Part 4: Partnerships and Permits

B ridging America’s AI Infrastructure gap to remain competitive in the Global AI race will require a powerful alignment of public policy and private capital. Neither sector can do it alone. Public policy sets the rules of the game – through incentives, infrastructure spending, education, and research funding – while private (and philanthropic) capital ultimately builds the companies and projects that create jobs. In this section, we explore how innovative policy frameworks and financial models can converge to drive AI infrastructure investment in small inner-ring suburbs to stabilize and grow the local economy. We also discuss examples of blended finance and public-private partnerships that are reducing risk and proving the viability of such investments, including a case study of a pilot project in Dolton, Illinois.

The “Soft” Infrastructure of Economic Development. Research by Brookings’ Bass Center for Transformative Placemaking finds that Robust civic structures are a cornerstone of resilience, enabling towns to coordinate strategies, align stakeholders, and access resources through strong local governance.¹. To compete in today’s economy, towns need more than vision—they need coordination. Strong civic infrastructure is local, representative, and strategically connected.

1. A Local Anchor Entity Every town needs a central organizing body—whether a tech task force or economic development corporation—that can plan, prioritize, and execute long-term strategies.

2. Inclusive Stakeholder Input Credibility comes from inclusion. Workers, small business owners, and residents must have a voice in shaping the agenda—not just reacting to it.

3. Strategic External Partnerships Smart towns don’t go it alone. Ties to regional councils, state agencies, and universities unlock funding, expertise, and legitimacy—accelerating local initiatives.

Many small towns have some version of a Main Street program (focused on downtown revitalization) or a local chamber of commerce. These can serve as hubs for building wider capacity. For instance, a Main Street org in a small inner-ring suburb might start by beautification projects, but evolve to spearheading data center advocacy or entrepreneurial meetups – essentially becoming a platform for innovation. According to Brookings, Main Street organizations often act as central supportive structures, nurturing small businesses and increasing investment, but to truly succeed they must also “strengthen the civic structures within the community at large”. That means helping spawn new partnerships and leadership beyond their own operations.

Local Government 2.0 Small municipalities often have tiny staffs; a single city clerk or part-time mayor might be handling budgets, grant applications, and public works all at once. This can be a bottleneck for progress. Modernizing local governance involves both capacity-building and procedural streamlining. Capacity-building may include training local officials in project management, technology (e.g., GIS mapping for planning), and grant writing. State governments and universities can assist: for example, extension services from land-grant universities could expand beyond agriculture to offer communities help in drafting tech development plans or navigating federal funding opportunities. One promising model is establishing a regional shared services hub where multiple small towns pool resources to hire expertise – such as a regional IT officer or grant writer who works across towns.

Procedural streamlining involves adopting best practices like one-stop permitting offices or online permit systems to make it easier for businesses to invest (this ties into permitting in Part VI). It also means updating archaic ordinances that might hinder new uses; for instance, ensuring zoning codes allow data centers or tech offices in appropriate zones, or updating building codes to accommodate modern energy and telecom needs. These might seem like technicalities, but they are part of civic infrastructure – the rules and processes that form a town’s “operating system.” A town ready to welcome AI infrastructure will have, for example, a clear ordinance on small cell wireless installations (for 5G), so that telecom providers can roll out connectivity quickly.

Leadership and Vision. Ultimately, people drive civic infrastructure. Strong local leadership – whether an elected official, a business leader, or a grassroots organizer – can galvanize action. Many small-town turnarounds can be traced to a champion or a small leadership group that created a vision and rallied others. For AI-driven revitalization, leaders need a mix of tech understanding and community trust. This might be a tall order in a town with no tech industry yet, but leaders can be cultivated. State and national programs like Rural Innovation Network (by the Center on Rural Innovation) bring together change-makers from different communities to share ideas. There are also fellowship programs that place tech savvy professionals in rural areas for a year to work with local governments, for example, a “Code for America” brigade or an Economic Innovation Group fellowship. These can jump-start a community’s journey by injecting expertise and helping identify local individuals who can continue the work.

Inclusive leadership is crucial. A weakness in some civic infrastructures is that they are dominated by a small circle, sometimes older, homogeneous in background which might inadvertently exclude younger or minority voices. To thrive in the digital era, small towns should strive to broaden participation in civic initiatives. This could mean creating youth advisory councils to get high school or community college input on projects, or reaching out to underrepresented groups to serve on planning committees. An inclusive civic structure not only taps more talent, it also ensures buy-in. As one Brookings finding notes, place-based efforts should mitigate structures that prioritize business needs over residents’ needs by strengthening diverse local voices. A good example is a town that, when considering a data center proposal, forms a planning committee to discuss concerns, like noise, water use, and feed into the negotiation process with the company. This way, the eventual plan has community fingerprints on it, not just outside interests.

Networks and Partnerships. No small town is an island; being well-networked regionally and beyond is part of civic infrastructure. Partnerships with regional planning commissions, nearby universities, and industry groups can give a town leverage it wouldn’t have alone. For instance, an inner ring suburb might partner with a research university to create an off-campus tech research site in the town: the university provides expertise, the town provides land and local knowledge. Or multiple counties together could form a regional tech alliance to pursue a Tech Hub designation, as has happened with some of the EDA tech hub designees that span state lines. These networks bring access to funding, technical assistance, and a broader talent pool.

A telling statistic: many communities lack access to institutions like Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) or community development corporations (CDCs), which are more common in urban areas. ² These entities often help fund local businesses or housing. Strengthening civic infrastructure could involve attracting or creating CDFIs for rural innovation – essentially financial partners who understand community needs. Additionally, private sector partnerships with AI labs or big tech firms can be part of civic infrastructure. Several tech firms have “community enablement” programs: for example, Microsoft’s TechSpark initiative places staff in select rural regions to help with digital skills and business development. Towns can proactively reach out to such programs to become a site.

AI Infrastructure and Quality of Life. Civic infrastructure also overlaps with what sociologist Eric Klinenberg calls social infrastructure – the physical places and institutions that foster social connection such as libraries, parks, sports fields, etc. These might not seem directly related to AI, but they are important for attracting and retaining talent. A small town looking to lure remote tech workers or keep its young people needs a baseline of amenities and vibrant community life. Libraries in particular have become digital hubs in small towns, offering internet access, co-working spaces, and even tech literacy workshops. Ensuring the library has high-speed broadband and perhaps a “makerspace” with 3D printers or coding classes can turn it into a mini innovation hub accessible to all ages. Likewise, investing in civic infrastructure like good schools, healthcare access, and recreational opportunities makes the town more appealing for the professionals and entrepreneurs needed for a tech-infused economy.

Financial Precarity and Sustainability. A challenge highlighted by research is that many small town civic organizations operate on shoestring budgets and are financially precarious. They rely on volunteer efforts or unstable grant funding. For long-term impact, civic infrastructure must be financially sustainable. This could mean establishing endowments or trust funds for community development, sometimes seeded by a wealthy local benefactor or corporate social responsibility contributions. In some cases, revenue from new development like data center fees or increased tax base can be funneled into sustaining civic initiatives. For example, a town could dedicate a portion of new property tax revenue from an AI park into a community fund that supports local education and civic orgs. That creates a virtuous cycle: the more economic development, the more resources for civic capacity, which in turn attracts more economic development.

Case in Point: Networked Civic Leadership. Consider a small city like Emporia, Kansas (pop ~25,000). Emporia has a Main Street program that coordinates with the city, a local university, and community groups to enhance downtown and support businesses. They offer incubator spaces and events that engage the community, working with Hispanics of Today and Tomorrow to include the Latino population. This kind of networked, inclusive approach is a model of civic infrastructure enabling economic strategies. Emporia’s diversified partnerships – city government, technical college, community groups – illustrate the alignment needed for bigger initiatives like AI training or attracting a tech employer. If tomorrow Emporia decided to pursue an ag-tech innovation hub, it already has the civic scaffolding to mobilize people and resources toward that goal.

In summary, civic infrastructure is the glue that holds together all other facets of revitalization. It doesn’t grab headlines like a new factory or fiber line, but without it, flashy investments can falter due to lack of local capacity or conflicts. Strengthening civic infrastructure means investing in people, processes, and partnerships. It’s the town doing its homework and team-building before trying to play in the big leagues of the AI economy. Civic readiness is therefore a critical deep-dive, and one that policymakers and philanthropies should consider funding just as they fund concrete projects. As the old adage goes, “economic development is 80% people and process, 20% bricks and mortar.” That remains true in the age of AI.

Permitting: Streamlining the Path to Development. One of the biggest stumbling blocks for infrastructure projects – whether it’s laying fiber-optic cable, building a data center, or constructing new power lines – is the complex maze of permitting and regulatory approvals. Lengthy environmental reviews, zoning hearings, and multi-agency sign-offs can introduce costly delays or even derail projects entirely. In small-town economic development, where attracting a single data center project can be a game-changer, efficient permitting processes are especially critical. This deep dive examines the challenges posed by the current permitting regime and outlines strategies to accelerate approvals while maintaining important safeguards. We’ll look at federal and state environmental review reforms, local best practices in permitting, and how a balance can be struck so that “time to build” in small communities is measured in months, not years.

The High Cost of Delay. An oft-cited statistic from the Manhattan Institute: the average time to complete a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was 5.1 years as of 2016, with only 16% completed in under two years. Some 29% took longer than six years. These figures, based on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, underscore how major projects languish under reviews and potential litigation. While fewer than 1% of projects trigger a full EIS, usually only very large or federally-funded projects, even less rigorous Environmental Assessments can take 4–18 months. For a small town hoping to, say, build a new industrial park on former farmland, those timelines can deflate momentum and scare away investors.

Permit delays also add uncertainty. Investors may hold off committing capital if they suspect a project will be mired in red tape or lawsuits. Manhattan Institute notes that such delays can threaten viability as existing assets deteriorate waiting for replacement, and new technology deployment slows. In the AI context, a five-year delay in building a data center could mean the facility is outdated by the time it opens, given how fast computing tech evolves. Thus, streamlining is not about cutting corners for its own sake; it’s about enabling communities to implement improvements while they still matter.

Federal Reforms and Opportunities. Recognizing these issues, there have been bipartisan efforts to reform environmental permitting. Recent infrastructure legislation and the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act (debt ceiling deal) included measures to expedite NEPA reviews for certain projects (e.g., setting page limits and time limits for EIS documents, designating lead agencies to coordinate multi-agency reviews, etc.). Some reforms revive concepts like “One Federal Decision,” which coordinates inter-agency work to produce a single combined review document, rather than serial approvals. For small towns, navigating NEPA is often daunting due to lack of in-house expertise. One opportunity is to utilize the federal Permitting Dashboard and technical assistance programs. The Permitting Dashboard tracks major projects – making the process more transparent. Meanwhile, DOE’s new Office of Clean Energy Permitting and an initiative called “Supercharging the Electric Grid” aim to provide support in siting and permitting energy infrastructure. A small community could benefit by flagging their project on these radars or seeking designation as a priority project.

Another avenue is NEPA Assignment – a program where federal agencies delegate review authority to states for certain projects. Originally used for highways (with success in states like California and Texas to cut review times), this concept could extend to broadband or energy projects: if a state environmental agency can conduct the review to federal standards, it may be faster than involving distant federal staff. Small towns can lobby their state to take on such delegated roles.

State and Local Streamlining. At the state level, many have their own environmental policies (e.g., California’s CEQA). Some states have enacted exemptions or fast-tracks for projects meeting certain criteria, for instance, projects in designated “development zones” or on previously disturbed land might get categorical exclusions from detailed review). Oregon, facing a surge in data center proposals, has been looking at ways to ensure permitting keeps up – including requiring big users to fund necessary grid upgrades upfront to avoid protracted regulatory fights over who pays. Arizona has expedited permits for data centers but also tied them to water conservation measures in some counties (data centers often need substantial cooling water).

Locally, a small town can do much to be “shovel-ready.” This includes: pre-zoning land for industrial/tech use, conducting upfront environmental studies on potential sites (so issues are known and mitigated proactively), and establishing clear timelines for local permit decisions. Some communities create an ombudsman or single point of contact to guide investors through local requirements, which prevents bureaucratic runaround. Another best practice is concurrent permitting – where, for example, a building permit application can be reviewed in parallel with a planning commission approval, rather than sequentially, shaving months off.

The Manhattan Institute even proposed model legislation for states to allow independent permitting and inspections – essentially letting certified third parties conduct plan reviews or building inspections if the local government can’t keep up . This could dramatically speed up construction starts in small towns that don’t have full-time inspectors or are overwhelmed by a large project. By hiring certified private inspectors (with proper checks), developers can avoid waiting in line for limited public inspectors. Several states have versions of this (e.g., Florida allows private plan review under certain circumstances).

Balancing Environmental and Community Concerns. Streamlining doesn’t mean ignoring legitimate concerns. Rather, it tries to address them more efficiently. Many delays come from duplicative studies or extended public disputes. A solution is to front-load community engagement and use technology in permitting. For instance, digital twin simulations can help show the public what a proposed facility might look and sound like, addressing visual or noise concerns early. Environmental analysis can be sharpened by data: if a site is a brownfield or in an industrial zone, demonstrating low incremental impact can justify a quicker review.

Additionally, clarity in requirements helps. If a town knows that a particular development will need, say, a water use plan and noise mitigation, it can set those expectations upfront in the zoning approval, then fast-track the rest. Some jurisdictions issue conditional approvals with mitigation requirements rather than making an applicant wait to resolve every detail before any approval. This way, projects can commence on certain activities while secondary issues are being finalized.

A case from industry: semiconductor plants, like those proposed under the CHIPS Act often got stuck in permitting if they had to wait for new power substation approvals. Recognizing this, some states pre-approved multiple substation sites near their industrial parks, so any new plant can plug in faster. Small towns can analogously pre-clear certain infrastructure corridors (for fiber lines, for example, by getting blanket right-of-way agreements from landowners in advance).

Legal Safeguards vs. Litigation Abuse. One major delay factor is litigation – sometimes used by not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) activists or even business competitors to stall projects. States can help by tightening standing rules or requiring that challenges to key projects be resolved in an accelerated timeline. For example, Texas and Ohio have “shot clock” laws for some energy project challenges, forcing courts to rule quickly. The federal government is considering similar steps for critical infrastructure.

For small communities, having robust public participation early can reduce lawsuits later, since people feel heard and solutions incorporated. A local example: when a wind farm was proposed in a rural county, initial opposition was high due to noise and viewshed worries. The county formed a task force with locals, which resulted in setback requirements and a community benefit fund paid by the developer. With those in place, lawsuits were averted and the project proceeded. Likewise, data center developments that involve residents in planning (e.g. designing buffer zones, using quieter cooling tech) face fewer last-minute legal hurdles.

Learning from the Past, Preparing for the Future. Permitting reform is often discussed in broad strokes, but on the ground it’s about meticulous preparation and clear rules. Manhattan Institute’s report “Escape from Quicksand” suggests several actionable reforms, such as expanding categorical exclusions (routine projects that historically have minimal impact can bypass lengthy review), and assigning more review responsibility to states with proven capacity. Implementing these, plus new ideas like “pre-permitted” development zones, will require political will but can be transformative.

Imagine a small town designating an “AI Development Zone” on the outskirts, where land is already zoned industrial, basic environmental clearance is done, and any project meeting certain criteria such as low emissions, certain size limits gets an automatic green light within 60 days. That town would have a significant edge in attracting investors over a place where every project faces a 1-2 year uncertainty period. In essence, the town would have done much of the homework upfront.

To support this, higher levels of government can provide template studies or even programmatic EIS/EAs – one study covering a type of project in a region that subsequent projects can tier off of. For instance, a programmatic study on installing broadband on existing utility poles in rural areas could allow multiple broadband projects to skip individual NEPA reviews and use the programmatic findings.

In conclusion, faster permitting is doable without sacrificing core environmental and safety standards. It comes down to reducing duplication, improving coordination, and planning ahead. For small towns, adopting a proactive stance – “let’s solve likely problems before they stall us” – and pushing for supportive state and federal policies can make the difference. A community that can proudly say “we issue all local permits in 90 days or less, and we’ve never had a project lawsuit in 10 years” will be very attractive to AI investors and builders. That is the goal: to make the path to development as smooth as possible, so that good ideas turn into real projects on the ground with minimal friction.

As this series concludes, one thing is clear: the geography of AI will shape the future of American capitalism. Whether that geography remains confined to a few coastal hubs—or expands to include the forgotten towns and inner-ring suburbs that once powered our industrial rise—depends on what we do now. AI infrastructure isn’t just a technology issue; it’s a national economic strategy. It requires policy that de-risks investment, capital that shares returns, and communities that co-own the outcomes.

We call on federal agencies, philanthropic institutions, and civic investors to align behind a mission: build the backbone of the AI economy in places America can’t afford to leave behind. Fund the fiber. Train the workforce. Incentivize the buildout of regional data infrastructure. And ensure that the benefits—jobs, equity, prosperity—flow to the people who live there. Now is the time to act.

The Players Technologies Foundation is advancing this mission in Dolton, Illinois—a historically overlooked suburb just south of Chicago. On the site of a former munitions plant and abandoned baseball park, the project anchors a 300MW data infrastructure corridor, designed for compute and community. In partnership with local leadership world renowned architects and national allies, they plan to deploy workforce training, athletic data research, and an ownership models stabilized and grows the local economy while giving residents a stake in the future.

On the site of a former munitions plant and abandoned baseball park, the project anchors a 300MW data infrastructure corridor—designed for compute and community. In partnership with local leadership, world-renowned architects, and the Major League Baseball (MLB) Alliance, the initiative will deploy workforce training, athletic data research, and ownership models that stabilize and grow the local economy while giving residents a stake in the future.

To learn more, visit: https://playerstechnologies.com/players-park/