Concerns about a proposed artificial intelligence data center in Inyokern drew a packed crowd to Wednesday’s Ridgecrest City Council meeting, where residents warned that the project could strain local water supplies, increase energy demands, and reshape the future of the Indian Wells Valley.
But as the evening unfolded, another issue repeatedly surfaced alongside the data center debate: growing frustration over the city’s Flock Safety surveillance camera network and what residents described as the council’s reluctance to publicly discuss it.
During more than an hour of public comment, speakers urged city leaders to scrutinize the proposed AI data center’s environmental impacts while also renewing calls for a formal review of Ridgecrest’s automated license plate reader system. Though the issues are unrelated, residents framed both as examples of decisions that could have long-term consequences for privacy, public resources, and local quality of life.
The large turnout reflected growing concern over both issues and exposed a broader frustration among residents who said they feel excluded from discussions about decisions that could affect privacy, water supplies, and quality of life across the valley.
Kayla Monk, a Ridgecrest resident and teacher, said she supports technological progress but questioned whether the valley should accept a project with potentially high environmental costs.
“People say that AI is the future, and it probably is,” Monk told council members. “But your job is to make sure that if and when it comes here, it comes in a way that is going to support us.”
Monk and several others focused on water consumption, electrical demand, and the possibility that residents could ultimately bear the costs of supporting infrastructure needed for the project.
Kelly Cuts called for a comprehensive environmental review, arguing that project impacts should be evaluated as a whole rather than in separate phases.
“The developer really does need to provide a total cumulative impact analysis on each of the negative impacts that this project could have,” Cuts said, citing concerns about water use, noise, air quality, and lighting.
Sandra Van Scotter argued that the Inyokern proposal should be viewed within a larger national push to expand artificial intelligence infrastructure into rural communities.
She urged local officials to seek more detailed answers regarding long-term water consumption, cumulative environmental impacts, and electrical infrastructure demands before the project moves forward.
“We are not opposed to innovation,” Van Scotter said. “We are just asking that our community not be the place where the costs of innovation are absorbed without our input or consent.”
Several speakers tied the project to the ongoing adjudication of the Indian Wells Valley groundwater basin, arguing that major new water demands should not be considered until questions about long-term water availability are resolved.
Jennifer Slayton urged the council to seek additional information about the project’s projected water consumption before submitting comments to the California Energy Commission.
“We are in a comprehensive adjudication, and it’s premature to make any decision or even assessment until that’s done,” Slayton said.
Several speakers also called for city leaders to formally document concerns about water use and environmental impacts in communications with state regulators and other agencies involved in the review process.
While concerns about the data center drew many first-time speakers to the podium, a second issue that has dominated public comment for months resurfaced throughout the evening.
Multiple residents urged the council to publicly discuss Ridgecrest’s contract with Flock Safety, which operates the city’s automated license plate reader camera system.
Several speakers referenced recent reports that the FBI is seeking access to commercial license plate reader databases, arguing that local participation in such systems could contribute to broader surveillance efforts beyond the community.
Mike Licitra, who has repeatedly addressed the council about the issue, criticized officials for declining to place the topic on a future agenda despite months of public comment.
“This council does, in fact, have all the power to decide on continuing the city’s Flock deployment. Yet despite cries from the crowd, it still did not make it to the agenda.”
Jamie Jones similarly questioned why the proposed data center generated public discussion while concerns about the camera system have not.
“We were told we needed to make this issue matter to Ridgecrest,” Jones said. “I think we did.”
Jones argued that residents from across the political spectrum share concerns about privacy and government surveillance.
“This issue unites everyone in this town, from libertarians to progressives, Democrats to Republicans,” Jones said. “Whether people are worried about federal overreach, corporate data mining, or the misuse of local tax dollars, the consensus in Ridgecrest is clear. We value our independence and our privacy.”
Daniel Neal said residents have repeatedly raised concerns about the system during council meetings and referenced a February town hall focused on the technology.
“I think it is now obvious that this is an issue that the city council outright refuses to acknowledge,” Neal said.
Longtime resident Lorne Smith also criticized the camera program, saying he had not seen enough public benefit to justify what he views as a loss of privacy.
“We’re not that town,” Smith said. “I just don’t see that there’s any benefit from it that has improved the quality of our lives to the degree that it’s worth giving up our liberty and being tracked wherever we’re going.”
Throughout the evening, speakers repeatedly called for more communication between city leaders and residents.
Former Councilmember Tom Wicknick urged the council to create more opportunities for dialogue and public participation.
“I’ve been up here many a times begging you, council, to have a dialogue with the people when we come up here,” Wicknick said. “The people here tonight, they’re also begging for that dialogue.”
Several speakers also criticized city governance, raised questions about proposed ballot measures, and discussed concerns involving the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority.
Despite the wide range of issues raised, a common theme emerged: residents want a larger role in conversations about decisions they believe could affect the future of the community.
Because the issues were raised during public comment and not listed as action items on the agenda, council members did not engage in discussion.
After public comment exceeded its allotted time, Mayor Eric Bruen Endicott thanked residents for participating and acknowledged the willingness of community members to speak before the council.
The meeting then moved on to the remainder of the agenda without further discussion of either the proposed AI data center or the city’s Flock camera program.
