Tech companies building massive AI data centers are discovering that not everyone wants to sell their land for millions. Farmers across the country are refusing lucrative buyout offers, creating unexpected roadblocks for the industry's infrastructure expansion.

Silicon Valley assumed farmers would take the money. Turns out people value things other than maximizing short-term profit. Who knew?

The data center boom is driven by AI. Training large language models requires enormous compute clusters, which require enormous buildings, which require enormous amounts of land with access to power and fiber. Tech companies are targeting rural areas where land is cheaper and power infrastructure exists from previous industrial development.

Their pitch to landowners goes something like this: "We'll pay you 3-5x market value for your property, which will sit unused and keep appreciating anyway. You can retire, move somewhere nice, and let us handle the rest."

Many farmers are saying no.

Take Jim Henderson, a fifth-generation corn farmer in Iowa who turned down a $4.2 million offer for 200 acres that his great-great-grandfather homesteaded. "My land isn't for sale at any price. This is where my family lived and worked for 150 years. I'm not trading that for a check so tech companies can build warehouses full of computers."

Or Sarah Chen, who refused $6 million for her family's Oregon ranch: "My kids want to keep ranching. Why would I sell their future so AI companies can train chatbots?"

The refusals aren't universal. Plenty of landowners are selling, especially those facing retirement without succession plans or struggling with debt. But enough are refusing that data center developers are facing unexpected project delays and site abandonment.

This is creating real tensions. Tech companies need contiguous land parcels. If one landowner in the middle of a site refuses to sell, the entire project becomes unviable. Developers are responding with pressure tactics: having neighbors who sold call holdouts selfish, emphasizing how refusals hurt local economic development, and in some cases exploring eminent domain.

That last one is especially cynical. Eminent domain—government seizure of private property for public use—is being floated for AI data centers. The legal argument is that data infrastructure serves the public good like roads and utilities. The reality is that it serves tech company profits.

The broader issue is Silicon Valley's assumption that everything is for sale at the right price. Land, data, attention, relationships—all just assets to be optimized and monetized. That worldview works fine in venture capital, but it runs into reality when you encounter people who value things that don't fit on a balance sheet.

Some farmers value stewardship over generations. Some value the autonomy of working their own land. Some value environmental preservation or community stability or simply not being part of an industry they don't support.

These aren't irrational preferences. They're different values systems. And no amount of money will change them, because money isn't the point.

This is going to get messy. The AI industry needs more infrastructure to sustain its growth trajectory. Rural land is one of the few remaining resources that's available at scale. But if developers can't reliably acquire land through voluntary sale, they'll pursue regulatory capture to enable forced acquisition.

Watch for legislative pushes to classify data centers as critical infrastructure, which would make eminent domain easier. Watch for targeted tax incentives that punish holdouts while rewarding sellers. Watch for AstroTurf campaigns emphasizing economic development and jobs.

The farmers refusing to sell aren't anti-technology. They're people who value something more than short-term profit maximization. That shouldn't be controversial. But in Silicon Valley's worldview, it's incomprehensible.

This clash isn't going away. It's a microcosm of broader tensions between tech industry growth imperatives and communities that don't want to be optimized out of existence.