Reading the Room: Understanding Attitudes Toward Mason County’s Data Center

If you live in or around Mason County, you’ve almost certainly heard about the data center proposal, probably more than you ever wanted to. It’s been the focus of social media threads, local news stories, TV segments, backyard conversations, city and county meetings, and even a few spirited public meetings. Many seem to have a take on whether this thing is the best opportunity we’ve had in years, or a terrible idea hidden behind non-disclosure agreements.

The debate often gets framed as a simple showdown: the folks who want the data center and the folks who don’t. Both camps have been working hard to win over the undecided, who are still studying and evaluating the whole situation, trying to decide what to think. I count myself among that undecided crowd, suspecting, as many probably do, that the truth isn’t hiding at either extreme, but somewhere in the messy middle where nuance usually resides.

As I think about the issue, I am reminded of Reid Hoffman’s categories of attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence (AI).  (Hoffman is one of the co-founders of the popular networking site, Linkedin).  Hoffman sorts people’s attitudes towards AI into four categories: Doomers, Gloomers, Zoomers, and Bloomers. 

Doomers see AI as an existential threat to mankind that should be curtailed, if not stopped, before a point of no return.  Gloomers believe that the advancement of AI will inevitably lead to significant societal disruptions, such as widespread job displacement and human obsolescence, so stringent regulations are needed.  Zoomers are full-speed-ahead proponents of AI and believe in a hands-off approach to the technology so that society can reap the benefits of AI.  Bloomers believe AI can be a positive force if risks are managed carefully and thoughtfully.

In a highly technical move known as “borrowing without shame,” I think these same four categories map surprisingly well onto the attitudes we’re seeing around Mason County’s proposed AI data center.

A proposed data center becomes a kind of community Rorschach test:

• Doomers see existential risk.
• Gloomers see annoyance and imbalance.
• Zoomers see excitement and momentum.
• Bloomers see potential with guardrails.

I understand that in early December, there will be some public hearings around the topic hosted by the local planning commission.  During these upcoming public hearings, representatives of each of these perspectives are likely to participate. Recognizing these different approaches ahead of time can help the community engage constructively and ensure that all voices are considered.  

I share the following snapshots of each position. I do this in the hope that individuals in each group might better understand the viewpoint from which members of other groups might be coming.  In no way do I mean to pigeonhole any group, speak for any group, demean any group, seemingly support any group, or seemingly discount any group.  If I have done so in any way, I do apologize.   

The Doomer: “This thing is going to ruin everything.”

The doomer may show up at the planning commission meeting with a binder, a serious expression, and likely a solemn warning or two.

Core Concerns/Beliefs:

• Long-term environmental risk: depletion of groundwater, strain on the power grid, heat release, noise.
• Loss of rural identity: farmland could be bought up or repurposed, rural landscapes replaced by massive industrial infrastructure.
• Lack of real benefits: doubts that promised jobs will materialize, or that they will benefit locals (beyond construction).
• Transparency worries: fearing that decision-makers are not fully disclosing the risks or future burdens.
• May view big tech with suspicion. 

How They Express Themselves:

• Leading or joining groups like “We Are Mason County KY” to push for restrictions.
• Signing and promoting the Save Mason County petition.
• Pushing for health / environmental impact assessments or demanding rigorous planning conditions.

Leverage Strategy:

• Organize around data and evidence: commission independent environmental impact studies.
• Use zoning and planning tools: demand that the data center be limited to industrial zones.
• Build a coalition with other local stakeholders (farmers, historical preservation, community groups) to push for stronger public benefit.

Community stance:
Hard no. Petitions. Probably some late-night posts on the neighborhood Facebook group.

Why their voice matters:
They force tougher questions about long-term sustainability, transparency, and regulatory oversight. Also, they’re often right about at least one thing we all should’ve been paying attention to.

The Gloomer: “It’ll probably happen, but it’ll be bad.”

These folks may not believe the sky is falling, but believe it’s likely to be partly cloudy. They may be worried about falling property values, rising utility rates, the inconveniences of construction, and the toll on their patience.

Core Concerns/Beliefs:

• “Okay, maybe some jobs will come, but they won’t offset the costs”: they worry about whether the economic benefit is worth the trade-offs (public resources, infrastructure stress).
• Infrastructure burden: more traffic during construction, road wear, and increased demand on utilities.
• Local hiring: skepticism that “400 full-time jobs” will primarily go to local residents, or that these jobs will pay well.
• Sees the project creating more headaches than hope.

How They Express Themselves:

• Attend fiscal court / planning meetings, but with a measured tone: “Yes, but …” rather than a firm no.
• Support regulations rather than outright bans: for instance, they might back an ordinance that restricts data centers to certain zones, require community benefits agreements, or insist on robust environmental safeguards.
• Work quietly with local officials, asking good, critical questions.

Leverage Strategy:

• Push for community benefits agreements (CBAs): negotiate guaranteed investments in local infrastructure, job training, or payments to the county.
• Use the comprehensive plan: draw on the county’s own planning goals (e.g., preserving farmland, protecting environment) to argue that any development must align with those long-term community priorities.
• Advocate for regular oversight and transparent reporting of the data center’s resource use and community impact

Community stance:
Reluctant acceptance. A weary shrug. The civic equivalent of, “Fine, but I’m not happy about it.”

Why their voice matters:
They help temper boosterism, push for realistic impact assessments, and make sure shiny promises are backed by enforceable agreements.

The Zoomer: “This is going to be amazing, finally, something cool!”

These folks see a data center and imagine the future arriving early, carrying a briefcase full of opportunities.

Core Concerns/Beliefs:

• The data center could be a catalyst for economic revitalization: bring high-paying jobs, draw more business, and make the region more competitive.
• It could be a foundation for infrastructure improvement: power upgrades, broadband, and perhaps even other industries.
• It’s a transformative moment: once the “big domino” falls, more investment and innovation may follow.
• Sees potential partnerships between the data center and local schools or colleges.
• Has likely already posted about it on social media with an emoji.

How They Express Themselves:

• Vocal support in public forums, planning meetings, and local media.
• Align with economic development authorities (e.g., Maysville-Mason County Industrial Development Authority) to push for the project.
• Advocate for speeding up approvals / removing bureaucratic barriers, but also for long-term partnerships (e.g., data center + local schools or community colleges).

Leverage Strategy:

• Propose workforce development programs in partnership with the data center and local schools (e.g., Maysville Community & Technical College) so residents can compete for good jobs.
• Push for tax incentives coupled with accountability: if the county is giving tax breaks or incentives, make sure there are performance milestones, local hiring quotas, or rent-payments back into community funds.
• Use growth dividend: tie data center development to other long-term economic development strategies in the comprehensive plan.

Community stance:
Full-speed ahead. The position is: “If we don’t jump on this train, we’re going to be left standing on the platform while everyone else zooms ahead.”

Why their voice matters:
They energize the conversation, see potential where others see problems, and often push for future-oriented benefits like digital literacy programs or innovation hubs.

The Bloomer: “This is an opportunity if we plan it well.”

The bloomer isn’t blindly optimistic, they’re strategically optimistic. They show up with spreadsheets, questions, and a hopeful smile that says, “We can make this work if we plan it right.”

Core Concerns/Beliefs:

• The data center is not inherently bad or good, but a tool. With proper planning, it can deliver real value and safeguard community resources.
• Growth must be balanced, but not blocked: they believe progress is desirable if it’s structured to respect Mason County’s character (farmland, heritage, environment).
• Transparency and safeguards are non-negotiable: require strong public oversight, local benefits, and environmental protections.

• Sees the data center as raw material for community growth, jobs, training pathways, tax revenue.
• Wants community benefits agreements, sustainability standards, local hiring commitments, and smart infrastructure planning.
• Stays hopeful but insists on accountability.

How They Express Themselves:

• Leading or participating in multi-stakeholder working groups: civic leaders, farmers, developers, local government, and community activists.
• Advocating for zoning restrictions.
• Hosting community forums, working with local groups to educate residents about trade-offs. 
• Driving policy: working to ensure the comprehensive plan’s objectives (like preserving farmland, controlling infrastructure demands) are integrated into any data-center approval.

Leverage Strategy:

• Formalize a community benefit agreement (CBA) with the developer: tie commitments to environmental performance, infrastructure investments, and local hiring.
• Push for robust impact assessments (environmental, traffic, noise, water) as a condition for zoning / permitting approvals.
• Use adaptive land-use policy: the comprehensive plan suggests adaptation to declining population, focusing on resilience rather than unchecked growth.
• Monitor and enforce: set up a local oversight board (with citizen representation) to review data center operations over time — not just during construction.

Community stance:
“Yes, but let’s do it thoughtfully.”

Why their voice matters:
Bloomers often build the coalition that brings the project to life in a way that boosts the whole community, not just the developer.

Summing It All Up

A healthy planning process needs all four voices. The trick is making sure the conversation doesn’t get hijacked by the loudest emotional register: fear, resignation, hype, or naive optimism.

If these perspectives can actually be integrated rather than pitted against one another, our community has a better chance to negotiate better agreements, build better safeguards, and end up with developments that serve real human needs rather than abstract corporate goals.

Each perspective offers important insights. Doomers and Gloomers encourage careful scrutiny and accountability, while Zoomers and Bloomers bring forward-looking optimism and practical strategies for capturing benefits responsibly. Integrating these viewpoints, rather than allowing the conversation to be dominated by the loudest voices, increases the likelihood that any development will serve both the county’s immediate needs and its long-term interests.

By fostering dialogue that is informed, respectful, and comprehensive, Mason County can approach the data center proposal thoughtfully: balancing opportunity with stewardship, innovation with community priorities, and growth with sustainability.