alt Hacker NewsMisleading title: they are using eminent domain to seize land for power lines to data centers. (emphasis mine)
This is still quite debatable, but so much less so than the implied accusation that they would somehow sell out their privileges as subcontractors for the data centers themselves.
Replies
There's a parcel of land in Texas that was left to the city to be used as a park, they've since sold it to a Data Center.
Though, this isn't strictly imminent domain... Just people being assholes.
There have been some pretty egregious misuses of eminent domain in the past, but using it for infrastructure is pretty much the quintessential justification. That's basically the only reason to have eminent domain at all. Arguing against it when that's how it's being used is, in my opinion, essentially arguing against the very concept of eminent domain. Which one can totally choose to do! But they should be up front about it, if that's what's going on.
As for the title, I would go further than you do. This is not a misleading title. It is a lying title. I'm usually a pretty big believer in Scott Alexander's Bounded Distrust [0] concept for the media where they very rarely actually, technically lie. This title (although not the article itself), in my opinion crosses that line.
(Submitted title was "Power companies are using eminent domain to seize land for data centers" but we've since changed the URL - more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975572)
Actually, strictly speaking, it's /more/ debatable. Using eminent domain to seize land for the data centre itself gets a much more generally negative reaction, while seizing it for the purpose of infrastructure to supply said datacentre - and therefore, at least arguably, alleviate strain on the infrastructure used by everyone else - has more nuance and more room for debate.
Dunno why you think it's obvious that I should be able to have the state seize your house for my own personal infrastructure just because I demand I chew through so much electricity that the local infrastructure can't support my demands.
It's more misleading than that. The power line that "may" "primarily"[1] serve a private data center has started construction "after nearly 20 years of planning, permitting and lawsuits"[2].
Per usual, NIMBYs continually move the goal posts and rely heavily on rhetoric to oppose a project. Data center opposition is providing them with great PR fodder, but they would have opposed these projects regardless. This is why infrastructure is so incredibly expensive in this country.
[1] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/11/oregon-regula...
[2] https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/2025/10/a-300-mile-po...
Humans are dumb. Near my current city folks are debating a solar farm going up. Far enough out of the way that it has zero impact to anything he city, middle on nowhere farmland. The math was something silly, for farm use it would generate $15,000 or solar farm $1,000,000. I am probably embellishing the number from memory but it was staggering. Folks are still trying to fight it. It’s frustrating.
Farmers don’t like lines because you have to allow for an access road to it and it does not pay anywhere as well as say a cell tower.
To be even more nuanced, the land is not typically taken entirely. The more typical solution is an easement with compensation for the land owner to cover the reduction in utility.
Transmission lines are pretty harmless when considering things that could be built instead. Zero emissions, silent, no illumination, etc.