinely work to further developers’ agendas and assist them in accessing public subsidies. It seems unlikely they would support a candidate who opposes large development deals.
Meanwhile, Ald. Browning has chosen to adopt the “Abundance” rhetoric that is en vogue with the Democratic Party’s center-right members. This rhetoric has proven successful in local political contests, as Mayor Spencer has often deployed this kind of business-friendly verbiage. While the language is meant to connect with centrist and left-leaning voters, the policy agenda of supporting corporate tax breaks and eased regulations is clearly recognizable as coming from a more conservative neoliberal economic framework.
For her part, Green will say that she did her best to steer the city’s regulations along a path that would deliver voters the strongest ordinance possible. The data center issue played out as many have: Mayor Spencer issues an executive order on an unpopular topic, followed by Pres. Green shepherding through legislation codifying the contents of the executive order. While Green appears to still have the support of DSA and other left-leaning groups, it is possible that voters may be unimpressed with her track record of upholding the progressive mantle with which she is so often associated. Given the current populist mood, it is possible that the incumbent could be forced out of the race’s populist lane by a challenger who is more willing to give voice to voter dissatisfaction with data center construction in our community. A challenge from the left isn’t expected, or even likely, but Green faces a rare moment where she is in the same centrist space as her challengers regarding the day’s hottest political topic. It would certainly be a novel experience for Green.
Likewise, half of the Board of Aldermen are facing reelection. Given that none of them voted against the data center ordinance, all of their challengers would potentially be able to say that they would have pushed for more or declined to accept a flawed ordinance that hasn’t seemingly had any impact on whether data centers will be constructed in the city. So far, there are few announced challengers to incumbent aldermen, and it is unclear if any would choose the populist lane for their campaign. Public opposition to such deals would also invite a barrage of donations supporting the incumbent, a consideration for any potential challenger.
In many ways, local elected officials have used the passage of BB49 to try and close the public discussion of data center construction in the City of St. Louis. Unfortunately for them, the recent federal elections showed that data centers remain a politically charged topic. Depending on challengers’ strategies, we may see whether voters have joined local elected officials in moving on from the topic. If not, the populist energy that proved important in recent federal and state elections could have a significant impact on our upcoming local races.
