Transcript

Anthony Flint: Welcome back to the Land Matters Podcast. I’m your host, Anthony Flint. I think it’s safe to say that the proliferation of data centers was one of the biggest stories of 2025, and at the end of the day, it’s a land use story braided together with energy, the grid, power generation, the environment, carbon emissions, and economic development – and, the other big story of the year, to be sure, artificial intelligence, which is driving the need for these massive facilities.

There’s no federal registration requirement for data centers, and sometimes owners can be quite secretive about their locations for security reasons and competitive advantage. According to the industry database data center map, there are at least 4,000 data centers across the US. Some would say that number is closer to 5,000, but unquestionably, there are hundreds more on the way.

A third of US data centers are in just three states, with Virginia leading the way, followed by Texas and California. Several metropolitan regions have become hubs for these facilities, including Northern Virginia, Dallas, Chicago, and Phoenix, and the sites tend to get added onto with half of data centers currently being built being part of a preexisting large cluster, according to the International Energy Agency.

These are massive buildings housing computer servers, data storage systems, and networking equipment, as well as the power and cooling systems that keep them running. That’s according to the Pew Research Center, which points out that whenever you send an email, stream a movie or TV show, save a family photo to the cloud, or ask a chatbot a question, you’re interacting with a data center. They use a lot of power, which the tech companies initially promised would be clean energy, but now, with so much demand, they’re turning largely to fossil fuels like gas and even coal, and in some cases, considering nuclear power.

A single large data center can gobble up as much power as a small city, and they’re largely being fast-tracked, in many cases, overwhelming local community concerns. They’re getting tax breaks and other incentives to build with breathtaking speed, and there’s a major PR effort underway to accentuate the positive. You may have seen some of those television ads touting the benefits of data centers, including in areas that have been struggling economically.

To help make sense of all of this, I’m joined by three special guests, Jon Gorey, author of the article Data Drain: The Land and Water Impacts of Data Centers, published earlier this year at Land Lines Magazine; Mary Ann Dickinson, Policy Director for Land and Water at the Lincoln Institute; and Chris Miller, President of the Piedmont Environmental Council, who’s been tracking the explosion of data centers in Northern Virginia.

Well, thank you all for being here on Land Matters, and Jon, let me start with you. You’ve had a lot of experience writing about real estate and land use and energy and the environment. Have you seen anything quite like this? What’s going on out there? What were your takeaways after reporting your story?

Jon Gorey: Sure. Thank you, Anthony, for having me, and it’s great to be here with you and Mary Ann, and Chris too. I think what has surprised me the most is the scale and the pace of this data center explosion and the AI adoption that’s feeding it. When I was writing the story, I looked around the Boston area to see if there was a data center that I could visit in person to do some on-the-ground reporting.

It turns out we have a bunch of them, but they’re mostly from 10, 20 years ago. They’re pretty small. They’re well-integrated into our built environment. They’re just tucked into one section of an office building or something next to a grocery store. They’re doing less intensive tasks like storing our emails or cell phone photos on the cloud. The data centers being built now to support AI are just exponentially larger and more resource-intensive.

For example, Meta is planning a 715,000-square-foot data center outside the capital of Wyoming, which is over 16 acres of building footprint by itself, not even counting the grounds around it. That will itself use more electricity than every home in Wyoming combined. That’s astonishing. The governor there touted it as a win for the natural gas industry locally. They’re not necessarily going to supply all that energy with renewables. Then there’s just the pace of it. Between 2018 and 2021, the number of US data centers doubled, and then it doubled again by 2024.

In 2023, when most people were maybe only hearing about ChatGPT for the first time, US data centers were already using as much electricity as the entire country of Ireland. That’s poised to double or triple by 2028. It’s happening extremely fast, and they are extremely big. One of the big takeaways from the research, I think, was how this creates this huge cost-benefit mismatch between localities and broader regions like in Loudoun County, Virginia, which I’m sure Chris can talk about.

The tax revenue from data centers, that’s a benefit to county residents. They don’t have to shoulder as much of the bills for schools and other local services. The electricity and the water and the infrastructure and the environmental costs associated with those data centers are more dispersed. They’re spread out across the entire utilities service area with higher rates for water, higher electric rates, more pollution. That’s a real discrepancy and it’s happening pretty much anywhere one of these major data centers goes up.

Anthony Flint: Mary Ann Dickinson, let’s zoom in on how much water these data centers require. I was surprised by that. In addition to all the power they use, I want to ask you, first of all, why do they need so much water, and where is it coming from? In places like the Southwest, water is such a precious resource that’s needed for agriculture and people. It seems like there’s a lot more work to be done to make this even plausibly sustainable.

Mary Ann Dickinson: Well, water is the issue of the day right now. We’ve heard lots of data center discussion about energy. That’s primarily been the focus of a lot of media reporting during 2025. Water is now emerging as this issue that is dwarfing a lot of local utility systems. Data centers use massive amounts of water. It can be anywhere between 3 and 5 million gallons a day. It’s primarily to answer your question for cooling. It’s a much larger draw than most large industrial water users in a community water system.

The concern is that if the data centers are tying into local water utilities, which they prefer because of the affordability and the reliability and the treatment of the supply, that can easily swamp a utility system that is not accustomed to that continuous, constant draw. These large hyperscale data centers that are now being built can use hundreds of millions of gallons yearly. That’s equivalent to the water usage of a medium-sized city.

To Jon’s point, if you look at how much water that is being consumed by a data center in very water-scarce areas in the West in particular, you wonder where that water is going to come from. Is it going to come from groundwater? Is it going to come from surface water supplies? How is that water going to be managed and basically replaced back into the natural systems, like rivers, from which it might be being withdrawn? Colorado River, of course, being a prime example of an over-allocated river system.

What is all this water going for? Yes, it’s going for cooling, humidification in the data centers, it’s what they’re calling direct use, but there’s also indirect use, which is the water that it takes to generate the electricity that supplies the data center. The data center energy loads are serious, and Chris can talk about the grid issues as well, but a lot of that water is actually indirectly used to generate electricity, as well as directly used to cool those chips.

This indirect use can be substantial. It can be equivalent to about a half a gallon per kilowatt hour. That can be a fair amount of water just for providing that electricity. What we’re seeing is the average hyperscale data center uses about half a million gallons of water a day. That’s a lot of water to come from a local community water system. It’s a concern, and especially in the water-scarce regions where water is already being so short that farmers are being asked to fallow fields, how is the data center water load going to be accommodated within these water systems?

The irony is the data centers are going into these water-scarce regions. There was a Bloomberg report that showed that, actually, water-scarce regions were the most popular location for these data centers because they were approximate to areas of immediate use. That, of course, means California, it means Texas and Phoenix, Arizona, those states that are already struggling with providing water to their regular customers.

It’s a dilemma, and it’s one that we want to look at a lot more closely to help protect the community water systems and give them the right questions to ask when the data center comes to town and wants to locate there, and help them abate the financial risk that might be associated with the data center that maybe comes and then goes, leaving them with a stranded asset.

These are all complex issues. The tax issues tie into the water issues because the water utility system and impacts to that system might not be covered by whatever tax revenues are coming in. As sizable as they might be, they still might not be enough to cover infrastructure costs that then would otherwise be given to assess to the utility ratepayers. We’re seeing this in the energy side. We’re seeing electric rates go up. At the same time, we know these data centers are necessary given what we’re now as a society doing in terms of AI and digital computing.

We just have to figure out the way to most sustainably deal with it. We’re working with technical experts, folks from the Los Alamos National Lab, and we’re talking with them about the opportunities for using recycled water, using other options that are not going to be quite as water-consumptive.

Anthony Flint: Yes, we can talk more about that later in the show — different approaches, using gray water or recycled water, sounds like a promising idea because at the end of the day, there’s only so much water, right? Chris Miller, from the Piedmont Environmental Council, you pointed out, in Jon’s story, that roughly two-thirds of the world’s internet traffic essentially passes through Northern Virginia, and the region already hosts the densest concentration of data centers anywhere in the world. What’s been the impact on farmland, energy, water use, carbon emissions, everything? Walk us through what it’s like to be in such a hot spot.

Chris Miller: The current estimate is that Virginia has over 800 data centers. It’s a little hard to know because some of them are dark facilities, so not all of them are mappable, but the ones we’ve been able to map, that’s what we’re approaching. For land use junkies, there’s about 360 million square feet of build-approved or in-the-pipeline applications for data centers in the state. That’s a lot of footprint. The closest comparison I could make that seemed reasonable was all of Northern Virginia has about 150,000 square feet of commercial retail space.

We are looking at a future where just the footprint of the buildings is pretty extraordinary. We have sites that are one building, one gigawatt, almost a million square feet, 80 feet high. You just have to think about that. That’s the amount of power that a nuclear reactor can produce at peak load. We’re building those kinds of buildings on about 100 acres, 150 acres. Not particularly large parcels of land with extraordinary power density of electricity demand, which is just hard to wrap your head around.

The current estimate in Virginia for aggregate peak load demand increase in electricity exclusively from data centers is about 50 gigawatts in the next 20 years. That’ll be a tripling of the existing system. Now, more and more, the utilities, grid regulators, the grid monitor for PJM, which is a large regional transmission organization that runs from Chicago all the way to North Carolina.

As Anthony said, the existing system is near breaking point, maybe in the next three years. If all the demand came online, you would have brownouts and blackouts throughout the system. That’s pretty serious. It’s a reflection of the general problem, which is that there is no system of planning for the land use, for the energy consumption, for the water consumption. Larger impacts on land, agricultural, forestal land, historic scenic, cultural resources, biodiversity sites. There’s no assessment being made.

To the extent that there’s project-level review, there’s a lot of discussion about eliminating most of that to streamline this process. There is no aggregate assessment. That’s what’s terrifying. We have local land use decisions being made without any information about the larger aggregate impacts in the locality and then beyond. Then the state and federal governments are issuing permits without having really evaluated the combined effect of all this change.

I think that’s the way we’re looking at it. Change is inevitable. Change is coming. We should be doing it in a way that’s better than the way we’ve done it before, not worse. We need to do it in a way that basically is an honest assessment of the scale and scope, the aggregate impacts, and then apply the ingenuity and creativity of both the tech industry and the larger economy to minimize the impact that this has on communities and the natural resources on which we all depend on.

It’s getting to the point of being very serious. Virginia is water-constrained. It doesn’t have that reputation, but our water supply systems are all straining to meet current demand. The only assessment we have on the effect of future peak load from data centers is by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, which manages the water supply for Washington metropolitan region in five states.

Their conclusion is, in the foreseeable future, 2040, we reach a point where consumption exceeds supply. Think about that. We’re moving forward with [facilities]  as they create a shortage of water supply in the nation’s capital. It’s being done without any oversight or direction. The work of the Lincoln Institute and groups like PEC is actually essential because the governmental entities are paralyzed. Paralyzed by a lack of policy structure, they’re also paralyzed by politics, which is caught between the perception of this is the next economic opportunity, which funds the needs of the community.

The fact is, the impacts may outweigh the benefits. We have to buckle down and realize this is the future. How do we help state, local, federal government to build decision models that take into account the enormous scale and scope of the industry and figure out how to fix the broken systems and make them better than they were before? I think that’s what all of us have been working on over the last five years.

Anthony Flint: It really is extraordinary, for those of us in the world of land use and regulations. We’ve heard a lot about the abundance agenda and how the US is making it more difficult to build things and infrastructure. Whether it’s clean energy or a solar farm or a wind farm, they have to go through a lot of hoops. Housing, same way. Here you have this — it’s not just any land use; it’s just this incredibly impactful land use that is seemingly not getting any of that oversight or making these places go through those hoops.

Chris Miller: They are certainly cutting corners. Jon mentioned the facility outside of Boston. What did you say, 150 acres? We have a site adjacent to the Manassas National Battlefield Park, which is part of the national park system, called the Prince William Digital Gateway, which is an aggregation of 2100 acres with plans for 27 million square feet of data centers with a projected energy demand of up to 7.5 gigawatts. The total base load supply of nuclear energy available in Virginia right now is just a little bit over 3 gigawatts.

The entire offshore wind development project at Dominion is 80% complete, but what’s big and controversial is 2.5 gigawatts. The two biggest sources of base load supply aren’t sufficient to meet 24/7 demand from a land use proposal on 2100 acres, 27 million square feet, that was made without assessing the energy impact, the supply of water, or the impact of infrastructure on natural, cultural, and historic resources, one of which is hallowed ground. It’s a place where two significant Civil War battlefields were fought. It’s extraordinary.

What’s even more extraordinary is to have public officials, senators, congressmen, members of agencies say, “We’re not sure what the federal next steps [are].” These are projects that have interstate effects on power, on water, on air quality. We haven’t talked about that, but one of the plans that’s been hatched by the industry is through onsite generation and take advantage of the backup generation that they’ve built out. They have to provide 100% backup generation onsite for their peak load. They’ve 90% of that in diesel without significant air quality controls.

We have found permits for 12.4 gigawatts of diesel in Northern Virginia. That would bust the ozone and PM2.5 regulatory standards for public health if they operated together. It’s being discussed by the Department of Environmental Quality in Virginia as a backup strategy for meeting power demand so that data centers can operate without restriction. These are choices that are being proposed without any modeling, without any monitoring, and without any assessment of whether those impacts are in conflict with other public policy goals, like human health. Terrifying.

We are at a breaking point. I have to say that the grassroots response is a pox upon all your houses. That was reflected in the 2025 elections that Virginia just went through. The tidal wave of change in the General Assembly and statewide offices and data centers and energy costs were very, very high on the list of concerns for voters.

Anthony Flint: I want to ask all three of you this question, but Jon, let me start with you. Is there any way to make a more sustainable data center?

Jon Gorey: Yes, there are some good examples here and there. It is, in some cases, in their best interest to use less electricity. It’ll be less expensive for them to use less water. Google, for its part, has published a pretty more transparent than some companies in their environmental report. They compare their water use in the context of golf courses irrigated, which does come across as not a great comparison because golf courses are not a terrific use of water either.

They do admit that last year, 2024, they used about 8.1 billion gallons of water in their data centers, the ones that they own, the 28% increase over the year before, and 14% of that was in severely water-stressed regions. Another 14% was in medium stress. One of their data centers in Council Bluffs, Iowa, consumed over a billion gallons of water by itself. They also have data centers, like in Denmark and Germany, that use barely a million gallons over the course of a year.

I don’t know if those are just very small ones, but I know they and Microsoft and other companies are developing … there’s immersive cooling, where instead of using evaporative water cooling to cool off the entire room that the servers are in, you can basically dunk the chips and servers in a synthetic oil that conducts heat but not electricity. It’s more expensive to do, but it’s completely possible. There are methods. There’s maybe some hope there that they will continue to do that more.

Mary Ann Dickinson: Immersive cooling, which you’ve just mentioned, is certainly an option now, but what we’re hearing is that it’s not going to be an option in the future, that because of the increasing power density and chips, they are going to need direct liquid cooling, period, and immersive cooling is not going to work. That’s the frightening part of the whole water story is as much or as little water is being used now, is going to pale against the water that’s going to be used in the next 5 to 10 years by the new generation of data centers and the new chips that they’ll be using.

The funny thing about the golf course analogy is that, in the West, a lot of those golf courses are irrigated with recycled water. As Chris knows, it also recharges back into groundwater. It is not lost as consumptive loss. That’s the issue is, really, to make these sustainable, we’re going to need to really examine the water cooling systems, what the evaporative loss is, what the discharge is to sewer systems, what the potential is for recycled water. There’s going to be a whole lot of questions that we’re going to ask, but we’re not getting any data.

Only a third of the data centers nationally even report their energy and water use. The transparency issue is becoming a serious problem. Many communities are being asked to sign NDAs. They can’t even share the information that a data center is using in energy and water with their citizens. It is a little bit of a challenge to try and figure out the path going forward. It’s all about economics, as Chris knows. It’s all about what can be afforded.

The work we’re doing at the Lincoln Institute, we would like to suggest as many sustainable options from the water perspective as possible, but they’re going to have to be paid for somewhere. That is the big question. Data centers need to pay.

Chris Miller: I think we’re entering a [time] where innovation is necessary. It has to be encouraged, and it’s where a crisis, just short of what we saw with lapse of the banking system in 2008, 2009, where no one was really paying attention to the aggregate system-wide failures. Somebody had to step up and say it’s broken. In the case of the mortgage crisis, it was actually 49 states coming to a court, saying, “We have to have a settlement so that we can rework all these mortgages and settle out the accounts and rebuild the system from no ground up.”

I think that’s the same place we’re at. We have to have a group of states get together and saying, “We are going to rebuild a decision model that we use for this new economy. It’s not going away. Any gains in efficiency are going to be offset by the expansion on demand for data. That’s been the trend for the last 15 years. We have to deal with the scale and the scope of the issue. I’ll give you just one example.

Dominion Energy has published at an aggregated contracts totaling 47.1 gigawatts of demand that they have to meet. Their estimate of the CapEx to do that ranges for 141 billion to 271 billion depending on whether they comply with the goals of the Virginia Clean Economy Act and move towards decommissioning and replacement of existing fossil fuel generation with cleaner sources. That range is not the issue. It’s the bottom line, which is 150 to 250 $300 billion in CapEx in one state for energy infrastructure. That’s enormous. We need a better process than a case-by-case review of the individual projects.

The state corporation does not maintain a central database of transmission and generation projects, which it approves. The state DEQ does not have a central database for water basin supply and demand. The state DEQ does not have a database of all of the permits in a model that shows what the impacts of backup generation would be if they all turned on at the same time in a brownout or blackout scenario. The failure to do that kind of systems analysis that desperately needs to be addressed. It’s not going to be done by this administration at the federal level.

It’s going to take state governments working together to build new systems decision tools that are informed by the expertise of places like the Lincoln Institute, so that they’re looking at this as a large-scale systemic process. We build it out in a way that’s rational, that takes into account the impacts of people and on communities and on land, and does it a way that fairly distributes the cost back to the industry that’s triggering the demand.

This industry is uniquely able to charge the whole globe for the use of certain parts of America as the base of its infrastructure. We should be working very hard on a cost allocation model and an assignment of cost to data center industry that can recapture the economic value and pay themselves back from the whole globe. No reason for the rate payers of Virginia or Massachusetts or Arizona, Oregon to be subsidizing the seven largest corporations in the world, the [capital expenditures] of over $22 trillion. It’s unfair, it’s un-American, it’s undemocratic.

We have to stand up to what’s happening and realize how big it is and realize it’s a threat to our way of life, our system of land use and natural resource allocation and frankly, democracy itself.

Anthony Flint: I want to bring this to a conclusion, although certainly there are many more issues we could talk about, but I want to look at the end user in a way and whether we as individuals can do anything about using AI, for example. I was talking with Jon, journalist-to-journalist, about this. I want to turn to you, Jon, on this question. Should we be trying not to use AI, and is that even possible?

Jon Gorey: The more I researched this piece, the more adamant I became that I shouldn’t be using it where possible. Not that that’s going to make any difference, but to me, it felt like I don’t really want to be a part of it. I expect there’s legitimate and valuable use cases for AI and science and technology, but I am pretty shocked by how cavalier people I know, my friends and family, have been in embracing it.

Part of that is that tech companies are forcing it on us because they’ve invested in it. They’re like, “Hey, we spent all this money on this, you got to use it.” It takes some legwork to remove the Google Assist from your Google searches or to get Microsoft Copilot to just leave you alone. I feel like that’s like it’s ancestor Clippy, the paperclip from Microsoft Office back in the day.

Here’s something that galls me more in a broader sense. I don’t know if we want to get into it, but I’m an amateur musician. I’m amateur because it’s already very difficult to make any money in the arts. There’s a YouTube channel with 35 million subscribers that simply plays AI-generated videos of AI-generated music, which is twice as many subscribers as Olivia Rodrigo has and 20 times as many as Gracie Abrams. Both of them are huge pop stars who sell out basketball arenas. It astounds me, and I don’t know why people are enjoying just artificially created things. I get the novelty of it, but I, for one, am trying to avoid stuff like that.

Chris Miller: We were having a debate about this issue this week on a series of forums. The reality is there’s stuff that each of us can do to significantly reduce our data load. It takes a little bit of effort. Most of us are storing two or three times what we need to, literally copies of things that we already have. There’s an efficiency of storage thing that takes time, and that’s why we don’t do it. There’s the use of devices appropriately.

If you can watch a broadcast television show and not stream it, that’s a significant reduction in load, actually. Ironically, we’ve gone from broadcast through the air, which has very little energy involved, to streaming on fiber optics and cable, and then wireless, which is incredibly resource-intensive. We’re getting less efficient in some ways in the way we use some of these technologies, but there are things we can do.

The trend in history has been that doesn’t actually change overall demand. I think we need to be careful as we think about all the things we can do as individuals to not lose sight of the need for the aggregate response, the societal-wide response, which is this industry needs to check itself, but it also needs to have proper oversight. The notion that somehow they’re holier than the rest of us is totally unsustainable.

We have to treat them as the next gold rush, the next offshore drilling opportunity, and understand that what they are doing is globally impactful, setting us back in terms of the overall needs to address climate change and the consumption of energy, and threatens our basic systems for water, land, air quality that are the basis of human life. If those aren’t a big enough threat, then we’re in big trouble.

Anthony Flint: Mary Ann, how about the last word?

Mary Ann Dickinson: When I looked up and saw that every Google search I do, which is AI backed these days, is half a liter of water, each one, and you think about the billions of searches that happen across the globe, this is a frightening issue. I’m not sure our individual actions are going to make that big a difference in the AI demand, but what we can require is, in the siting of these facilities, that they not disrupt local sustainability and resiliency efforts. That’s, I think, what we want to focus on at the Lincoln Institute. It’s helping communities do that.

Anthony Flint: Jon Gorey, Mary Ann Dickinson, and Chris Miller, thank you for this great conversation on the Land Matters Podcast. You can read Jon Gorey’s article, Data Drain, online at our website, lincolninst.edu. Just look for Land Lines magazine in the navigation. On social media, the handle is @landpolicy. Don’t forget to rate, share, and subscribe to the Land Matters Podcast. For now, I’m Anthony Flint signing off until next time.

Transcript

Anthony Flint: Welcome back to land matters, the podcast of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. I’m your host, Anthony Flint. On this show, we’re continuing our Mayor’s Desk series –- our Q&A’s with municipal chief executives from around the world — with Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who was inaugurated as the 46th mayor of that city pretty much 2 years ago this summer in July 2023. It’s fair to say he’s been overseeing a significant boom in one of the most prominent cities in the Intermountain West, which has been attracting people and business with its temperate climate and outdoorsy quality of life. Yet Denver has had its growing pains, too, with increasingly high housing costs. We see modest bungalows in several neighborhoods in Denver, easily selling for a million dollars or more … a not-unrelated homelessness problem, and recently some significant municipal budget woes.

Mayor Johnson started his career as a high school English teacher in the Mississippi Delta, and returned home to Colorado to become a school principal, leading 3 different schools in the Denver Metro area. He later served as a senior education advisor to President Obama. In 2009 he was elected to the Colorado State Senate, where he served 2 terms representing Northeast Denver, working on issues, including immigration, gun safety and the clean energy transition. He later served as the CEO of Gary Community Ventures, a local philanthropic organization where he led coalitions to pass the State’s 1st plan for universal preschool and spearheaded efforts to fund affordable housing and address homelessness statewide. Mayor Johnston grew up in Colorado, speaks Spanish and lives in East Denver with his wife Courtney, who is a chief deputy district attorney and their 3 kids. Your honor, thank you for joining the conversation at Land Matters, and being part of the Mayor’s Desk series.

Mayor Mike Johnston: I’m delighted to be on. Thank you so much for having me.

Anthony Flint: Well, as I mentioned in the intro, like a lot of booming metropolitan regions, Denver is facing down a housing affordability problem. So, first question, what are the key elements for addressing this crisis?

Mayor Mike Johnston: You bet, Anthony, and again thank you for having me, and I think the opening frame for me which you mentioned … My dad used to say, the only thing worse than being hated is being loved, you know, and what we know for Denver is, we do have folks from all over the country and all over the world who want to move to Denver. And that is a great problem to have. I have friends who are mayors and cities facing very different challenges, which is declining populations and lots of vacant buildings, because people don’t want to move there. Denver is now, I think, the number 2 desired destination for people under age 30 in the United States. And so we have a lot of people that want to move to Denver. That’s driving a lot of economic growth. We’re thrilled about it. It also drives lots of housing demand.

So for us there are three big top priorities here. The overarching theme is, we have to add a lot more housing supply, as you know, but we think there are three ways to do that. One is to make it faster to build housing for us. That means an aggressive strategy on permitting reform to make our permitting system go from what was a two and a half to three-year process to now, what will be a commitment from us to have every permit only take 180 days of time in the city’s hands. We created a new citywide permitting office that unifies all of the functions of permitting that were spread across seven departments, now into one director, who reports directly to me so part of that is making it easier to build in Denver.

The second is reducing the costs of building wherever we can. And so we’re doing that, obviously making the process faster. Reduce the cost. But also we’re doing more to provide our own tax abatements and our own tax programs. We launched a middle class housing strategy this week. That’s focused on providing property tax abatements for up to 10 years in exchange for a 30 year, commitment on deed, restricted affordability for people that are middle class Denverites who need to be able to afford to live in the city. So we think those incentives matter. And then, of course, we are investing more in affordable housing. We know that the city can’t solve this alone, and the market can’t solve it alone. We need a partnership where we will invest city resources into projects where we can be hopefully a smaller and smaller part of the capital stack. But just enough of the stack to be able to buy long-term affordability in the form of deed restrictions. And so for us, it’s making the city build faster. It’s making costs cheaper. And it’s making more public investment with really clear public goals. We’ve set a clear public goal to bring on 3,000 affordable units every year, and provide access for 3,000 households to affordable units every year. That’s about twice the rate what the city was bringing on before we got into office. And so we know we have to be really aggressive about bringing on a lot more housing, a lot more quickly and a lot more affordably.

Anthony Flint: Your campaign to address homeless encampments in Denver triggered a little bit of backlash, including some criticism of the expense. Can you explain your approach, and how it might apply to other cities? And is there anything you would do differently?

Mayor Mike Johnston: Yeah, I think this is one that we are really excited about, because I think many Americans have given into the belief that homelessness is an unsolvable problem that we are just stuck with this as a component of modern life. And, as you said accurately, Anthony, what we know is homelessness exists in the greatest acuity in cities, not because there’s high rates of poverty, not because there’s high rates of unemployment, not because of the political ideology of those cities. It exists in direct correlation to the cost of housing. In those cities. When you have high cost of housing cities, you get more people who can’t afford to pay that cost. That is just a mathematical fact. And so that means many of the cities that are growing and are in high demand, like the Denver’s, or the San Francisco’s, or the Austins, or Seattle’s, are the places where we see this struggle. But what we have really seen is that this is a problem that can be solved by addressing those core needs. And so I’ll lead with the headline that … we set an ambitious goal to try to end street homelessness in my 1st term. Four years. That seems impossible. Well, I’ll tell you, we’re two years in right now, and we have now reduced our street homelessness in Denver by 45% in a little less than two years. That is … the largest reduction of street homelessness in any city in American history, over two years, of which we’re very proud. But it’s also a clear sign that halfway through the term. We’re halfway on the path of that goal. We think other cities should be ambitious. And believing that this is a solvable problem, let me talk about the way we’ve done this, which we think is also really scalable.

What we’ve done is first really focused on bringing on what we call transitional housing units which are dignified, individual private units. A lot of these are hotels we’ve bought and converted. They’re tiny home villages that we’ve built. But critically, it’s not shelter like sleeping on a gym floor with 100 people on a mat. It is a place where you have a locked door. You have privacy, you have access to showers and bathrooms and kitchens. You can store your stuff when you go to work for the day.

And we brought on wraparound services on each of these sites. So our first big effort was to bring on 1,000 units of transitional housing, you know, like many cities, previous Administration fought this battle, and took 2 or 3 years to fight, to put one tiny home village of about 40 units into one neighborhood with a number of lawsuits. We said, we have to bring on units at the scale of the problems. We brought on a thousand units, and (over) six months I did 60 town halls all across the city, talking to neighbors and all of those locations about why this would make such a big difference. We put wraparound services — mental health addiction, support, workforce training, long-term housing navigation — on each of those sites. So people don’t have to always return just to downtown to get those services. And once we brought those units on, then we went geographically to the places where encampments existed in Denver, and instead of sweeping those encampments from block to block, where they just show up in front of someone else’s house or someone else’s church or hospital, we would actually go to those encampments and resolve them. We would close that encampment entirely by moving all 50 people or 100 people. In one case we had almost 200 people in one encampment, closing those encampments, resolving them, moving all those folks into housing, and then importantly keeping that block or that region of the city permanently closed to future camping. So the result is, two years in, we’ve now closed every encampment in the city. We haven’t had a single tent inside of our downtown business district for more than a year and a half we have cut family homelessness by 83%. We’ve become the largest city ever to end street homelessness for veterans. We have no veterans anymore on the streets who can’t get access to housing, and, importantly, anyone can walk down any street or sidewalk or public park, and none of them have tents or encampments in them, so we’ve both made sure there’s a real change in the experience for residents of Denver and those people who are most at risk of starving to death, freezing to death, overdosing on the streets … we moved off of the streets into transitional housing that has really worked for us. We think it can work for other cities, and we’ll share these lessons with anyone who’s willing to take them on, because we think we should set the expectation in every American city that street homelessness can be a solvable problem.

Anthony Flint: Are you satisfied with the number of people using this very impressive and extensive light rail network in Denver Metro, and the number of people living essentially in transit oriented development? Or is the system facing growing pains, and if so, why? A related question … any lessons learned from the relatively light ridership on the free bus on the 16th Street Transit Mall, which is finally concluding its renovation after long delays? But first the light rail network, transit-oriented development … How is it going.

Mayor Mike Johnston: As you, said, Anthony, we’re not satisfied yet, and that is because, as you know, transit and housing have to be connected strategies. Housing is a transit strategy. If you’re mindful about actually building housing and building density of housing around our public transit networks. And so we had this great transit network built. We did not have density of housing around any of those spots. And so what we’re doing now is undertaking a series of very large catalytic investments in a number of areas around the city that are on these light rail lines. So we can build thousands and thousands of units of housing along that corridor. We just, for instance, acquired the largest piece of private property in city history to turn into a public park. It will be a 155-acre park. It is right next to a light rail stop, so we can now add housing and housing density all around that site — beautiful location, and people can get on light rail and get right to downtown or do a Broncos game or anything else. We just won a franchise expansion, the one franchise expansion for the National Women’s Soccer League, and so we’ll have a new women’s soccer franchise. We’re building a new women’s soccer stadium also at a TOD site that we’ll have on that campus … a lot of dense housing commercial activities also connected to public transit. We’re rebuilding our stock show in a historically Latino part of North Denver — Globeville, Elyria, Swansea — that’ll allow us to add about 60 acres of new housing, public spaces, commercial activation also all on public transit. So our belief is, you have to actually be deliberate about building real density around your public transit as much as you want to build your public transit around well traveled lines of travel in the city. And so that’s a big part of our strategy. When we add that density, we know most of the major cities like ours that aren’t yet a New York, or a DC, with a full functioning subway line. You can’t just throw in that infrastructure and hope the city accommodates because people have lots of places to go to. You have to build nodes of real density around the city. So even though you might have 3 or 4 different jobs over the next 10 years, those jobs can be concentrated among different regions, and your housing can, and your activities can (as well). So that’s our big strategy around that. And you’ll see us make historic investments in doing that in the next couple of years.

But a part of that is downtown, is our downtown strategy. And you mentioned our 16th Street bus that we have, that’s free downtown. We’re making the largest investment in our downtown, also of any city in the country, per capita. Right now, about $600 million through a tax increment financing system that will focus on one getting more people to live downtown. We want downtown to be a neighborhood, not just a business district. And so we’re going to add about 4,000 units of housing in our city center, using these funds that we have from our downtown Denver authority, because we know that means more people that will use that bus every day that we’ll get to and from work they will go to see friends. So that’s a big part of our strategy. We’re working on filling up about 7 million square feet of vacant office space — like many cities, have about 4 million of that, we will use with residential conversion. We think one of the most ambitious residential conversion plans in the country. The other 3 million we’ll use by bringing people back to the office, recruiting businesses to come downtown, stay downtown, we think the more we activate that location the more folks will use the public transit, and the more people can use the connected public transit of coming from a neighborhood in East Denver or North Denver, take the light rail down to downtown, use the 16th Street ride to get up and down 16th Street … we have the second largest theater complex in the country off of Broadway. We have 5 professional sports franchises in our city center. We have Michelin Star restaurants. We’ll have the Sundance film festival coming to Colorado. There’s so much to be attracted to seeing. We want to make it easy to get to downtown and around downtown, and this will do that.

Anthony Flint: Given the current municipal fiscal challenges in Denver, what is your thinking about alternative financing systems such as a land value tax or value capture, as seen in the 38th & Blake incentive overlay? I’m hoping you might explain the concept as you see it and how or whether its rationale makes sense to you.

Mayor Mike Johnston: We are interested in every incentive we can find to encourage folks to build more housing. The 38th and Blake overlay was really kind of a density bonus, where we allow folks to build higher buildings than what the zoning might allow in exchange for adding more affordable housing, and we are always looking at ways to incentivize folks to add more affordable housing. So we’re delighted to do that. I think that also links to the program I described briefly which is our our middle class housing program we launched yesterday, which is also focused on a property tax abatement. We’ll offer up to 10 years of property tax abatement for people that are going to build middle class affordable housing. So think about that as people making sixty to a hundred thousand a year as an individual … and that’s about a 10 year property tax abatement for a 30-year commitment of affordability. So that’s a great deal for us. We’re also looking at partnership on places where we have public land. We’re looking at working with city-owned land, working with Denver public schools where they have land, our regional transit system, if they have land. And so we’re always looking to contribute public land as a way to incentivize more affordability. But we want to do a all of the above strategy. But wherever we can add more housing without having to invest more dollars in these fiscal times that’s a big help

[Re-stated] Our belief is we want to do an all of the above strategy on every way we can incentivize people to build more affordable housing. So for us, that means we want to use city land. Whenever we can do that, we’ll use public land to be able to incentivize a deal. We’ll partner with other public agencies like the Denver public schools, or like the regional transit system or the State. That’s always a great way for us to incentivize. And that’s why we’ve used strategies like this middle class housing program we launched, which is a property tax abatement where folks can get 10 years of property tax abatement for a 30 year, commitment of deed, restricted affordability through a special limited partnership. So we’re going to use every strategy we have, particularly in tough economic times, and you don’t have big new dollars to invest in supporting affordable housing. We have to find other creative ways and density. Bonuses are a great way, and we’ll keep doing that as well as everything else we can.

Anthony Flint: Finally, how would you assess the progress of your climate action plans which I see includes incentives for electrification, electric vehicle infrastructure, hot and cold weather heat pumps, energy efficiency … Do you see a tangible embrace at the local level for addressing climate change, especially in the context of retrenchment at the federal level. I mean, just as a practical matter, the federal government is getting out of the climate business. So can cities and states take that over and be effective?

Mayor Mike Johnston: We don’t see any change at all in our city’s commitment to climate action or our conviction that this is a still existentially important effort for us to undertake. And so we are not slowing down at all. We’re not changing our path, and what we are doing is trying to make sure we’re committed to an aggressive vision to meet our climate goals, which for us is a 2040 plan to be entirely carbon free by 2040, to have 100% renewable energy. And also to make sure we’re driving economic growth. We want to do both. And so we don’t want to make it too expensive to do business in Denver, and yet we still want to be aggressively committed to hitting climate goals. And we’re doing that. We’ve done things like we had, I think, one of the nation-leading efforts on making our commercial buildings more energy efficient through a program we have called Energize Denver. We also had concerns from the business community about how to comply with the cost to make those adjustments to buildings. And so we spent a lot of time with our landowners and building owners and business leaders, and we revised that plan to both decrease the penalties, extend the amount of time folks can comply, put a cap on the overall amount of changes they have to make, which drops the cost dramatically for our business partners, but still keeps us on path to hit aggressive 2040 climate goals. So people do care. And there’s a lot we can do. There’s behavior change. We’re doing a whole campaign on behavior change, to encourage folks to take more trips by bike or walking … Can they consolidate or condense the number of single occupancy vehicle trips that they take. And so part of it is about awareness. Part of it’s about behavior change and part of it’s about a good policy on things like banning plastic bags. Obviously, and being able to incentivize more and more solar and wind. So we think this is purely a part of Denver’s brand. We want to be able to be a great city and a good city. We want to be able to have a great economy, and also have great connection to the natural environment of the outdoors. And so for us, it’s it’s good climate and good business, and we’ll continue to do both.

Anthony Flint: And local and state government taking this over, are you optimistic about that? The question is, can they really take this over, a planet-wide issue, and really be effective.

Mayor Mike Johnston: I think we don’t believe that we should give up here or step away. Our campaign, we call, do more or do less, but do something, whether it’s going to do more in the way of recycling, or less in the way of using a single occupancy vehicle or doing something in terms of being able to make decisions about where and how you use energy. We want to encourage people to take more local action now, in the face of federal abandonment of this. The things that we’ll need help on are the things that made a big difference. The federal tax credits on electrical vehicle purchases — those are big drivers of behavior change. I sponsored when I was in the Senate a state credit that does the same thing — provide incentives, tax incentives for electric vehicle purchases. Here we’re building out aggressively, charging station infrastructure to make it easier for us to convert our fleet vehicles to be electric to get more Ubers and Lyfts and Fedexes and Amazons and UPS (vehicles) to do the same. And to convince regular residents do the same. So we’ll keep building the infrastructure to do this. We’ll keep incentivizing people to do it. We’ll keep changing behavior to do it, and we’ll keep setting our own targets for how our vehicles, our businesses, and our residents try to hit aggressive climate goals, knowing that we’re still all in this together, even if the President doesn’t want to make it a priority.

Anthony Flint: Mike Johnston, Mayor of Denver, Colorado. Thank you once again for this conversation.

Mayor Mike Johnston: Thanks so much for having me, Anthony. It’s great to meet you.

Anthony Flint: You can learn more about all the issues we covered — strategies for affordable housing, sustainable urbanism, transit-oriented development, value capture, and of course, the challenge of climate change, pursuing both mitigation and resilience — all of that and more at the Lincoln Institute website, www.lincolninst.edu. While you’re there, scroll to the bottom and join our mailing list to get periodic updates on our work. And also on social media, the handle is @landpolicy. Finally, don’t forget to rate, share and subscribe to the Land Matters podcast. For now, I’m Anthony Flint, signing off until next time.