Across the United States—and now visibly in Spartanburg County—communities are increasingly vocal about their concerns when large data centers, AI installations, or major technology projects are proposed under conditions of secrecy. Citizens intuitively recognize that when information is withheld, worry fills the void. Even well-intentioned developers and government officials can inadvertently heighten public suspicion when they rely too heavily on nondisclosure agreements, closed-door meetings, or vague public announcements. What begins as a standard business practice can quickly become a source of public frustration and political tension. Understanding why secrecy creates this reaction is essential for building trust and ensuring that technology infrastructure grows in ways that benefit both the community and the broader economy.

The first reason secrecy fuels distrust is that people naturally fear the unknown. When residents discover that a large industrial facility is being negotiated without their knowledge—especially one that may use significant amounts of power or water—they immediately wonder what else is being concealed. Without access to basic facts such as expected energy usage, cooling design, land requirements, tax incentives, and long-term impacts, citizens often imagine worst-case scenarios. They worry about higher electricity bills, depleted water resources, environmental damage, increased taxes, heavy construction traffic, noise pollution, and a future of industrial expansion they cannot control. Even if none of these fears align with reality, the absence of transparent communication allows speculation to fill the silence. Once that happens, reversing public suspicion becomes extremely difficult.

A second factor is the long history of communities learning about industrial projects only after decisions have been finalized. In many regions, data centers have been approved quickly to meet corporate timelines or competitive pressures. Companies, utilities, and government officials often sign nondisclosure agreements to protect land purchases, tax negotiations, or competitive advantage. While these NDAs are common in economic development, they clash with the expectations of citizens who believe they should be informed early—especially when public resources, public infrastructure, or public incentives are involved. When residents discover that their elected officials knew more than they disclosed, even for legal reasons, trust is eroded. People begin to feel excluded from decisions that affect their community’s long-term future.

Tax incentives amplify this tension. Many communities offer significant incentives to attract data centers—property tax reductions, infrastructure support, fee waivers, or long-term abatement agreements. While these incentives can help secure high-value investment, citizens often wonder whether the community is giving away too much and receiving too little in return. Because data centers do not create large permanent workforces, residents question whether the tax benefits justify the tradeoff. When the details of incentive packages are negotiated privately, worry grows among those who fear that the burden might eventually fall on homeowners, small businesses, or future city budgets. Without transparency, people assume the worst.

Another source of mistrust is the perception that companies are avoiding public scrutiny. When developers decline to share basic information—site maps, cooling plans, environmental studies, or overall design—citizens naturally question why. They wonder whether the company expects backlash and therefore prefers to minimize public visibility. Developers often have legitimate reasons for withholding information, such as pending land acquisitions or competitive risk, but residents are not privy to those explanations. Without clear communication, secrecy becomes indistinguishable from evasiveness.

Environmental and infrastructure concerns also intensify the impact of secrecy. Communities want to know how a data center will use local resources, especially power and water. Will the facility rely on evaporative cooling? Will it require new transmission lines or substations? Will it strain the grid, requiring additional generation capacity that local ratepayers might subsidize? Will backup generators produce noise or emissions? Will road networks support construction traffic? These are fair questions, and yet they often go unanswered for long periods while confidentiality agreements remain in place. Citizens interpret silence as a signal that the impacts may be worse than they actually are.

Secrecy also affects how residents perceive the motivations of their elected officials. When information is withheld, even for valid reasons, the public may conclude that local leaders are prioritizing outside corporate interests over community interests. People begin to fear that decisions are being made without their input, without proper evaluation, and without accountability. This undermines confidence in government at a time when many citizens are already skeptical of institutional transparency. Even when leaders are genuinely trying to do what is best for the community, the absence of visible communication creates political vulnerability.

Importantly, secrecy threatens to overshadow the potential benefits of data centers—benefits such as increased tax revenue after incentives expire, major construction activity, attraction of ancillary industries, expansion of fiber infrastructure, and the strategic positioning of a county as a technology-forward region. When communication is lacking, citizens do not hear those positive possibilities. They hear only the concerns circulating among neighbors, social networks, and fragmented pieces of information. Negative perceptions spread faster than nuanced explanations. Once mistrust takes hold, even the strongest economic development opportunities can face resistance, slowing or derailing projects that might otherwise benefit the community.

The path forward is not to eliminate NDAs entirely—because some level of confidentiality is necessary in economic development—but to balance confidentiality with proactive communication. Communities respond much more positively when companies and local leaders share what they can  share early: the general size of the project, the type of cooling being considered, the anticipated range of power use, the expected number of jobs, the nature of infrastructure upgrades, the guiding principles for environmental stewardship, and the community benefits being pursued. Even partial transparency builds credibility.

Public briefings, open forums, fact sheets, Q&A sessions, and early engagement with civic leaders help people feel included rather than blindsided. When the public sees that leaders are asking hard questions, demanding responsible design, and negotiating for local benefit, confidence grows. When companies show respect for the community by explaining their intentions and long-term commitment, residents become more willing to support or thoughtfully evaluate proposals.

Spartanburg County is at a pivotal moment. As major technology and data-center investments move into the region, the community can shape how these developments unfold. SpartansFirst is stepping forward to encourage dialogue, share clear information, and help bridge the gap between citizens and decision-makers. Secrecy breeds suspicion, but transparency builds partnership. By creating an environment where information flows openly and concerns are acknowledged early, Spartanburg can ensure that development is responsible, sustainable, and beneficial for everyone.