Data center opponents recited the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of an informational meeting on Oct. 27, 2026. (Jonathan Ellis/The Dakota Scout)

Correction: Brent Van Aartsen’s name was misspelled in an earlier version.

Nearly 200 people turned out at Carnegie Town Hall in Sioux Falls Tuesday night to express concerns about data centers.

The meeting was ostensibly to discuss regulations in the joint jurisdiction area between Sioux Falls and Lincoln County with the Sioux Falls City Council and the Lincoln County Commission. But much of the public discussion focused on the 140 acres of land near Brandon that was rezoned earlier this year by Gemini to accommodate a potential hyperscale data center – land far from the Lincoln County-Sioux Falls joint jurisdiction area.

South Dakota nursing home faces wrongful death suit

Palisade Healthcare denies it was at fault for patient's bedsores

Subscribe to keep reading

This content is free, but you must be subscribed to The Dakota Scout to continue reading.

Already a subscriber?Sign in.Not now

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Brian A16 hours ago

AND afterwards they went home to argue online via Hatebook, oblivious to the fact that they are all addicted to using datacenters. Every time you used Google to find something online for the past 20 years, you've been using AI in a data center.

I understand not wanting a noisy data center in your neighborhood is a real concern. That's a legitimate reason to be at these meetings. Those of you who come to these meetings to stop AI are way over your skis and make it much harder to have adult conversations about actual local problems.

Avatar

The Heart of Everything19 hours ago

The real issue for me doesn’t focus on data centers, it focuses on the value or lack thereof of AI. We’ve gotten so used to just accepting that anything new is good, we’re not evaluating whether that’s true or not, and in this case, turning over our thinking to AI that by definition is unconcerned with right and wrong, and is in fact incapable of any sort of moral judgement, is not just wrong, it’s dangerous and unnecessary. Do I need to ask Chat GPT to send an email to a business to see if they have a sailboat available for rent? If I don’t know how to sail, should I rent a sailboat and then ask Chat GPT how to sail? How about I go to the library and read about how to sail? How about I join a local sailing club? We DO NOT need AI to cure cancer (huge advances are being made without AI) or to do any of the other things AI is supposed to do for us in the future while in the meantime, it’s primary use is to commit crimes that we cannot stop.

Avatar

The Heart of Everything19 hours ago

Two points: "Arends also pointed out that governments can’t act arbitrarily and violate the law, and he said owners of data centers also have property rights.” And this: "Commissioner Jim Schmidt said he heard concerns about how technology would impact future generations. Advances in technology and the demand for it have required the need for data centers, he noted.” My first comment is that putting a moratorium on hyper-scale data centers isn’t acting arbitrarily or violating the law—it’s creating laws that reflect the wishes of the citizens of Sioux Falls. Second, Jim is wrong. AI or other technological advances do NOT require data centers. In fact, centrally located data centers make it easier to hack them and/or destroy them ala Ukraine’s destruction of Russia’s data centers. It’s much better to de-centralize information—it’s less expensive, less pollution, less risk—like we can’t link and otherwise connect information?

Keep Reading