THE LAUNCH DOCK

Merchant Ship Collective
An accountability-forward look at Missouri’s data center boom—and what happens when leadership treats public input like a speed bump instead of a steering wheel.

Why Missouri communities keep saying “no,” and why too many decision-makers keep acting like they didn’t hear it.

When “Economic Development” Becomes a One-Way Conversation

Missouri isn’t confused about what data centers are.

People are confused about why their leaders keep acting like communities are optional.

Across the state, the script is becoming familiar:

• A major data center or mega-site is introduced as “inevitable progress.”

• Residents ask basic questions about power, water, noise, land use, fire risk, taxes, and long-term accountability.

• The public is told to “trust the process,” while key details remain vague, delayed, or protected by a culture of confidentiality.

• And then leadership keeps moving it forward anyway—because the deal has momentum, the talking points are polished, and the pressure is real.

That’s not leadership. That’s deal management.

And when leaders stop listening, they don’t just lose trust. They lose legitimacy.

Facts & Statistics: Why Data Centers Often Bring Less “Good” Than the PR Claims

Let’s say the quiet part out loud:

Data centers are designed to generate profits — not community wellbeing.

If a community benefits, it’s usually because residents forced protections into place.

Here’s what the research and reporting consistently show:

• Data centers used about 4.4% of U.S. electricity in 2023 and could reach 6.7%–12% by 2028, creating long-term strain on local grids and infrastructure planning (U.S. Department of Energy, 2024).

• U.S. data centers consumed roughly 183 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024 — more than 4% of total national usage (Pew Research Center, 2025).

• U.S. data centers directly consumed an estimated 17 billion gallons of water in 2023, largely for cooling systems (Pew Research Center, 2025).

• Investigative reporting shows many data centers receive millions in public tax subsidies while offering very limited permanent employment compared to their footprint and infrastructure demands (Business Insider, 2025).

• Industry-backed reports emphasize short-term construction jobs, not durable community employment (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2024).

Communities are not anti-progress for questioning this.

They are pro-survival.

What Should Be Protected — Every Time — Before Any Approval Moves Forward

If leaders claim these projects are “good for families,” then families must be protected in writing, not in speeches.

And the financial burden must fall on the corporations profiting from these projects — not on residents who did not ask for them, vote for them, or benefit from them.

That means protections must include:

• Affordable, reliable energy for residents and small businesses — with legally binding guarantees that grid upgrades, transmission expansion, and capacity increases are paid for by the developer, not shifted onto ratepayers through higher monthly bills.

• Clean water access and well stability, with corporate-funded monitoring, mitigation, and long-term remediation plans.

• Noise and air-quality protections, including corporate responsibility for sound barriers, generator limits, and compliance enforcement.

• Road safety and emergency response capacity, funded by the project owner (fire suppression systems, hazmat planning, staffing, equipment upgrades).

• Land-use integrity, including buffers, setbacks, farmland protection, and compensation mechanisms for neighboring property owners.

• Public transparency, with no non-disclosure agreements that prevent communities from seeing what is being negotiated in their name.

• Enforcement power, including conditional use permits that can be revoked and financial penalties large enough to matter.

• Decommissioning and cleanup guarantees, backed by bonds or escrow accounts funded by the company — so taxpayers are not left with abandoned industrial infrastructure decades later.

If a corporation cannot afford the true cost of the infrastructure it requires, then the project is not economic development.

It is corporate welfare financed by families who never consented to pay for it.

And that is not leadership.

That is cost-shifting.

Missouri Examples: Communities Pushed Back — Leadership Pushed Forward Anyway

Montgomery County

Residents packed meetings, requested moratoriums, and raised concerns about farmland loss, wells, runoff, and long-term infrastructure strain (ABC 17 News, 2025).

Despite this, the County Commission later approved a tax-incentive framework tied to an Amazon Web Services data center project, including multiple buildings and future expansion potential (KBIA, 2025).

Community input was heard.
But it was not weighted.

Kansas City – Project Mica

Project Mica, a nearly 500-acre hyperscale data center campus supported by major incentives, moved forward despite persistent community concern about secrecy, land use, and scale (Port KC; KCUR).

Leadership framed the project as competitiveness.

Residents asked who pays long-term.

St. Louis – Armory District

Documents revealed the proposed Armory Tech District data center would exceed even controversial St. Charles projects in cost and scale. Public scrutiny forced delays and formal investigations — not proactive transparency (St. Louis Public Radio, 2025).

St. Charles

Only after intense backlash did leadership pause approvals and enact a one-year moratorium on new data center applications.

St. Charles didn’t overreact.

They reacted when leadership failed to protect public trust (KCUR, 2025).

Real-World Example: Montgomery County, Missouri

Montgomery County is a live demonstration of what happens when rural communities are treated like open acreage on a corporate planning map.

Reporting confirms:

• minimum of four buildings (with potential to expand to 17),

• major power-supply requirements,

• tax-abatement frameworks,

• long-term infrastructure commitments.

All while residents publicly questioned water safety, land preservation, and accountability.

This is not resistance.

It is self-defense.

Questions to Ask at the Next Meeting

If leadership is sincere, these should be answered in writing:

Energy & Utilities

• What is the maximum power demand at full build-out?

• Who pays for grid upgrades?

• What prevents rate increases?

Water & Environment

• Annual water usage at peak?

• Monitoring and enforcement plan?

Jobs & Local Benefit

• Permanent jobs guaranteed? Wage ranges?

• Public incentive cost per permanent job?

Exit Planning

• Decommissioning plan?

• Bond or escrow requirement?

Transparency

• Any NDAs?

• Who approved them?

Public Town Hall – January 29

Montgomery County Townhall Meeting
Topic: Proposed 5,000-acre mega-site & data centers
Date: Thursday, January 29
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Montgomery County R-2 High School Gym
Organized by: Preserve Montgomery County, LLC

Show up • Stand up • Speak up

Call to Action

Missouri does not need more stakeholder-engagement theater.

It needs leaders who will:

1. Slow down when communities raise real concerns.

2. Publish contracts before approvals.

3. Require corporations to pay for the infrastructure they consume.

4. Protect families before profits.

Your home is not a corporate experiment.

Closing

When leadership consistently chooses corporate timelines over community protection, the outcome is predictable:

Higher costs.
Lower trust.
Permanent land loss.
Public systems stretched thin.
Families left to absorb the damage.

Missouri deserves leaders who defend people louder than they defend deals.

In solidarity,
Lyndsay LaBrier

References

ABC 17 News. (2025, December 4). Montgomery County residents push back against Amazon data center proposal. https://abc17news.com

Business Insider. (2025, May 12). Big tech promised jobs. Cities gave millions. Where are the workers? https://www.businessinsider.com

KCUR. (2025, August 23). St. Charles City Council passes one-year moratorium on data center applications. https://www.kcur.org

KBIA. (2025, December 19). Montgomery County Commission approves Amazon data center tax incentive framework. https://www.kbia.org

Pew Research Center. (2025, October 24). What we know about energy use at U.S. data centers amid the AI boom. https://www.pewresearch.org

Port KC. (n.d.). Project Mica. https://portkc.com/project/project-mica

St. Louis Public Radio. (2025, September 25). Documents reveal Armory data center price tag larger than controversial St. Charles project. https://www.stlpr.org

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2024). The economic impact of data centers in the United States. https://www.uschamber.com

U.S. Department of Energy. (2024). Report evaluating the increase in electricity demand from data centers. https://www.energy.gov