Riverside calls itself the City of Arts & Innovation. Its elected leaders now face a test of whether that slogan reflects an economic strategy—or merely an effective marketing campaign.

Opinion | Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D.

Riverside has discovered a remarkably efficient approach to economic development: identify an industry that might present difficult challenges, discuss prohibiting it before receiving a formal development application, and then commission additional research to determine what the industry actually entails.

Apparently, the conclusion can come before the investigation.

That is the concern raised by Riverside’s September 14 Land Use Committee meeting, where Councilmembers Clarissa Cervantes, Philip Falcone and Sean Mill unanimously advanced a proposal for a 90-day urgency moratorium on data centers.

The committee also directed staff to develop more detailed definitions addressing electricity and water consumption.

The official minutes establish both actions. They do not establish that the committee has permanently decided the issue. But they raise an important question: Will the moratorium produce an objective evaluation of competing options, or simply provide the procedural foundation for a prohibition already favored by some councilmembers?

Riverside residents deserve an answer.

Political Theater Is Not Economic Development

The timing of Riverside’s debate coincides with growing national political controversy surrounding artificial intelligence and the enormous infrastructure required to support it.

Councilmember Cervantes also occupies an unusual position in this discussion. She chairs the Land Use Committee while campaigning for California’s 58th Assembly District.

I have personally observed television campaign advertising in which she expresses opposition to data centers.

There is nothing inherently improper about campaigning on a public-policy position. Nor does political advocacy automatically create a legal conflict requiring recusal.

But residents are entitled to examine whether a committee’s deliberations meaningfully consider competing evidence when its chair has already advocated a position on the issue during an election campaign.

The distinction matters.

A political campaign is supposed to persuade voters. A land-use committee is supposed to evaluate evidence and develop sound public policy.

Those responsibilities can coexist, but the public deserves transparency about how decisions are reached.

At the September meeting, the committee considered an agenda item expressly framed around prohibiting data centers as an allowable land use.

That framing is revealing.

Why not begin by asking what standards Riverside should establish for electricity, water, environmental impacts, infrastructure financing, cybersecurity and economic benefits?

Why begin with prohibition?

A temporary moratorium can be a legitimate planning instrument. But its legitimacy depends on what government accomplishes during the pause.

If the result is a serious, independent technical and financial analysis, Riverside may benefit.

If the result is merely a longer explanation for an outcome already preferred, residents will have gained little.

Riverside’s Economic-Development Record Deserves Scrutiny

Before Council decides that private data-center investment presents unacceptable risks, it should examine the risks Riverside has already accepted in its own economic-development initiatives.

Consider three recent examples.

Ohmio: Riverside’s original agreement contemplated public expenditures of up to approximately $2.5 million to attract the autonomous-shuttle company and support a pilot program. Initial employment projections identified seven direct jobs.

Voltu: Council approved approximately $2.39 million for 20 electric trucks, including more than $2.2 million from General Fund Infrastructure Reserves.

Chaevi: Riverside approved approximately $1.96 million for 45 EV chargers, with reimbursement contemplated through Riverside Public Utilities’ Low Carbon Fuel Standard funds.

But that does not eliminate the need for accountability.

What were the original public commitments? What has actually been spent? How many jobs have materialized? What infrastructure costs were incurred? What tax revenue has been realized? How do the results compare with the projections used to justify the expenditures?

Those are not unreasonable questions.

Government should not evaluate its own investments by counting press releases, ribbon cuttings and projected jobs. It should evaluate measurable returns.

And there is a fundamental difference between attracting private capital and using public money to help establish a market for selected private companies.

The former can expand Riverside’s tax base while placing commercial risk primarily on investors.

The latter can expose public funds to risks that taxpayers did not voluntarily choose.

That distinction should be central to Riverside’s economic-development strategy.

Data Centers Present Risks. That Is Why We Have Government.

I am not advocating unrestricted data-center development.

Large facilities can require extraordinary electrical capacity. Some cooling designs consume significant amounts of water. Backup generation can create emissions and noise. Certain projects employ relatively few permanent workers compared with their capital investment and land consumption.

These are serious considerations.

They require electrical engineering, utility-rate analysis, environmental review, water-resource planning, land-use expertise and financial modeling.

They do not automatically require a citywide prohibition.

The appropriate question is not whether data centers have impacts.

Every significant industrial development has impacts.

The appropriate question is whether a particular project can deliver benefits exceeding its costs while satisfying enforceable standards protecting Riverside residents.

That is the distinction between regulating development and refusing to evaluate it.

Other Communities Have Already Produced Measurable Results

Loudoun County, Virginia, provides an instructive example.

According to the county, data centers occupy approximately 4% of its commercial parcels while generating roughly 38% of General Fund revenue.

That revenue supports public services and has helped reduce pressure on residential property-tax rates.

Loudoun has also experienced legitimate problems associated with data-center concentration, including land-use conflicts and infrastructure demands. It has consequently strengthened development restrictions.

Both sides of that experience matter.

It demonstrates that data centers can produce substantial fiscal benefits while also creating problems requiring stronger regulation.

Similarly, Grant County Public Utility District in Washington has expanded transmission infrastructure serving substantial data-center demand.

Its policies require large power users to bear additional resource and infrastructure costs associated with their growth.

That does not mean Riverside should copy every engineering or financial decision made in Washington.

It means Riverside should investigate whether similar cost-allocation principles could protect RPU customers while supporting necessary infrastructure expansion.

Learn from successful negotiations. Learn from mistakes. Then establish standards appropriate to Riverside.

That is what research is supposed to accomplish.

Riverside Owns Something Valuable: Its Electric Utility

Unlike many cities, Riverside owns its municipal electric utility.

That creates responsibilities, but it also creates potential negotiating opportunities.

Riverside already needs additional transmission capacity and greater electrical redundancy.

The Riverside Transmission Reliability Project is intended to provide a second connection to the regional grid.

The project has also generated controversy because portions of the transmission system will remain overhead despite objections from neighboring communities seeking additional undergrounding.

A prospective data-center developer requiring substantial electrical capacity could be asked to finance infrastructure attributable to its project.

That might include substations, transmission upgrades, generation resources, storage and other facilities.

Long-term service agreements, minimum-demand commitments and financial guarantees could help protect existing customers against stranded infrastructure costs.

These arrangements would require detailed engineering, financial and legal review. They could not simply be imposed without regard to utility regulations or the existing RTRP approvals.

But they are precisely the kinds of alternatives Council should investigate.

Instead of asking only whether Riverside has enough electricity for a data center, ask whether a prospective developer could help finance additional capacity without shifting its costs to existing ratepayers.

That is a substantially more productive starting point.

What Happens Outside Riverside Does Not Stay Outside Riverside

Riverside’s economic future is shaped by decisions made well beyond its municipal boundaries.

The expansion of freight infrastructure at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports illustrates that reality.

Port and rail investments can generate regional economic activity while also increasing demands on Inland Empire transportation infrastructure.

Riverside experiences truck traffic, congestion, pavement deterioration and air-quality impacts associated with regional logistics activity regardless of whether every associated investment occurs within city limits.

Data-center development presents a different but related regional-policy challenge.

Federal agencies have identified secure domestic computing infrastructure as important to national security.

The federal government retains military property at March Air Reserve Base, while other former base properties have been transferred for civilian redevelopment.

Tribal governments and neighboring municipalities may also evaluate data-center opportunities under their respective legal and regulatory frameworks.

Nevertheless, the broader point remains: Riverside’s municipal land-use policies do not control every potential development location in the surrounding region.

Regional electrical demand, transmission requirements and economic activity can cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Tax revenue generally does not.

A Riverside prohibition could therefore limit local opportunities without eliminating regional infrastructure pressures.

That possibility deserves examination before Council adopts permanent restrictions.

Is Riverside’s Alternative Another Generation of Warehouses?

This is another question missing from much of the discussion.

What alternative development does Riverside expect to attract to its industrial properties?

The Inland Empire already bears significant infrastructure and environmental burdens associated with warehousing and logistics.

Warehouses can generate employment, tax revenue and economic activity. They also create truck traffic, congestion, pavement wear, noise and air pollution.

Data centers generally use substantially more electricity than conventional warehouses.

Warehouses generally generate substantially more freight-vehicle activity.

Neither land use is inherently appropriate for every location.

A serious economic-development analysis would compare their respective impacts and benefits rather than assume one is acceptable and the other must be prohibited.

It would also consider advanced manufacturing, research facilities, technology development and other potential uses.

Riverside should not evaluate data centers against an imaginary alternative that consumes no resources, creates no pollution and requires no infrastructure.

It should evaluate them against realistic competing uses for the same land.

The Most Important Protection Is Competent Negotiation

What would make me comfortable with data-center development in Riverside?

A transparent process establishing enforceable requirements before any project receives approval.

Developers should demonstrate adequate electrical capacity and finance the infrastructure costs attributable to their projects.

RPU should establish appropriate large-load rates and financial guarantees protecting existing customers.

Water consumption should be quantified, with strict limits appropriate to Riverside’s groundwater resources.

Noise, emissions, cooling technology, fire protection and cybersecurity should be evaluated against measurable standards.

Projects should disclose expected tax revenue, permanent employment, construction employment, wages, capital investment and community benefits.

The City should also require periodic reporting comparing those promises with actual performance.

And every proposal should undergo an independent analysis of its net public benefits and costs.

If a developer cannot satisfy those requirements, Riverside should reject the project.

That is not weakness.

It is responsible governance.

But a permanent prohibition adopted without examining whether projects could satisfy such standards would eliminate the opportunity to make that determination.

A Moratorium Should Produce Answers, Not Just Delay

The Braver Angels question asks whether Riverside should consider a moratorium.

My answer depends on its purpose.

A strictly temporary moratorium that produces credible technical research, transparent public discussion and enforceable development standards can serve a legitimate planning function.

But a moratorium should not become a substitute for making difficult decisions.

The Council should establish measurable deliverables and deadlines.

What electrical capacity is available?

What additional capacity could be developed?

What rate structures would protect residential customers?

What water-use limits are appropriate?

What infrastructure costs must developers bear?

What economic benefits would justify the land consumed?

What development alternatives exist?

And how would Riverside compare proposals objectively?

Those questions deserve answers before Council decides whether a permanent prohibition is warranted.

Riverside Deserves More Than a Slogan

Riverside proudly calls itself the City of Arts & Innovation.

That identity should represent more than branding.

Innovation requires infrastructure. Economic development requires judgment.

Public investment requires accountability. And responsible regulation requires expertise.

The City Council does not need to approve a single data center to demonstrate competent governance.

It needs to show that it can evaluate the technology, understand the economics, protect residents and negotiate effectively.

If a proposed project cannot benefit Riverside without burdening taxpayers, ratepayers or surrounding neighborhoods, reject it.

But if private investors can meet demanding standards, finance necessary infrastructure and produce measurable public benefits, residents deserve to know that possibility was seriously considered.

The Council’s responsibility is not to guarantee that development happens. Nor is it to guarantee that development never happens.

Its responsibility is to make informed decisions in Riverside’s best interests.

And if Riverside’s economic strategy ultimately consists of subsidizing selected emerging businesses, refusing to consider privately financed technology infrastructure and continuing to absorb the consequences of regional warehouse and logistics growth, residents may reasonably question what the City’s innovation slogan actually means.

Perhaps the welcome sign would be more candid:

RIVERSIDE — CLOSED FOR BUSINESS

The City of Logistics and Warehouses.

But before changing the sign, let’s give Riverside’s elected officials an opportunity to demonstrate that they can do something more difficult than prohibit development.

Research it. Understand it. Regulate it. Negotiate it. And reject it when the facts justify rejection.

That is the standard Riverside residents should expect from their government.