The problem isn’t Meta.
The problem isn’t data centers.
The problem isn’t even artificial intelligence.
The problem is when the people elected to represent the public start keeping secrets from the public.
That’s where this story begins.
Not in Silicon Valley.
Not in Washington.
Not in some futuristic AI laboratory.
It begins in a small Wisconsin town called Beaver Dam.
According to reporting by Wisconsin Watch, local officials and economic development leaders signed a nondisclosure agreement in December 2023 with a company called Balloonist LLC. Most residents had never heard of Balloonist LLC. That’s because Balloonist LLC wasn’t the company that would eventually build the project.
It was a shell company connected to Meta. Corporate registry filings link Balloonist LLC’s principal office to 103 Foulk Road in Wilmington, Del. This exact compliance address was previously used for Meta data center projects in Beaver Dam, Wisc. (“Degas LLC“), Rosemount, Minn. (“Jimnist LLC“), and Cheyenne, Wyo. (“Goat Systems LLC“).
The NDA reportedly prohibited officials from disclosing discussions and even the existence of the project itself.
Think about that for a moment.
A project that would ultimately involve more than a billion dollars in investment, hundreds of acres of land, major electrical infrastructure, tax decisions, and long-term community impacts was being discussed while citizens were unaware it even existed.
For more than a year.
During that period, local government actions continued.
Additional entities appeared, including another Meta-affiliated company called Degas LLC. Agreements were approved. Development plans moved forward. A tax incremental financing district was created.
Yet the public remained largely in the dark. Only later did Meta emerge publicly as the company behind the project.
Now, before somebody accuses me of being anti-business, let’s get something straight.
I’ve covered development projects for decades.
Developers have always used shell companies.
Disney famously used them while assembling land in Florida. Railroads did it. Oil companies did it. Manufacturing firms did it.
Recently, the city council of Page, Ariz. also signed one saying proprietary information was going to be disclosed by the developer.
There are legitimate business reasons.
If word gets out too early, land prices skyrocket. Speculators move in. Deals fall apart.
I understand that.
What I don’t understand is why elected officials increasingly seem willing to become part of the secrecy machine.
The public is not a nuisance.
The public is not an obstacle.
The public is not a stakeholder group to be managed.
The public is the owner.
Every mayor, council member, commissioner, judge, supervisor, and development authority ultimately works for the citizens who elected them.
Some will argue that these confidentiality agreements are standard economic development practice.
Maybe they are.
But standard practice is not the same thing as good practice.
At what point does protecting negotiations become hiding information?
At what point does economic development become government by nondisclosure agreement?
At what point does transparency become optional?
Those questions matter because data centers are not ordinary projects.
These facilities affect power infrastructure, transmission lines, substations, water planning, tax policy, land use, emergency services, and local growth for decades.
They are increasingly becoming part of America’s strategic AI infrastructure.
And that’s exactly why communities deserve more transparency, not less.
The irony is that secrecy often produces the very public opposition developers are trying to avoid.
People can accept decisions they dislike.
What they struggle to accept is being excluded from the conversation.
Nobody likes finding out after the fact that major decisions were already made while they were being told nothing was happening.
Trust evaporates when citizens conclude the deal was done before they ever had a chance to speak.
To be fair, many local officials find themselves in a difficult position.
If they refuse confidentiality agreements, companies may take their projects elsewhere.
If they sign them, they risk alienating the voters they serve.
That’s a real dilemma.
But elected officials are not corporate negotiators.
They are public servants.
Their first obligation is not to Meta.
Not to Microsoft.
Not to Amazon.
Not to any LLC with a cute name designed to conceal who is really behind the curtain.
Their obligation is to the people.
Always.
Because once government starts keeping billion-dollar secrets from the public, citizens begin asking a very reasonable question:
If they can hide this, what else can they hide?
And once that question takes root, rebuilding trust becomes far harder than building any data center.