From New York to Texas, state and local governments have heard the message: Their constituents are wary of data centers. Across the political spectrum, large numbers of Americans agree that these facilities should pay taxes, cover the bill for water and power upgrades, keep noise to a minimum, and employ locals at decent wages. In other words, data centers should legitimately benefit the communities whose land and power they use.

Developers often express a willingness to do these things—until they see the specific list of requirements.

A pitched battle in the Philadelphia suburbs provides a vivid illustration of this dynamic. Developer Brian O’Neill wants to build a 2 million-square-foot data center in a former steel plant. Under Pennsylvania law, Plymouth Township (in which the plant is located) cannot simply say “no” to any lawful land use, but it can enforce zoning rules and require project mitigations in the name of health and safety.

According to the township, O’Neill’s company “represented that they would implement any provisions that the Township proposed.” The township developed a 43-point plan that covers nine printed pages. O’Neill balked.

His lawyers are now challenging the township’s zoning ordinance on the grounds that the conditions have become too burdensome to develop the facility.

On Monday night, Plymouth Township released a 12-page statement claiming that O’Neill’s challenge is “a blatant attempt by the Applicant to demand approval by tantrum. The Township will not entertain such theatrics.”

Lynne Viscio, president of the township council, told the Philadelphia Inquirer this week that O’Neill has “bullied” and “intimidated” township officials.

Council member Chris Manero offered the statement’s most conciliatory view, arguing that data centers can deliver technological and financial benefits. But he said officials should not have to sacrifice residents’ health and well-being to secure those benefits, and he too opposes the current application.