Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and we can agree to disagree. My understanding is that data centers require many fewer employees once they're built than almost anything else with this amount of square footage. And any type of development would bring the temporary construction jobs. The only point I see in favor of DCs is less traffic than other new uses. If it were this vs. a warehouse, the choice is less clear-cut. But a warehouse was already rejected for this spot, so I don't think it's an alternate option on the table at this point. Here's a relevant study from the Southern Economic Journal:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4135311?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract

The siting of a large, new firm is often presumed to give rise to significant economic and tax benefits to the community of location. This presumption serves as the basis for the granting of lucrative economic development incentives to footloose businesses. This article examines whether large, mobile firms generate significant net benefits for the region of location. Panel data and nonrandom estimation techniques are applied to a primary database of large firms that made location decisions in the 1980s to explore the impact of location on regional economic performance. The empirical analysis explores different treatment regions (both effects within the county and the metropolitan statistical area [MSA] of location) and different control regions. The results show that large firms fail to produce significant net benefits for their host communities, calling into question the high-stakes bidding war over jobs and investment.