Meet In CommonNews

Local

Poll: North Dakotans want state data center regulations

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: McKenzie County Farmer

Editor's note: This is the third story in "The Data Divide," a series of five stories examining how North Dakotans feel about data center development in their state. BISMARCK — North Dakotans want oversight from the state government to regulate data centers, but are split about whether state officials can tackle local zoning concerns effectively, a new North Dakota Poll has found. Asked whether they’d like to see state officials get more involved in deciding where data centers can be built, 57% say they support such moves, while 29% oppose and 14% are undecided, according to poll data. While the desire is there for state intervention, public trust is split on whether the state could actually handle the task, according to the poll, which was commissioned by the North Dakota News Cooperative. Asked about the state’s ability to regulate data center expansion, 38% say it could do so effectively, while 36% say it could not. Another 26% aren’t sure. State Sen.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at McKenzie County Farmer

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Community Poll

Public bodies should publish the evidence behind important decisions.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

A disgraced billionaire's name is on the beloved campus library. Does it come down?

A major donor funded a beloved public building decades ago. New evidence shows they also caused serious harm that was legal and accepted by many peers at the time. Removing the name may jeopardize future donations.

What does an institution owe the truth when its history funded the present?

Explore this quandary