We asked more than 275 Hamiltonians about the data centres. Here is what they told us.

The day after city council voted to move toward a moratorium, our readers made one thing very clear: most of them want this paused, and a lot of them want it stopped.

Hamilton’s data centre debate has gone from a niche planning question to the hottest ticket at city hall. On June 4, the Committee of Adjustment unanimously denied Slate Asset Management’s bid to sever part of the former Stelco waterfront lands to fast-track a “hyperscale and enterprise” data centre campus, after a record 1,688 public submissions and a crowd of protesters outside. On June 24, council voted to advance a moratorium, with a bylaw coming back to the table on July 15. If it passes, Hamilton would be the first city in Canada to hit pause on data centre development.

So we asked you where you stand. Over the past week we ran a survey on onlyinhamilton.ca and shared it with our audience. As of this writing, more than 275 of you have answered. This is an opt-in reader survey, not a scientific poll, and we get into exactly what that means at the bottom. But the responses line up with the 6,000-plus people who have signed petitions and the 1,688 who wrote to the city, so they are worth reading closely.

The short version

• 75% strongly oppose the proposed data centres; 78% oppose them in some form, against 14% in support.
• The biggest worries are water use, the environment, and the electricity grid.
• Opposition is not absolute: most opponents named a specific condition that would change their minds, and they line up almost exactly with what the city’s moratorium will study.
• It is not just the neighbours: two-thirds of respondents do not live near either site.

Almost everyone is already paying attention

This is not a sleepy issue. Eighty-six per cent of respondents told us they had heard “a lot” (53 per cent) or “some” (33 per cent) about the proposals before taking the survey. Only 4 per cent said they had heard nothing until now. By the time people reached our survey, most had already formed a view, and a lot of them had done their reading.

The verdict: overwhelming opposition

Asked how they feel about the proposed data centres, 75 per cent said they strongly oppose them. Add in the smaller groups and 78 per cent landed somewhere in opposition, against 14 per cent in support and 8 per cent mixed or unsure.

When we asked people to pick the statement that best described their view, 74 per cent chose “I oppose data centres anywhere in Hamilton.” Fourteen per cent support them, including at these sites. Ten per cent said they are undecided and need more information.

“Hardly anybody wants a data centre in Hamilton. Period,” one respondent wrote. Another put it more plainly: “Just no.”

What worries people most: water, the environment, and the grid

We asked respondents to name their biggest concerns. Water use topped the list, at 22 per cent, followed closely by broader environmental and climate impact (21 per cent) and electricity demand and the grid (18 per cent). Noise and light, fast-tracking and limited consultation, hydro bills, and the small number of permanent jobs all followed behind.

The water concern came up again and again in the comments, almost always tied to the harbour. “We are just getting Randle Reef cleaned up,” one person wrote. “We don’t need to raise the water temperature and start algae blooms.” Several pointed out that Lake Ontario is drinking water for millions of people across the western shoreline, and worried that heated discharge and high-volume cooling could undo decades of restoration work.

The most vivid concerns came from people who have seen these facilities up close.

“I was visiting a friend in the US near a data centre, three miles away. The noise was overwhelming. She is trying to sell her home, as are the neighbours, and no one will buy.”

More than one person told us a version of that same story.

A recurring frustration was process. “No identified water source, no defined electricity demand, no clear plan, fast-tracked through a zoning committee without city council input,” one respondent wrote of the Stelco application. “If this was a good thing, why so shady?” Others said they only learned the sites were near their homes recently, and asked why residents had not been notified of a project this big.

“Nothing would change my mind,” but most opponents still named a price for yes

This is the finding we did not expect, and it is the one worth looking at more carefully.

We asked what, if anything, would make people more supportive. The single largest answer was “nothing would change my mind,” at 34 per cent. But that means roughly two-thirds of respondents did name something. A clean or renewable energy commitment (13 per cent), binding limits on water use (11 per cent), enforceable noise and light limits (10 per cent), protected public waterfront access (10 per cent), a guaranteed number of permanent local jobs (9 per cent), and a community benefits agreement (9 per cent) were all on the table.

In other words, for a large share of people, the opposition is conditional, not absolute. They are not against the idea of guardrails. They are against being asked to trust that the guardrails will appear later. “My preference is no AI data centres in Hamilton,” one respondent wrote, “but if they are going to be built they must be subject to strict, enforceable regulations on water, energy and noise.” Another: “I don’t know enough. They need to be paused while the research is done. Right now I see more negatives than positives, but I’m willing to learn more.”

That list of conditions reads almost like a table of contents for what a moratorium is supposed to study. Councillor Nrinder Nann’s motion asks staff to examine exactly these questions: electricity and grid effects, water use, noise, waste heat, emissions, waterfront access, setbacks, and the approval process itself. Our readers got there on their own.

The catch, voiced repeatedly, is enforcement. As one respondent put it, citing past city decisions:

“Binding agreements and safeguards have gone unenforced before. They aren’t worth anything if they aren’t enforced.”

Another raised a structural worry: there is currently no rule stopping a modest, reasonable facility from being sold and scaled into something much larger a year or two later.

It is not only the neighbours

One of the easiest ways to dismiss local opposition is to call it NIMBYism. Our numbers complicate that. Only 35 per cent of respondents said they live within roughly two kilometres of either site. Forty-eight per cent said they do not, and 17 per cent were not sure.

So the overwhelming opposition is coming, in large part, from people who would not have a server hall down the street. Whatever else is driving it, proximity is not the whole story.

The case for the other side

Fourteen per cent of respondents support the data centres, and their arguments deserve a fair hearing, partly because some of them are the same ones the developers are making.

The strongest pro-development comments focused on the waterfront site specifically. As Slate itself argues, the former Stelco lands already carry a heavy industrial power grid, and the company says it would use closed-loop, non-evaporative cooling drawing from the bay rather than municipal water, and is exploring whether waste heat could warm nearby buildings. Several readers made the same point: this is land that hosted a steel mill, the grid was built for industrial loads, and a data centre may be a cleaner use of it than what came before.

Others framed it as an economic and strategic question. “I don’t want to see Hamilton pass by a once-in-a-lifetime, billion-dollar investment,” one wrote. A few raised data sovereignty, the idea that Canada needs its own compute capacity rather than renting it from abroad, and drew a sharp line between the two local sites. The McMaster-linked proposal on the Frid Street side, in this view, is a smaller academic facility serving legitimate research, and shouldn’t be lumped in with a for-profit hyperscale campus on the waterfront. A handful of readers also argued that much of the alarm is imported from US horror stories, and that Ontario’s regulations and the project’s stated design make a Hamilton outcome look different.

We do not run these to balance the scales artificially. The opposition in this survey is lopsided. But the supportive voices are real, they are specific, and they are part of the conversation the city is about to have.

What happens next

Hamilton staff are expected to bring a draft moratorium bylaw to council on July 15. Under Ontario’s Planning Act, an interim control bylaw can pause a permitted use for up to a year while the city studies it, extendable to a maximum of two. It is a temporary tool, not a permanent ban, and the developers have signalled they may challenge it. The federal decision on sovereign compute funding, which the waterfront proposal is tied to, is expected this fall.

In the meantime, the survey is still open, and we will keep listening. If you have a stake in this, on either side, the July 15 meeting is the one to watch.

---

In their words

We received hundreds of written comments. Here is a broader sample, lightly edited for typos and grouped by theme, to show the range of what Hamilton told us. Names and neighbourhoods appear where people gave us permission to share them.

The strength of it

“The vast majority of Hamiltonians do not want to see these built.” Spencer, Ancaster

“I’d like to see a lifetime ban on data centres anywhere in Ontario.” Bob, Hamilton East

“These centres are anti-humanity. I have zero interest in trading my health, the natural environment, our money and our water.” Dijana, Hamilton

“AI data centres provide no real benefit to the community. I don’t know anyone who would actually welcome one. Keep them out of our city.” Dylan, Butler

Water and the harbour

“The bay is already contaminated. The data centre will need water, and when it uses up the water in the bay, we’ll be left with contaminated land and no water left.” Michele, East Hamilton

“Heated water discharged back into the lake can disrupt fish habitats and beaches all along the western shoreline, from Hamilton to Burlington to Oakville. The harbour has already had decades of rehabilitation.” Nicole, McQuesten West

“They require a huge amount of water to cool every day. Where is it going to come from, and where does the dirty water go after? Are we going to drain Lake Ontario?” Ryan, Hamilton

“Massive energy consumption, air and noise pollution, and health risks, especially for anyone with a lung disease like asthma. The cost will be passed on to the community.” Caroline, Hamilton

What they’ve seen elsewhere

“I have friends in the US who live within three miles. The noise, the hydro and water problems, make their lives miserable. They can’t even sell their homes.” JJ, East End

“We can see how large-scale data centres are destroying lives and the environment in the US. Why would we emulate them? There won’t be a different outcome just because we’re in Canada.” Laurie, Hamilton

“There’s a rush to build these without oversight, and we’ve seen what has happened to communities in the US.” Sarah, Kirkendall

“The noise is extremely loud. They had to close the bar on the bay over noise complaints alone, and it will echo across the water. Electricity rates will rise too.” Chris, Hamilton

Process and the fast-track

“I hadn’t realized these were being built so close to home. Isn’t the city supposed to notify residents of big projects like this? Why is it being fast-tracked?” Eleri, Ward 2

“There’s no oversight, no environmental or health assessments, and no public engagement from government. We need a moratorium for all AI data centres, with no loopholes and no carveouts.” Andrea, Ward 1

“Once one is approved, the rest will move in.” A Flamborough resident

“I’m concerned about all of it: light and noise, water use and quality, utility costs, property values, the few permanent jobs, the lack of transparency, and the impossibility of actually enforcing any of it.” Oliver, East End

Trust and enforcement

“Nothing is binding. Look at how often the city has let projects deviate from what were supposed to be binding terms. How do you guarantee that won’t happen at a data centre?” Mimmo, Stoney Creek

“There’s currently no law stopping the best-case data centre from becoming a mega-hyperscale behemoth. A proposal that sounds good today could change ownership in a year or two.” Nick Tsergas, Stinson

“Fifty to sixty per cent of data centre proposals are never built. Most are land-holding corporations, just like the mall and big-box planners of the past. Governments need proper specifications.” A Landsdale resident

“My career as a data centre administrator informs my view. Even small-scale centres belong nowhere near homes, and the impacts are huge. We need a framework for responsible development and laws with real accountability.” A Ward 3 resident

Jobs, cost and the bubble

“Once the land is given to them, we never get it back. The owners don’t live here, and the whole objective of AI is to eliminate employees. Promising jobs is a lie.” Alex, Dundas

“Nearly all these projects are years behind schedule, and companies are already scaling back AI spending. Any economic benefit wouldn’t materialize for at least five years, and the bubble won’t last that long.” Matt, Hamilton

“These centres consume huge amounts of copper, which pushes up housing prices, and chips, which raise electronics prices. There’s no direct benefit to the average person.” Phil, Mount Hope

Fix what’s broken first

“We can’t fix health care, education or housing, but this is being rammed through. Fix those first, then we can work toward a brighter future.” Gary, Stoney Creek

“I honestly just think it’s not something Hamilton needs. There’s so much else we should be thinking about.” Jill, Hamilton

The conditional yes

“I don’t know enough. Pause it while the research is done and explained to the community. Right now I see more negatives than positives, but I’m willing to learn more.” Joanne, Waterdown

“Hyperscale data centres are new and the technology has outpaced the law. We need a full moratorium until we can be confident they won’t harm our community or environment.” Andrea, Crown Point

“The city must give us more information: feasibility, pros and cons, jobs, environment. A lot of the protest is rooted in faulty information, and it’s the city’s job to educate people with proper facts.” Louis, Downtown

“I believe skilled, long-term thinkers could build something that wouldn’t be harmful, but it would take a lot to outweigh the red flags about who controls this infrastructure, including consultation with Indigenous experts on their own terms.” Rachel, East End

The case for

“Concerns over water depletion are misplaced given our access to Lake Ontario, and the waterfront grid was built for heavy manufacturing. This is a cleaner alternative to particulate-heavy industry, and it provides much-needed tax revenue. Review each proposal individually.” Mike, Hamilton East

“The site is best suited to industrial use. The city has already committed to the McMaster AI research data centre, and withdrawing support now harms McMaster. Council acted rashly in suspending development.” Jeremy, Westdale

“A lot of this is misinformation based on what we’ve seen in the US. We have strong regulations in Ontario and we’ll benefit from the investment. The intent here isn’t the same as the disasters down south.” Beth, Hamilton Mountain

“We need data sovereignty and to support academic research. The Frid site makes more sense for a smaller, academic facility, but we need a real plan and enforceable regulations, not just Ottawa throwing money around.” Loren, Westdale

“We all use data centres. Shouldn’t we want them in Canada? Can the waste heat be repurposed? Isn’t a lot of this just NIMBYism?” Brandon, Corktown

“Not every data centre is an AI data centre, and there are already some operating here without fuss. This could be an ideal reuse of the site if the consumption is equal to or less than what Stelco used. We need intelligent discussion, not emotional reaction.” Jonathan, Gibson

About this survey

This was an opt-in survey hosted on onlyinhamilton.ca and shared with The Hammer’s audience. As of publication it had drawn more than 275 responses. It is not a scientific or representative poll. Respondents chose to take part, which means people who already care about the issue are more likely to be here, and the results should be read as a strong signal from an engaged local audience rather than a precise measure of all of Hamilton.

One honest note on the data. When we asked about concerns, the question let people select up to three, and a number of respondents told us, pointedly, that they wanted to choose more. “My biggest concerns are all of those listed,” one wrote. “Why do I have to be limited?” Fair criticism. If anything, capping the choices understated how many concerns people hold at once.

What gives the results weight is that they point the same direction as everything else on the public record: the 1,688 submissions to the city, the thousands of petition signatures, and the room full of speakers on June 4. Our readers are not an outlier. They are part of a very loud chorus.

Have a tip, a correction, or a perspective we missed? Reply and let us know.

Stay up to date with the latest Hamilton news and events with our free weekly newsletter.