The present controversy over the AI Data Center proposed to be built in Box Elder County offers a sharp reminder that going through the land development process is crucial for every proposed plan. With it, citizens believe they’ve been heard. Without it, citizens justifiably believe they’re being ignored. And ignored folks quickly become angry, strident adversaries.

In the case of this data center, unfortunate choices by the developers to fast track the project understandably produced an angry, growing opposition. Naturally, local residents are now suspicious of the heretofore vague but powerful group, MIDA, that quietly paved the way for the project’s approval without requiring the development process most people must fulfill to build something of this magnitude. In the developer’s eyes, it meant swift progress. In the eyes of regular citizens, it looked like shady dealings.

The developers possibly have a great product. But they fumbled the ball when it came to public presentation. Underestimating the power of the opposition that they themselves unfortunately created, they now face a decision. They actually possess the means by which their project can become more acceptable. They won’t like it–but they might engage their opponents by respecting the development process. They can go back to the beginning and give the local residents what they want–healthy public discussion with the opportunity to ask their questions and receive answers in a welcoming, honest, non-hostile environment. It’s puzzling why they haven’t.

If this project is as essential and noninvasive and environmentally friendly as it’s claimed to be, the developers need to prove that by creating ongoing opportunities to logically, respectfully and intelligently educate those who live there. This will take time and patience. But from a local citizen’s point of view, failing to do so means they have something to hide. Trust and mutual agreement are impossible to gain in a forced setting.

Processes exist because force is never a productive persuasion tactic.

In my own city council experience, when people believed they were heard and their fears and concerns respectfully addressed, they usually settled down enough to start searching for an agreeable middle ground. The process was never easy. Sometimes I knew our council had done their job only because everyone on both sides was equally unhappy. But our goal was to balance the people’s needs with the developers’ needs without harming one side for the benefit of the other. Doing that takes time and patience.

Elected officials face tough decisions. We vote them into office to take care of those tough decisions. When they do, we support them. When they don’t, we vote them out. This is how a representative government works.

The best next step in this situation is a sincere effort by officials and developers to engage in an honest, respectful, educational process with the citizens. The goal is a consensus that honors the citizens’ concerns while satisfying the developer’s needs. But if that’s not possible, then those who call this area “home” should not be the ones expected to endure the consequences.