The race to build America’s digital infrastructure is accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and the demand for greater processing power have sparked a nationwide boom in data center construction. The green energy mandate passed in 2023 has also accelerated the demand for solar, wind, and battery storage facilities.  Since the tax credits for data centers require 90% of the energy to come from a “renewable source,” more data centers will only lead to more land being rented for solar, wind, and battery facilities. Rural communities that once expected to see their farms, forests, and open land preserved for generations are now fighting back against proposals for sprawling industrial campuses that require massive amounts of electricity, water, and supporting infrastructure. 

With these projects has come an understandable wave of anxiety. One question surfaces repeatedly at town halls and office hours: Can a data center or green energy project take my land through eminent domain? 

The answer is NO. 

A private company building a data center does not possess the power of eminent domain, nor does a company looking to lease ground for energy projects.  That authority belongs to government and, in some cases, to utilities or other entities that state law specifically authorizes. A technology or energy company cannot simply decide it wants your farm, your home, or your family property and force you to sell. 

That distinction matters because public debate should begin with accurate facts. However, it should not obscure the larger issue facing many communities. 

While private developers generally cannot condemn private property, local and state governments often play a significant role in making these projects possible. Rezoning decisions, tax incentives, infrastructure investments, utility expansions, and expedited permitting can dramatically reshape a community long before the first hole is dug or foundation is poured. In some situations, government can use eminent domain for roads, utility corridors, or other public infrastructure associated with a development if they determine the legal requirements for doing so have been met. Those decisions are subject to constitutional limits and judicial review, but they remind us that citizens cannot afford to be passive observers.  

Property rights have never protected themselves. The strength of those rights has always depended on informed citizens who are willing to participate in the public process before decisions become irreversible. 

That begins with paying attention. Every major development leaves a paper trail. Planning commission meetings, zoning hearings, environmental reviews, and public notices are opportunities for residents to ask questions. How much water will the facility consume? What will it mean for local electric rates? Will taxpayers bear the cost of new infrastructure? How will increased traffic affect nearby neighborhoods? What guarantees exist if promised jobs fail to materialize? 

Landowners should also approach every proposed agreement with caution. Developers often seek options to purchase land, easements for utilities, or access agreements years before construction begins. Those documents can have lasting legal and financial consequences. Before signing anything, property owners should consult an attorney who represents their interests, not the interests of the developer. 

Communities benefit from working together. Individual objections can be easy to dismiss. Organized neighborhoods that share information, commission expert studies, and participate consistently in public meetings are far more likely to influence outcomes. Whether residents ultimately support or oppose a project, they deserve a seat at the table. 

In the rare situation that eminent domain does become part of a related government project, property owners need to remember that they still have legal rights. Governments generally must provide notice, follow set procedures, and pay just compensation when land is taken for a lawful reason. In many jurisdictions, landowners can challenge whether the project meets legal requirements or dispute the amount of compensation offered. Understanding those rights before a dispute arises can make a significant difference. 

None of this should be interpreted as opposition to technology itself. America needs reliable digital infrastructure. Data centers support everything from hospitals and universities to financial systems and emergency communications. They can bring investment and employment to local economies; but economic development should never require communities to surrender transparency or respect for private property. 

These debates should not be framed as technology versus progress, or growth versus preservation. They should be framed around whether public officials are making decisions openly, and whether citizens have meaningful opportunities to participate. 

For generations, Americans have understood that owning your own property represents independence, stability, and the ability of families to determine the future of the places they call home. Those principles deserve the same respect in the digital age. 

Data centers or green energy projects do not qualify for eminent domain, but they are prompting conversations about how growth should occur and who bears its costs. Communities need to demand transparent government and insist that every development, no matter how large or small, proceeds according to the law. 

Protecting property rights does not mean rejecting progress; it means ensuring that progress doesn’t destroy the people, the land, and the community that has been here for generations and should be persevered for future generations.