Kentucky family snubs $26 million offer to convert their farmland into an AI data center — 'they call us old stupid farmers, you know, but we’re not,' says landowner

News
By
Published

Even AI could not predict Kentucky family rejecting the $26M buyout

No data center sign on a farm
(Image credit: Getty Images)

According to a WKRC report, an anonymous AI company approached a landowner in Northern Kentucky with an extraordinary $26 million offer to buy a portion of their farmland to build a data center. Despite the life-changing sum, Ida Huddleston and her family, who have owned and cultivated the land for generations, firmly rejected the offer.

“They call us old stupid farmers, you know, but we’re not,” Huddleston asserted. “We know whenever our food is disappearing, our lands are disappearing, and we don’t have any water—and that poison. Well, we know we’ve had it.”

Delsia Bare, Huddleston’s daughter, shared a short but rich history of their family's land. For generations, the Huddleston family has been cultivating the soil and providing food for countless families beyond their own. Bare described how their ancestors persevered through some of the nation’s darkest times, such as raising wheat during the Great Depression and helping keep bread lines supplied when much of America was struggling with poverty and hunger.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware

“Stay and hold and feed a nation,” Bare told WKRC. “$26 million doesn’t mean anything.”

The AI company, presumed to be one of the major players in the industry, reached out to Huddleston because of the size and the location of the 1,200-acre property. The AI company sought to acquire roughly half of the land for a big data center project. Farmland in Mason County typically sells for around $6,000 per acre. In an attempt to woo the Huddlestons to sign, the AI company offered $26 million, nearly 10X the local land value. Despite the lucrative offer, Huddleston and her family declined without hesitation.

With the AI boom advancing at a breakneck speed, AI companies are competing to construct data centers nationwide. According to Statista, the United States leads the world with more than 4,400 data centers. For comparison, the United Kingdom, which ranks second, has roughly one-eighth that number.

The proliferation of data centers over the last few years has brought many shortcomings. Some include the requirement for enormous amounts of electricity and water to operate; these facilities are stretching the local electrical grids to their limits, with energy bills soaring and depleting the water supply. It is understandable why residents in many areas are refusing to welcome more data centers that jeopardize their quality of life.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the conviction or financial stability to say no to $26 million. The AI company reportedly contacted several other landowners in the surrounding area. According to Bare, some landowners caved in and agreed to sell. Despite the Huddleston family's stance and determination to protect their legacy, it appears the AI company will still get to build its data center somewhere nearby.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Zhiye Liu
Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

16 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Zaranthos
    Why don't data centers wanting land do a little research? Instead of trying to displace farmers buy the land from China (or lobby the government to eminent domain of it), or Blackrock, or Bill Gates? Beyond that they could try to buy land not being used for farming. The PR department may need to have a talk with the department doing land acquisition or location selection.
    Reply
  • BulkZerker
    Zaranthos said:
    Why don't data centers wanting land do a little research? Instead of trying to displace farmers buy the land from China (or lobby the government to eminent domain of it), or Blackrock, or Bill Gates? Beyond that they could try to buy land not being used for farming. The PR department may need to have a talk with the department doing land acquisition or location selection.
    Simple, the land is already prepped for construction. No trees, level, and it's (likely) near utilities (power) large enough to support the data center, the other utility (water) is a simple matter of making a well large enough because there is no city, county, or state law laws restricting their usage on wells.
    Reply
  • bill001g
    Problem is the greedy government will indirectly force a lot of sales. Maybe not in this particular case but as other nearby properties are sold say for industry or housing developments this causes the value of all other farmland to increase in value. The tax appraisers will value the land on what you can sell it for uses other than farming. At some point the tax will get so high per arce that it is more than the profit you can make farming it. There are some law to try to prevent this but it still happens. The poor guy who has his RV parked on a couple acres will get forced to sell his land to avoid the government taking it for not paying the inflated taxes.
    Reply
  • Siorus
    “They call us old stupid farmers, you know, but we’re not,” Huddleston asserted.

    Yeah, about that…

    The sum of money on offer, invested and managed properly, would likely have returned several million dollars a year in passive income. In rural Kentucky, this is plausibly enough money that they could have a very reasonable lifestyle while nobody in the family would ever need to work again (depending on the size of the family ofc) and while still having enough left over to reinvest some of it and put some of it back into the local community, which it sounds like they care deeply about.

    And they turned it down in favor of taking a stand over a complete nonissue. Nobody is going to starve because their specific farm ceased to exist.

    Basic math would suggest that taking the money and leveraging it to enforce their principles could have done more good for the people they claim to care about than turning it down on the basis of ‘protecting’ those same principles.

    So, I mean. From where I sit, that quoted accusation seems fairly accurate.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Siorus said:
    Yeah, about that…

    The sum of money on offer, invested and managed properly, would likely have returned several million dollars a year in passive income. In rural Kentucky, this is plausibly enough money that they could have a very reasonable lifestyle while nobody in the family would ever need to work again (depending on the size of the family ofc) and while still having enough left over to reinvest some of it and put some of it back into the local community, which it sounds like they care deeply about.

    And they turned it down in favor of taking a stand over a complete nonissue. Nobody is going to starve because their specific farm ceased to exist.

    Basic math would suggest that taking the money and leveraging it to enforce their principles could have done more good for the people they claim to care about than turning it down on the basis of ‘protecting’ those same principles.

    So, I mean. From where I sit, that quoted accusation seems fairly accurate.
    FTA:
    "For generations, the Huddleston family has been cultivating the soil"

    Sounds like they wouldn't have sold it for any purpose, not just the data canter.
    Reply
  • passivecool
    The problem is, that the - i will call them developers here - have too often exerted too little effort to onboard individuals, communities. To take responsibility for the wake, be transparent about the long term effects.

    There are always the highly emotional aspects of not just 'this is ours' but 'this is us' And this is absolutely legitimate. One could decide to turn down passive same income forever because 'this is what we do'

    the theory of homo economicus did not make it that far.

    These are the cases where EVERYONE is right, yet nothing is aligned.

    We need the data centers. Distributed. Worldwide. Locally. Period. (I remind you that you are now reading TH, booking your uber, ordering your eats, your amazon, doing your banking, watching your ... youtube, facebook, netfliks, googling 'what is homo economicus ", whatever)... It is all -> hosted by your friendly local data center. AI or not, it is not going to reduce or go away. You use it more or less, but honestly more than a few years ago, the companies in your community need it to survive, national security depends on it. These are the facts.

    But the data centers need to become part of the community, part of the body, not a parasite.

    None of the things I have written contradict. IMO

    - the developers need to listen and care
    - the centers need to be a real profit center for the community
    - the community would be well advised to get good advice externally and demand a good deal. not no way but yes maybe.
    - the individual land owner - this is purely an emotional decision. I would tell my best friend to try to be open and think for a little while before making a decision. Any decision if valid.


    --- 'Why don't data centers wanting land do a little research?' - --
    do you honestly think that companies that are managing billions in projects, multiple 100mio each, don't have really clever people on board who 'do a little research'?
    They can do math. They seem to lack change managers or someone in the team responsible for empathy.


    =sociology, business, not politics.no need to delete.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    Siorus said:
    Yeah, about that…

    The sum of money on offer, invested and managed properly, would likely have returned several million dollars a year in passive income. In rural Kentucky, this is plausibly enough money that they could have a very reasonable lifestyle while nobody in the family would ever need to work again (depending on the size of the family ofc) and while still having enough left over to reinvest some of it and put some of it back into the local community, which it sounds like they care deeply about.

    And they turned it down in favor of taking a stand over a complete nonissue. Nobody is going to starve because their specific farm ceased to exist.

    Basic math would suggest that taking the money and leveraging it to enforce their principles could have done more good for the people they claim to care about than turning it down on the basis of ‘protecting’ those same principles.

    So, I mean. From where I sit, that quoted accusation seems fairly accurate.

    It's not always about the money, dude. Some people live on principle alone and this was a clear case of it given the family's generational commitment to the land and their craft.
    Reply
  • daworstplaya
    passivecool said:
    The problem is, that the - i will call them developers here - have too often exerted too little effort to onboard individuals, communities. To take responsibility for the wake, be transparent about the long term effects.

    There are always the highly emotional aspects of not just 'this is ours' but 'this is us' And this is absolutely legitimate. One could decide to turn down passive same income forever because 'this is what we do'

    the theory of homo economicus did not make it that far.

    These are the cases where EVERYONE is right, yet nothing is aligned.

    We need the data centers. Distributed. Worldwide. Locally. Period. (I remind you that you are now reading TH, booking your uber, ordering your eats, your amazon, doing your banking, watching your ... youtube, facebook, netfliks, googling 'what is homo economicus ", whatever)... It is all -> hosted by your friendly local data center. AI or not, it is not going to reduce or go away. You use it more or less, but honestly more than a few years ago, the companies in your community need it to survive, national security depends on it. These are the facts.

    But the data centers need to become part of the community, part of the body, not a parasite.

    None of the things I have written contradict. IMO

    - the developers need to listen and care
    - the centers need to be a real profit center for the community
    - the community would be well advised to get good advice externally and demand a good deal. not no way but yes maybe.
    - the individual land owner - this is purely an emotional decision. I would tell my best friend to try to be open and think for a little while before making a decision. Any decision if valid.


    --- 'Why don't data centers wanting land do a little research?' - --
    do you honestly think that companies that are managing billions in projects, multiple 100mio each, don't have really clever people on board who 'do a little research'?
    They can do math. They seem to lack change managers or someone in the team responsible for empathy.


    =sociology, business, not politics.no need to delete.

    Yea but don't we already have enough Datacenters with unused capacity for what we humans currently need?
    "reading TH, booking your uber, ordering your eats, your amazon, doing your banking, watching your ... youtube, facebook, netfliks, googling"
    Meaning these new Datacenters are just being stood up to prop up the AI bubble which IMHO is unnecessary.
    Reply
  • passivecool
    bro

    Sceptical world view: who needs glass fibers, airports highways or railways. The internet, what a waste! 90's Dot bomb all fake, no one will buy BOOKS online! Phones with a camera in them? lol who needs that?!? There is a market on the world for maybe six computers.

    no cell tower, no cell data, no cell phone. The chicken was the egg's idea to make more eggs, right?

    Alternative world view:
    'Build the field, they will come.'

    If you are building infrastructure, building a business, you have to think beyond the edge of your plate. You think in decades. Not every bet works out. But it is probably better to invest and bear partial loss than to do nothing and end up like the blackberry, the nokia. Or coal. Now everything is on rocket rollerskates. Healthy? not sure. But denial is not a solution. Intelligent managing is a solution. Self positioning is a solution. Not being left in the dust is mandatory. (I still meet people who are waiting till we can go back to the fax machine.
    (Some of the references are historical. you might have to wiki them. Sorry. I forgot to pay attention and got old.)

    I have a REALLY small company and my ai expenditure went from 0 to 20 to 100 and will be 200 next year for sure. Because i get REAL value out of it. I can now manage stuff i just could not do before, I am a believer now. I own not one single share. not one coin, but my profit is measurable. in having my stuff together and having more hours to sleep and spend time with my kids.

    Your argument, sorry is that you are living on the shoulders of giants, but you want them to go home and take their ball with them.
    That's not the way it works.
    You can help define the rules of the game, though. You have agency, but denial will get you nowhere.
    Reply
  • Sippincider
    Siorus said:
    Basic math would suggest that taking the money and leveraging it to enforce their principles could have done more good for the people they claim to care about than turning it down on the basis of ‘protecting’ those same principles.
    Having been there for generations, the family likely knows everyone in the area. It's their home and their life. Some things money can't buy.

    Taking this kind of buyout would be worse than winning the lottery. Everyone you currently know will be your enemy, and every stranger will be your new best friend. Doesn't take long before it becomes a Pyrrhic windfall.

    It would've been very hard to turn away that kind of money, and took real courage by the family to do it. And the family is correct on one point: when this AI thing passes we'll still need farmland to feed people.
    Reply