Resolving Infrastructure Disputes: Siting Data Centers and Other Facility Disputes

Say “Yes” to MIMBYs and the Neutral Third Party

When controversy strikes, we often respond by taking a hard stance or defensive position: “I’m right, you’re wrong.”

Community conflict over land use and project siting is a prime example of people digging in their heels. The massive AI buildout and subsequent explosion of data centers make this a particularly hot topic today. Because data centers require scarce energy and water resources to operate and cool—and carry high construction costs—they pose significant environmental, economic, and resource challenges. Questions about who pays for upgraded energy infrastructure are also central to the debate.

Naturally, the more controversial a project is, the less likely a community will reach unanimous agreement. In community parlance, opponents are NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) and supporters are YIMBYs (Yes In My Backyard).

Seldom heard about, however, are the MIMBYs (Maybe In My Backyard). MIMBYs deserve special attention because they want to learn more and understand all angles before rushing to judgment and taking a hard stance. Alongside the MIMBY mindset, a neutral third party is key to resolving infrastructure disputes through a carefully designed process trusted by the community and endorsed by approving officials.

What Is Good Process Design?

Good process design addresses the needs of the community, interested stakeholders, and the project sponsor. All parties commit in good faith to achieve a consensual agreement that is ultimately put before local, state, or federal officials—such as city councils and regulatory bodies—for a formal vote of approval.

Effective process design incorporates specialized tools and an experienced neutral, such as a mediator. The neutral guides discussions through a two-phase process:

1. Problem-Identification: Moving participants away from rigid positions to focus on their core concerns, interests, and true needs.
2. Decision-Making: Guiding participants to generate options that satisfy everyone’s interests to mutual satisfaction.

Timing and Trust-Building

Good process design works best early—once the proposed project is known, but before officials and project sponsors lock themselves into a hard position or draw a line on a map. Involving the community early signals joint ownership of the project and shared decision-making.

This approach builds trust and respect between the community, project sponsor, and government leaders, proving they “walk the talk” and respect the land involved. It fosters a sensible attitude of, “We’re all in this together.” Open, honest conversations build the credibility necessary to navigate sticky points and prevent project delays. The experienced neutral acts as the glue that keeps dialogue moving and conflicts addressed.

Creating a Safe Container

Achieving consensus in a divided community is tough, and opposing positions harden without a proper process. Trustworthiness is vital. The neutral creates a safe container where community members can talk openly with project sponsors without fear of denigration.

• Without this safe space, there is little room to move away from positional stances toward workable solutions.
• Until hopes, frustrations, and thorny issues are shared, the “elephant in the room” will cast a shadow over productive dialogue (explore more on this in the two-part musing, Can We Talk?).
• Within the safe container, private meetings with or without the neutral are also available.

While approving officials make the final decision, they stand to gain the most when a project has the backing of both the community and the project sponsor.

Moving Beyond Polarization

When leaders and project sponsors with companies worth into the $1trillion+ fail to use good process design with a neutral guide, we default to positional, defensive, and polarized reactions. Imposing opinions and facts without listening to opposing views leads straight to a dead end.

Instead of fighting in court or on social media, we need progress. We alienate our neighbors and erode respect for leadership when we refuse to talk through solutions in a safe container that works for everybody. True success means win-wins.

Think Like a MIMBY

If you find yourself caught in a siting dispute, think like a MIMBY. Be less quick to judge and more willing to listen, learn, and collaborate with those who hold different views. Both NIMBYs and YIMBYs can recalibrate their approach by adopting a MIMBY mindset.

Ultimately, our state of mind, our process tools, and a spirit of “doing better together” are what matter most in our communities.

Still Conflicted? Ask Why.

9 SHORT STEPS TO TURN ATTACKS INTO POSITIVE ACTION AND OUTCOME:

1. Practice Mindfulness: When tension rises, recognize the biological response and pause.
2. Regulate Your Response: Take slow, deep breaths from the diaphragm to calm the nervous system.
3. Recompose Behavior: Commit to being willing to listen to the “other side” before reacting.
4. Ask “WHY?”: Simply ask, “Why do you feel so strongly about your position?” This opens the door to understanding.
5. Listen to Learn: Focus on understanding the interests of others so they feel heard.
6. Be Authentic: Speak honestly about your own concerns, fears and needs without attacking others so you are understood by them.
7. Commit to Common Ground: Shift the goal from “demanding” to finding a mutually acceptable path forward. 
8. Draft an Agreement: Once everyone understands and finds ways to satisfy each other’s concerns and interests an agreement is drafted that is mutually satisfactory and acceptable to all of them.
9. File the Proposed Agreement: Submit the agreement to the officials in charge for vote and approval.

Adopt the MIMBY Way of Thinking

MIMBYs have not formed a rigid position. They are cautious. They vet details and listen to different views before taking a “yes or no” position. MIMBYs do not rush to judgment; they adopt a stance based on sound, collective vetting.

Putting Myself in the MIMBY’s Shoes

If I were a neighbor in controversial siting dispute, I would reflect before rushing to a hardline position. I would ask myself:

• Would my life be improved or disrupted by the project?
• Would I be better or worse off than I was before?
• Do I have a real say in the fate of the project if I commit to working toward consensus?
• Could I trust the process?

Advocate for Unbiased Tools – An “All In” Approach

To build community consensus,“Fit the Forum to the Fuss,” the Frank Sander alternative dispute resolution (ADR) model of consensus building:

• Insert a Neutral Third Party: Use a mediator with “no dog in the fight” to facilitate discussions between MIMBYs, NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and project sponsors.
• Create a Safe Container to Work Together: Ensure all views and concerns are captured without judgment, affording the process the confidentiality needed for honest discussion.
• Commit to the Mediated Negotiation: Work toward a mutually satisfactory agreement that can be publicly filed and enforced once the government officials adopt it.

The alternative—litigation, project delays, and “power grabbing” during election cycles to force projects on communities—is far less effective and should only be a last resort. In my experience mediating energy infrastructure, intercultural and environmental justice cases, I have found that mediated negotiation solutions consistently gain the support of the officials in charge. https://www.athenaagreements.com/land-use-modernization-and-a-sense-of-place/

5 REASONS A MIMBY ATTITUDE HAS ADVANTAGES

1. Avoid Losing Positions: You are less likely to be “voted down” if you have vetted all facts and viewpoints first.
2. Maximize Your WIIFM (What’s In It For Me): You lose the chance to negotiate a better outcome for yourself if you refuse to engage with the project at all.
3. Preserve Fellowship: Hardline positions alienate us from the neighbors who provide our sense of community.
4. Secure Your Needs: You stand a better chance of getting what you actually need by being open to a “Maybe” versus a “No.”
5. Avoid Legal Waste: You sidestep expensive lawsuits and the risk of a “lose-lose” outcome.

President Lincoln once said, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”

Good process design matters in siting infrastructure. Embrace mediation to build wins through community cooperation and self-determination with governmental backing. When we say no to broken processes that lack transparency to personally gain and where individuals don’t feel they count, we find the most meaningful way together to “Get to Yes.” 

If you want our assistance on achieving consensus on siting infrastructure or to learn more about the work we do at Athena Agreements, visit us at https://www.athenaagreements.com/