The data centre industry does not have a communication problem; it has a transparency problem. Across the country, projects are being delayed, challenged, and in some cases even stopped before construction begins. The common denominator is not always electricity or water supply, but the process itself. Communities learn too late and with insufficient information about projects that will fundamentally alter their local infrastructure.
This is not a public relations issue, but a failure in project development. The use of non-disclosure agreements, redacted documents, and fast-tracked planning approvals has become common in many jurisdictions. These tools are often justified as necessary to protect proprietary information or maintain a competitive position. In some cases, they are indeed warranted. However, when projects rely too heavily on secrecy, they create precisely the resistance they aim to avoid. When residents discover that key decisions have been made behind closed doors, trust erodes. If fundamental information about water consumption, energy demand, or site impacts is withheld, communities assume the worst. Once this perception is established, the project is no longer judged on its merits but is fundamentally rejected.
Transparency as a Development Strategy
The industry often views transparency as a concession – something offered once a project is underway or facing opposition. This approach is backward. Transparency is not a moral stance, but a development strategy. Projects that communicate early, clearly, and consistently tend to progress more quickly. They encounter fewer surprises at public hearings, fewer legal challenges, and less political resistance. They give communities time to understand the facts, ask questions, and make adjustments before positions harden. Projects that do not adopt this approach often follow a predictable path: late disclosure, swift opposition, protracted delays, and in some cases, cancellation.
This pattern is now visible in several states and is accelerating. What was once a localised reaction has evolved into a more coordinated response. Stakeholder groups are sharing information, comparing projects, and training communities on how to challenge approvals. In several markets, opposition groups have leveraged limited disclosure regarding power requirements, water usage, or development agreements as a focal point for organising resistance, as this is the easiest argument to grasp. One does not need to interpret megawatts or cooling systems to understand that something has been concealed. This simplicity makes secrecy a liability.
Fundamentals Instead of Trade Secrets
Most information communities request is not trade secrets, but fundamental facts. Expected power demand, water sourcing, general site plans, noise levels, and construction timelines – these are not operational secrets. They are factors that determine local impact. Withholding them creates no advantage but generates friction. The next phase of data centre development will require a different standard. Disclosure should not begin only after land has been secured and permits submitted. It should begin at the point a project becomes real. Before assumptions solidify, before narratives form, before resistance organises.
This does not mean every detail must be public immediately. It means that the elements affecting communities should be visible, understandable, and consistent across projects. Currently, there is no common framework for this. Each project is communicated differently. Key data is missing or inconsistent. Communities must piece together information from fragmented sources, often under time pressure. This environment does not lead to informed decisions, but to resistance. It also creates risks for developers and capital providers. A project defined by what it conceals will spend more time managing the process than on actual development. In a market where speed is crucial, such delays are costly. The industry has a choice: it can continue to view transparency as a bargaining chip, offering just enough information to push a project forward, or it can regard transparency as a foundation and integrate disclosure into the development process itself. Only one of these paths is scalable, because in this cycle, the successful projects will not be those that reveal the least, but those that disclose early enough to earn the right to proceed. A project that becomes a story about secrecy is already behind.
Suhail Y. Tayeb is a Clinical Assistant Professor at the Schack Institute of Real Estate at New York University and Director of the Center for the Sustainable Built Environment.
