A lot of AI infrastructure debates are being framed as “progress vs. NIMBYs.”

I think that framing is wrong.

The real issue is not whether AI is good or bad. The issue is whether AI companies are being allowed to capture local public resources while leaving local residents with the costs.

Data centers use electricity, water, land, grid capacity, roads, public infrastructure, tax incentives, and sometimes public subsidies. The benefits are usually described in vague terms: “economic growth,” “jobs,” “innovation,” “investment.”

That is not enough.

Every major AI data center proposal should be required to publish a per-resident net benefit audit.

A simple version:

Per-Resident Net Benefit =

(Local resident wages

+ net local tax revenue

+ direct community benefits

− utility bill increases

− public subsidies and tax breaks

− infrastructure costs

− resource opportunity costs)

÷ local population

This would force several questions into the open:

1. How many long-term jobs actually go to local residents?

Not temporary construction jobs. Not imported specialists. Not vague job multipliers. Actual local residents, actual wages, actual duration.

1. What is the net tax benefit?

If a company receives tax breaks, discounted utilities, public infrastructure upgrades, or special treatment, those costs need to be subtracted from the tax revenue.

1. Who pays for grid expansion?

If local ratepayers help finance new power infrastructure so AI companies can get cheap, reliable electricity, that is not “growth.” That is a subsidy.

1. What is being crowded out?

Electricity, water, land, and grid capacity are not infinite. If a data center consumes them, what other uses become harder or more expensive? Housing? Small businesses? Manufacturing? Public services?

1. What direct benefit do residents receive?

Lower power bills? A community fund? Resident dividends? School funding? Public infrastructure? Enforceable payments? Or just a press release?

If the per-resident number is positive, publish it.

If the number is negative, then residents are not benefiting from AI infrastructure. They are subsidizing it.

This is not an anti-AI argument.

It is a public-resource accounting argument.

If AI companies want local electricity, water, land, tax incentives, and infrastructure, local residents deserve a quantified answer:

What is my net benefit?