Exploring economic development in Las Cruces

A common complaint circulated in our area in relation to poverty is a lack of jobs, and especially higher-paying jobs that promise a future for our youth. Both sides of the aisle make it sound like if more industries and companies came to southern New Mexico and brought jobs to the region, it would be like a magic wand against poverty.

And yet, I watched citizens try to run a promising new business out of town. That business, a new Artificial Intelligence data center, is offering to bring 2,500 construction jobs (on average, over a build period of 2-4 years) along with 750 full-time and 50 part-time positions to our region, once Project Jupiter is completed. And those jobs are going to pay $75,000 to $100,000 per year, on average.

Let’s back up a few weeks. On Aug. 26, the Doña Ana County Commission introduced to the public this idea that a large company wanted to bring a data center to a remote area in Santa Teresa. In exchange for waiving property taxes, the company, as yet to be identified due to confidentiality concerns, is agreeing to pay $300 million in payments to the county, along with a contractual agreement, via the proposed Industrial Revenue Bond, to abide by all rules and regulations, or face default that will require them to pay all back taxes owed.

After an entire day of public comment, the county commissioners approved the IRB on Sept. 19. The IRB is simply the agreement with the county, not a ribbon-cutting ceremony. Next steps will include finalization of contractual agreements, then environmental studies of the area, and eventually strict permitting for the construction.

But you can see by the timeline that this is clearly rushed. Three weeks from introduction to an initial vote stirred serious mistrust from the public. And that brings us to the Farm and Ranch Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 10. There, County Commissioner Shannon Reynolds was scheduled to host a 5 p.m. town hall for a GO Bond ballot question discussion, to be immediately followed by the Project Jupiter informational town hall at 6 p.m.

But at 5:15, the commissioner approached the podium to cede his GO Bond discussion to allow Project Jupiter to have more time. The Project Jupiter meeting moved forward, starting well before the majority of attendees arrived. To be fair, they did restart the presentation at 5:55, once the ever-growing crowd’s incredulity was evident, but the stage was set, feeding the distrust of many attendees. And it didn’t get better.

Technical questions were met with promising answers, but because of the infancy of the project, and proprietary concerns of the company, details were not offered. Several questions on the Environmental Impact Statement were dismissed for being altogether too early in the project timeline, although the PR manager (as I understand it) for one of the companies, made the profoundly ignorant assertion that “we all know nothing lives out there anyway.”

Public comments comparing the closed-loop water cooling system to other heavy water use cases across the country were answered with an explanation that those systems typically use evaporative (waste) cooling which must be replenished, while this one won’t. Suspicions about the inflated projections regarding necessary permanent jobs were answered with the explanation that the huge scale and associated chip replacements needed here are more labor-intensive than other technologies employed elsewhere. Concerns about adding to the power grid and increasing surrounding resident energy costs, were alleviated by highlighting the micro-grid, even acknowledging that natural gas would likely fuel the data center.

Then the vitriol really started. Several members of the public were displeased about apparent facial slights from the presenters. It was clear, they knew (probably from previous town halls) what they were in for as far as the public’s vocal opposition to the project.

It devolved from there into accusations of defamation from the presenters toward a young man that actually had a great initial question (regarding legislative lobbying dollars) but delivered it in such a way that was extremely derogatory. The young man countered by asking the presenter if she was threatening him. No one learned anything for at least five minutes of their exchange, along with other volleys throughout the night.

But my final thoughts on the project? You cannot lament a lack of high-paying jobs and inherent local poverty while spitting in the face of opportunity. We should all elect leaders that we can trust to advocate for us and write legitimate legal contracts to protect our interests. I see opportunity, but I also see deficiencies in our local leaders and have concerns about the residents who have no qualms about killing open dialogue.