The University of Michigan’s Ford School has published a statewide survey of local government leaders on large-scale data centers. It went out to officials in 1,328 Michigan jurisdictions between March 30 and June 9 of this year, and it was released in September.1
It’s worth reading if you want to know whether this township is unusual. We’re not. The full report is here — it’s 19 pages and the charts do most of the work.
One thing up front: this is a survey of what officials believe, not a study of what data centers actually do. It tells you where Michigan’s local government class has landed, which is a political fact rather than a technical one. I’ll keep that distinction.
Water is the number one concern in the state
60% of local leaders statewide say data centers will have a negative impact on Michigan’s fresh water supply — 40% say very negative. Only 5% think there will be no impact at all.1
Of everything the survey asked about, that drew the most concern. And when officials were asked what the State should regulate, 39% strongly support state standards for water use and wastewater discharge.
We’ve been asking for a water figure here for over a year and still don’t have one. Turns out that’s the question local officials across Michigan would ask first too.
Ratepayers, health, quality of life
Majorities expect negative impacts on all three. 57% say data centers will hurt utility bills for ratepayers in the communities where they’re built. Majorities also expect harm to public health through air and noise pollution, to local quality of life, and to the reliability of the state’s electric grid.1
Very few expect those things to improve.
The jobs picture, honestly
This part isn’t one-sided and I’m not going to pretend it is.
51% expect a positive impact on temporary construction jobs. More think data centers help local property tax revenue (32%) than hurt it (22%). Around 30% see benefits for U.S. competitiveness in AI and for Michigan’s economy.1
But on long-term local jobs, the optimism thins right out: 24% positive against 19% negative, with a lot of people unsure.
That’s almost exactly the distinction I’ve been drawing here. Construction jobs are real. Permanent jobs are thin. Michigan’s local officials see it the same way.
Worth noting the property tax finding too — and worth noting why it doesn’t apply to us. Those officials are thinking about private developers, who pay real property tax. This facility won’t pay any.
Nobody thinks their residents would want one
55% of local leaders say their residents would strongly oppose a data center in or near their community. 2% think residents would support it.1
Two percent. Statewide.
The officials themselves are somewhat less opposed than they expect their residents to be — 38% would strongly oppose personally, against 13% who’d somewhat or strongly support. Still better than three to one against.
And the rural-urban split is sharp. Only 12% of rural officials think the benefits outweigh the costs. In urban areas it’s 40%.
The finding that cuts both ways
Here’s the one I’d sit with, because it complicates things.
Local leaders broadly want the State to act. Nearly half strongly support requiring decommissioning plans. Majorities support state regulation of health impacts, environmental impacts, water and wastewater standards, and energy efficiency.1
But on planning and zoning, it flips hard. Only 20% support the State setting those decisions. 60% oppose it — 45% strongly. That’s the strongest opposition to any state action the survey tested, and it’s highest among urban officials, where 70% are opposed.
One official put the distinction well in the open comments: it would help for the State to set minimum standards while letting local units require something stricter.1
I think that’s right, and it’s worth being clear that it isn’t an argument for Lansing deciding where things go. It’s an argument that somebody local should — which is exactly what this township doesn’t get.
Our problem isn’t state preemption. It’s a constitutional exemption that removes local authority without putting anything in its place.
The line that stopped me
Out of more than 200 open comments, the survey reports that most were about local control. One described the pattern precisely: these get sited in townships that can make land use decisions and look like an attractive taxing geography, but that often don’t carry responsibility for service provision, infrastructure planning, or quality of life over the long run.1
Another noted that these are being contemplated in communities with little experience of complex large-scale development, where infrastructure will be heavily strained, and that there’s no funding to support that work.1
That’s a Michigan local official describing our situation, without knowing it.
Why this matters here
Three things.
We’re not outliers. When somebody suggests Ypsilanti Township is uniquely difficult about this, the answer is that 55% of local leaders across Michigan expect their own residents to strongly oppose one, and 2% expect support.
Water leads everywhere. Not just here. That’s a useful thing for legislators to know when they’re weighing SB 1046 and the rest of the package.
And it’s the University’s own policy school. That’s twice now — the 2025 policy brief on data centers coming to town, and now this. Research published by the University of Michigan, describing concerns the University of Michigan is not addressing on its own project.
Sources
- Debra Horner and Stephanie Leiser, Michigan local government leaders’ views on large-scale data center development, Michigan Public Policy Survey, Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, September 2026. Based on surveys of officials in 1,328 jurisdictions conducted March 30 to June 9, 2026. Full report (PDF) · closup.umich.edu
- Terry Nguyen and Ben Green, What Happens When Data Centers Come to Town?, Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, Ford School of Public Policy, with the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, July 2025. PDF
Figures above are from the published report. It’s a survey of local officials’ opinions, not a study of measured impacts, and I’ve tried to describe it that way. If I’ve misread something, tell me and I’ll fix it and say that I did.
