I watched the Project Blue meeting from home, and I was swayed in three areas: 1) the hopeful possibility that the project would hire union labor, 2) the consensus that people in the room support a “shut off” demand if the project exceeded its water allotment and 3) the possibility that this project could account for lost funding in the wake of Prop 414’s failure. It was hard to get a comprehensive summary from this meeting because of all the interruptions, but one moment in particular was definitely curious: An audience member made a comment about the need to ensure that these Project Blue jobs are for local union workers. She also commented on how some rural water sources are currently available but so contaminated with PFAS (microplastics, which can be poisonous) that they cannot be used. In response, the engineer on the panel from the contracter seemed to mention something about treating that water to make it reclaimable (I may have misunderstood. Again, it was one of the few moments of pure information without other distractions). That fact was interesting, and suggested that the promise to use reclaimed water in later phases could be possible. I’m no engineer, though!
I was struck that the unions showed up in numbers in favor of Project Blue. It made me wonder if union labor has been a demand from the beginning. We are at a time where we weigh human and environmental costs, knowing that we cannot provide for humans if we don’t have the natural resources. On a larger scale, this is what progressives (like me) are grappling with: In times of economic strain, do we advocate for (and listen to) the worker, supporting their cause even if we have to compromise on environmental risks for the sake of economic justice? Or do we go all-in on environmental justice, fully foregoing economic development in a society where wages are stagnating and costs are climbing? The more I learn about it, I seem to think this project could be an opportuinity for compromise. I’m still skeptical about the water use mechanisms, and without restructuring that piece, I wouldn’t support a project like this in the desert.
Thanks, Wayne for sharing your thoughts. I really like the part about "pure information" being shared. I took notice as well.
The unions are looking for assurances early on that they are going to be part of the labor force building these data centers and advocating for their membership. I don't fault them, as many people have pointed out - other data centers have brought in their own teams - and cut out local union labor. Getting a PLA would ensure that PB uses local workers and what better forum to make that ask than last night.
Weighing in again about data centers. Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about them (in general). Still a solid NO. They are part of one of the biggest progress traps we face as a society. Period. Their energy requirements alone (not to mention security) are based on finite resources we no longer have. Further, as a union supporter, I am compelled to say that corporate chains are known for bringing in their own construction people.
I thought Tim Thomure did a pretty good job with crowd control as emcee of the meeting. Audience was loud at times (both support and opposed, about equal in volume in my assessment) but civil, IMO. My key takeaways: (1) Water use required only in summer, with a local aquifer being added to year-round; (2) There may be an inconsistency in the published documentation regarding which party pays for any oversizing of the purple water pipe beyond the size that Project Blue will use; (3) Presentation mentioned how school districtS will benefit from the increased tax revenue generated by Project Blue - I see benefit to Vail School District if those voters approve, but not others. Clarification needed. (4) I'm gratified that general cloud services was stated as the primary operation focus of the data center rather than AI training. (5) Beale was stated to be the long-term project owner and landlord of the facility. Therefore in order to protect its huge financial investment, Beale (not only City of Tucson) will be highly motivated to keep those buildings occupied with high-paying tenants. (6) Keeping union workers working in town over the long term instead of having to drive huge distances to find work was a much bigger deal than I realized. (7) Thomure said that the Draft DA is just that, a draft, and public inputs will be taken into consideration before being formally presented to the City Council. So these public sessions and electronic portals that have been set up for comments are important tools for public participation in such a key decision.
No one brought this up, and maybe @Joe Ferguson can clarify. But the County should also benefit on the tax revenues as well, right? And Pima Community College.
Is there an easy way to find out what that number is for Pima County and PCC? It looks like it’s $10million for the city (at least to start with, according to Thomure).
Hi! I’ll update this thread shortly. There are numbers for Pima County and the city about estimated tax revenues for each entity, but not Pima Community College or the respective school districts.
I suspect I could get a formula that would allow you to calculate the expected tax revenue for PCC.
Public documents state that over a ten-year period Project Blue (I think the initial stage, but 100%) would breakdown to ~$250 million in revenues. $97 million to the City of Tucson, $60 million to Pima County, and $93 million to the State of Arizona.
This would be great - I'd love to know how the tax revenue is calculated. Is it all property tax? Does that number include all of the property tax or just that which goes to the city/county/state? If it doesn't include additional taxes, what does that look like for schools, fire, etc.? Are any tax holidays or exemptions being made for the project (which is often a lure to bring in projects like this)? What kind of taxes could/would be levied on the output of the data center - we have sales tax, but does that apply to AWS customers using the data center?
It is not all property tax. Sources of tax revenue include, but are not limited to, construction sales tax, real estate property taxes, personal property taxes and transaction privilege taxes on lease rental income.
There is a ton of potential revenue for infrastructure upgrades inside the data centers, but the state put in a tax break specifically for data centers.
Any new taxes would be unlikely, the (draft) development agreement has language about new tax revenues that would be specific to them.
I don't fault them for this language tbh, they are are agreeing to a significant investment, the developers want to future-proof it from a different set of elected officials adding a new tax X years from now.
The formula would be just fine, I wouldn’t expect you to do my work for me! Thank you, sir, for your coverage. I was not at the meeting last night and appreciated the summary.
Wait. The recall people are running on “STOP urban renewal?” Please vote for us because we want to stop urban renewal? And do what, exactly? Are they pro urban decay?
Mayor Roxy had me at quoting Matthew 25:35.
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I suspect “Urban Renewal” carries a particular negative connotation in Latino communities such as South Tucson. Memories of the destruction of the downtown barrio in the 1970s are still alive.
I watched the livestream of the Project Blue meeting and here were my takeaways:
- There are no real job guarantees involved, and they're still pushing the higher permanent number, not the 75 which has been reported.
- With the construction, it will go to an RFP process, and I really wonder if there are enough local firms to take on this project. So, despite union support, union jobs may or may not materialize. We're not a pro-union state, and or labor protections are not the best, which could be a reason why they want to build here.
- Wording so far says Project Blue will pay for power grid upgrades, but makes no mention of power generation upgrades. What will TEP build to increase power generation, especially when Trump is gutting wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal incentives? Will TEP really close its coal plant if they need extra power?
- When the last question was asked bout the end-user, and pointed out that AWS includes clients like ICE and Palantir, the Project Blue spokesperson said the data center would be public (or something to that effect) which seems highly dubious.
- It was interesting to see the many union members reading the same talking points off of their phones in support of the project. Talking points which echo what the Southern AZ Chamber has been putting out.
- Despite all the heat he was getting, I'm glad to see that Thomure was taking it all in. The feedback and comments provided by the audience will hopefully lead to improvements in the development agreement.
I think your assessment are spot on. We are going to sit down with TEP next week to outline their role in Project Blue for the initial stage and their long-term planning. I hope to get some answers in the next story for you (and everyone else) but TEP said publicly they are committed to closing the plants and finding new cleaner sources of power.
There are many mayors that regret their approval of data centers, and there appear to be numerous questions still to be answered. It sounds like tRump wants there to go through(as part of his ultimate plan to kill as many of us as he can and destroy America as we knew it for our future generations). How about a quid pro quo—he gives back the federal money earmarked for schools and health and we ok this data center with restrictions and accountability?
I honestly wish that there was some kind of way to structure the economy (at least on the gov't side) that would allow all of these things to be handled together, but if the community is deeply torn on this issue, wrapping them all together might end in an endless quagmire.
The best example is the endless CRs in Congress to fund the federal budget. Everyone (at least, in thoery) agrees an actual adopted budget would be better than re-approving CRs over and over again.
I watched the Project Blue meeting from home, and I was swayed in three areas: 1) the hopeful possibility that the project would hire union labor, 2) the consensus that people in the room support a “shut off” demand if the project exceeded its water allotment and 3) the possibility that this project could account for lost funding in the wake of Prop 414’s failure. It was hard to get a comprehensive summary from this meeting because of all the interruptions, but one moment in particular was definitely curious: An audience member made a comment about the need to ensure that these Project Blue jobs are for local union workers. She also commented on how some rural water sources are currently available but so contaminated with PFAS (microplastics, which can be poisonous) that they cannot be used. In response, the engineer on the panel from the contracter seemed to mention something about treating that water to make it reclaimable (I may have misunderstood. Again, it was one of the few moments of pure information without other distractions). That fact was interesting, and suggested that the promise to use reclaimed water in later phases could be possible. I’m no engineer, though!
I was struck that the unions showed up in numbers in favor of Project Blue. It made me wonder if union labor has been a demand from the beginning. We are at a time where we weigh human and environmental costs, knowing that we cannot provide for humans if we don’t have the natural resources. On a larger scale, this is what progressives (like me) are grappling with: In times of economic strain, do we advocate for (and listen to) the worker, supporting their cause even if we have to compromise on environmental risks for the sake of economic justice? Or do we go all-in on environmental justice, fully foregoing economic development in a society where wages are stagnating and costs are climbing? The more I learn about it, I seem to think this project could be an opportuinity for compromise. I’m still skeptical about the water use mechanisms, and without restructuring that piece, I wouldn’t support a project like this in the desert.
Thanks, Wayne for sharing your thoughts. I really like the part about "pure information" being shared. I took notice as well.
The unions are looking for assurances early on that they are going to be part of the labor force building these data centers and advocating for their membership. I don't fault them, as many people have pointed out - other data centers have brought in their own teams - and cut out local union labor. Getting a PLA would ensure that PB uses local workers and what better forum to make that ask than last night.
Great thoughtful and helpful input. I too, hope for compromise.
Weighing in again about data centers. Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about them (in general). Still a solid NO. They are part of one of the biggest progress traps we face as a society. Period. Their energy requirements alone (not to mention security) are based on finite resources we no longer have. Further, as a union supporter, I am compelled to say that corporate chains are known for bringing in their own construction people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_center
Very helpful link. Thanks for referencing.
I thought Tim Thomure did a pretty good job with crowd control as emcee of the meeting. Audience was loud at times (both support and opposed, about equal in volume in my assessment) but civil, IMO. My key takeaways: (1) Water use required only in summer, with a local aquifer being added to year-round; (2) There may be an inconsistency in the published documentation regarding which party pays for any oversizing of the purple water pipe beyond the size that Project Blue will use; (3) Presentation mentioned how school districtS will benefit from the increased tax revenue generated by Project Blue - I see benefit to Vail School District if those voters approve, but not others. Clarification needed. (4) I'm gratified that general cloud services was stated as the primary operation focus of the data center rather than AI training. (5) Beale was stated to be the long-term project owner and landlord of the facility. Therefore in order to protect its huge financial investment, Beale (not only City of Tucson) will be highly motivated to keep those buildings occupied with high-paying tenants. (6) Keeping union workers working in town over the long term instead of having to drive huge distances to find work was a much bigger deal than I realized. (7) Thomure said that the Draft DA is just that, a draft, and public inputs will be taken into consideration before being formally presented to the City Council. So these public sessions and electronic portals that have been set up for comments are important tools for public participation in such a key decision.
No one brought this up, and maybe @Joe Ferguson can clarify. But the County should also benefit on the tax revenues as well, right? And Pima Community College.
Is there an easy way to find out what that number is for Pima County and PCC? It looks like it’s $10million for the city (at least to start with, according to Thomure).
Hi! I’ll update this thread shortly. There are numbers for Pima County and the city about estimated tax revenues for each entity, but not Pima Community College or the respective school districts.
I suspect I could get a formula that would allow you to calculate the expected tax revenue for PCC.
Public documents state that over a ten-year period Project Blue (I think the initial stage, but 100%) would breakdown to ~$250 million in revenues. $97 million to the City of Tucson, $60 million to Pima County, and $93 million to the State of Arizona.
This would be great - I'd love to know how the tax revenue is calculated. Is it all property tax? Does that number include all of the property tax or just that which goes to the city/county/state? If it doesn't include additional taxes, what does that look like for schools, fire, etc.? Are any tax holidays or exemptions being made for the project (which is often a lure to bring in projects like this)? What kind of taxes could/would be levied on the output of the data center - we have sales tax, but does that apply to AWS customers using the data center?
It is not all property tax. Sources of tax revenue include, but are not limited to, construction sales tax, real estate property taxes, personal property taxes and transaction privilege taxes on lease rental income.
There is a ton of potential revenue for infrastructure upgrades inside the data centers, but the state put in a tax break specifically for data centers.
Supervisor Allen believes that loophole could be worth as much as $200 million. https://www.instagram.com/p/DMaxNcFhrsy/
I have no reason to doubt her numbers, but we've asked for an independent analysis of the economic development numbers being cited by the city/county.
It is the same reason why wouldn't trust me to appraise my house when I try to sell it ....
Any new taxes would be unlikely, the (draft) development agreement has language about new tax revenues that would be specific to them.
I don't fault them for this language tbh, they are are agreeing to a significant investment, the developers want to future-proof it from a different set of elected officials adding a new tax X years from now.
The formula would be just fine, I wouldn’t expect you to do my work for me! Thank you, sir, for your coverage. I was not at the meeting last night and appreciated the summary.
Wait. The recall people are running on “STOP urban renewal?” Please vote for us because we want to stop urban renewal? And do what, exactly? Are they pro urban decay?
Mayor Roxy had me at quoting Matthew 25:35.
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I suspect “Urban Renewal” carries a particular negative connotation in Latino communities such as South Tucson. Memories of the destruction of the downtown barrio in the 1970s are still alive.
That seems valid through that context. I’m originally from upstate NY’s decaying “rust belt,” so I see it thought a different cultural frame.
The messaging on those signs was puzzling, for sure! Using policy jargon like “urban renewal” was an odd choice.
I doubt it was well thought through.
I watched the livestream of the Project Blue meeting and here were my takeaways:
- There are no real job guarantees involved, and they're still pushing the higher permanent number, not the 75 which has been reported.
- With the construction, it will go to an RFP process, and I really wonder if there are enough local firms to take on this project. So, despite union support, union jobs may or may not materialize. We're not a pro-union state, and or labor protections are not the best, which could be a reason why they want to build here.
- Wording so far says Project Blue will pay for power grid upgrades, but makes no mention of power generation upgrades. What will TEP build to increase power generation, especially when Trump is gutting wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal incentives? Will TEP really close its coal plant if they need extra power?
- When the last question was asked bout the end-user, and pointed out that AWS includes clients like ICE and Palantir, the Project Blue spokesperson said the data center would be public (or something to that effect) which seems highly dubious.
- It was interesting to see the many union members reading the same talking points off of their phones in support of the project. Talking points which echo what the Southern AZ Chamber has been putting out.
- Despite all the heat he was getting, I'm glad to see that Thomure was taking it all in. The feedback and comments provided by the audience will hopefully lead to improvements in the development agreement.
I think your assessment are spot on. We are going to sit down with TEP next week to outline their role in Project Blue for the initial stage and their long-term planning. I hope to get some answers in the next story for you (and everyone else) but TEP said publicly they are committed to closing the plants and finding new cleaner sources of power.
Same promises, no accountability. No Project Bezos!
There are many mayors that regret their approval of data centers, and there appear to be numerous questions still to be answered. It sounds like tRump wants there to go through(as part of his ultimate plan to kill as many of us as he can and destroy America as we knew it for our future generations). How about a quid pro quo—he gives back the federal money earmarked for schools and health and we ok this data center with restrictions and accountability?
I honestly wish that there was some kind of way to structure the economy (at least on the gov't side) that would allow all of these things to be handled together, but if the community is deeply torn on this issue, wrapping them all together might end in an endless quagmire.
The best example is the endless CRs in Congress to fund the federal budget. Everyone (at least, in thoery) agrees an actual adopted budget would be better than re-approving CRs over and over again.