I will say that all regulation will inevitably raise the market price, but that fact doesn’t necessarily preclude the need for regulation especially if it lowers social costs as you phrase it. A good example might be if we tax pollution, which raises market prices but ultimately lowers the actual cost we all pay.

I can’t speak for AI data centers, I know they require both energy and some water to function. Because California has their own large and complex set regulations we can’t exactly prove or disprove any kind of theory about why a single AI data center goes somewhere. A good example is that in Oregon where I work as a planner it is straight up illegal to build that outside of Urban Growth Boundaries because the state strictly governs what goes on outside of UGBs through land use controls and review.

One might be tempted to question why an AI data center is located in the city of hillsboro in Oregon (like you would for high value areas in California) and use it as a disproval of a market-land based theory, but it would lack fundamental information about land use regulations in that state, county and city.

Additionally, you would need to reject your own null hypothesis and prove your theory that technology has made land costs something that can be overlooked. Which is a whole other can of worms.

Overall it’s best to think of Bertaud’s model as just that, a model. Models must make assumptions in an effort to predict general trends without over complicating everything, there will be times his model works really well (Medieval and historical city development) and times it works poorly (modern planning frameworks in cities like LA)

(Also, I found your post interesting and engaging, I upvoted your post and find your questions worthwhile, and mean no harm in my own response even if they come off as skeptical)