Demolition begins on Court Street side of downtown Reading building
Crews operating heavy machinery early Tuesday dug into the Court Street-facing end of the building with the jaw-like pincers of the excavator, making quick work of the exterior walls.
While work is underway in the 400 block of Court Street, the following street closures will be in effect until further notice:
• Court Street between Fourth and Fifth streets and Madison Avenue between the Madison building parking lot at Washington and Court streets will be closed.
• Local traffic will be permitted to use Court Street from Fourth Street to the Madison parking lot and from Fourth Street to the garage door on Madison Avenue at the rear of 401 Penn St.
During this period, Court Street and Madison Avenue will operate as two-way streets to allow limited local access within the affected areas.
Work on the Penn Street side of the building was completed in March.
The building is the most problematic in the string of five vacant properties, 431-443 Penn St., that the city bought for $2.6 million in 2013.
The 1.22-acre site on the northwest corner of Fifth and Penn streets is in the Callowhill Historic District.
Only the 1912 Beaux Arts-style front of the structure at 431 Penn St. is considered historic. Originally part of the former Reading News building at 22-24 N. Fifth St., it was transplanted piece by piece to its current location in 1981 as part of the former American Bank $6 million Keystone Project.
City Council last year authorized an agreement of sale for the five buildings with developer Philly Office Retail, but the deal has not yet been finalized.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
7 hours ago
- New York Post
China using TikTok as a pawn to squeeze Trump in trade talks: sources
President Trump recently said he found a buyer for TikTok, the controversial Chinese-owned short-video app but his real problem is with the seller, On The Money has learned. TikTok is being used as a pawn in the US-Chinese trade negotiations by Beijing, which knows that Trump wants the app to remain operating in the US, according to people with knowledge of the matter. There will be no sale of TikTok to American investors — a move that is needed to conform to a US law that bans the app from operating domestically — until Chinese President Xi Jinping is confident he has extracted as much as he can in terms of a favorable trade deal with the White House, these people add. Chinese President Xi Jinping will extract as much as he can in terms of a favorable trade deal with the White House, sources told On The Money.. Jack Forbes/NY Post Design 'Trump still doesn't have a seller,' is how one person involved in the talks described the situation. The problem, the source said, is that 'Xi is a no-show' in putting TikTok front and center in the broader trade talks, at least up to this point. Which is why bankers and investors involved in the TikTok dealmaking who keep tabs on the trade machinations were more than a little perplexed when Trump, appearing on Fox News on Sunday, said: 'We have a buyer for TikTok. … I'll tell you in two weeks.' He added that China will 'probably' allow the sale to 'very, very wealthy people. It's a group of wealthy people.' Having 'very wealthy people' willing to step up and buy TikTok is nothing new. In April, a group of wealthy investors and tech honchos were poised to place a bid with the Chinese to buy the US based operations until Trump launched a trade war against Beijing, hitting China with 145% tariffs on imported goods. Trump has been seeking a solution since returning to the White House, issuing a series of executive orders to keep the TikTok ban from going into effect. AP That number has since been lowered as both sides negotiate other trade issues as part of a broader deal. As for buyers, this person said either tech giant Oracle, co-founded by Trump pal Larry Ellison, the previous investor group, or a combination of both would be interested in taking a controlling stake in TikTok's US operations and stop it from going dark. In 2024, a bipartisan group of US lawmakers, fearful that the Chinese use TikTok to spy on US citizens, passed legislation, signed by former President Biden, that the company would cease operating on US app stores unless the Chinese gave up control of the platform. The ban was to go into effect Jan. 19, the day before Trump's inauguration. Trump once wanted TikTok banned but became a fan after the 2024 election, where he believed pro-Trump spots on the app helped him win over younger voters, which represent the majority of TikTok's users. He has been seeking a solution since returning to the White House, issuing a series of executive orders to keep the ban from going into effect despite prominent Republicans arguing that the law is still being flouted by Trump's delaying tactics and even the latest deal iteration. Under the terms of the last negotiated deal, the Chinese wanted a minority stake in the new US-investor controlled company and continued ownership of TikTok's crown jewel – its technology, the algorithm that funnels videos based on preferences to users, which lawmakers claim is used to spy on US citizens. The Chinese have long denied the spying issue, but US lawmakers remain concerned that majority US control still doesn't provide enough protection from alleged spycraft. That's one reason it took so long to come up with a structure that satisfied all the competing constituencies, and why even after finding a buyer that appeals to the seller, TikTok might still be banned in the coming months unless Trump issues yet another extension after the current one expires in mid-September.
Atlantic
7 hours ago
- Atlantic
Welcome to the Mafia Presidency
Theoretically, it's illegal for the president to accept or solicit bribes. The plain language of the statute is perfectly clear: It is a crime for a public official to seek or receive 'anything of value' in return for 'being influenced in the performance of any official ac t.' The prohibition applies whether the public official seeks or receives the bribe personally or on behalf of 'any other person or entity.' As I said: theoretically. On Tuesday, the media-and-entertainment conglomerate Paramount announced a $16 million payment to President Donald Trump's future presidential library. The payment settled a lawsuit that Trump had filed against the Paramount-owned broadcaster CBS because he was unhappy with the way the network had edited an election-season interview with then–Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump's lawsuit was about as meritless as a lawsuit can be, for reasons I'll explain shortly. If CBS were a freestanding news organization, it would have fought the case and won. But like the Disney-owned network ABC, which also paid off Trump for an almost equally frivolous lawsuit, CBS belongs to a parent corporation with regulatory business before Trump-appointed agencies. Paramount is pursuing an $8 billion merger that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. In November 2024, then-incoming FCC Chair Brendan Carr warned that merger approval would depend on satisfying Trump's claims against CBS. Carr told the Fox News interviewer Dana Perino, 'I'm pretty confident that that news-distortion complaint over the 60 Minutes transcript is something that is likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of that transaction.' 'News-distortion complaint?' What's that? Nearly a century ago, in 1927, Congress empowered a new Federal Radio Commission to police the accuracy of news broadcasts. In the preceding decades, the airwaves had become a chaos of transmissions interfering with one another. The right to use any particular frequency was a valuable concession from the federal government, the owner on the public's behalf of the nation's airwaves. Congress felt that it could impose conditions in return for such concessions. One condition was a duty to meet public-interest standards in broadcast content, which included giving equal time to opposing political candidates in an election. In 1934, the Federal Radio Commission evolved into the Federal Communications Commission. As television technology spread, so did the FCC's ambition to police the new medium, resulting in 1949 with its power to compel the fairness doctrine on ' all discussion of issues of importance to the public.' The fact that opinions can differ about what counts as 'accuracy' and what counts as 'distortion' rapidly became obvious. Government efforts to police the boundary between fair reporting and unfair scurrility create conflicts with First Amendment rights. For print media, the courts have been very clear: Editing, even arguably unfair editing, is protected free speech, subject only to the laws of defamation. In the 1960s and '70s, the FCC groped its way toward a similar rule for broadcast media. Interestingly, some of the crucial milestones involved CBS News. In the early days of color television, CBS News pioneered the use of aggressive editing to tell powerful stories in dramatic ways. In 1971, for example, CBS broadcast a documentary, The Selling of the Pentagon, that accused the Department of Defense of manipulating public opinion. To amplify the argument, the producers cut and reassembled questions and answers. Some of the affected individuals filed complaints against CBS, and the matter was taken up by members of Congress. Yet the FCC declined to get involved in the case on free-speech grounds. Before the end of the first Nixon administration, the FCC had generated a series of precedents that more or less nullified the agency's Calvin Coolidge–era status as a monitor of broadcast accuracy and a potential censor. The whole issue soon became moot, because the FCC had no jurisdiction over cable television or the internet. As Americans drew more of their information from sources outside the FCC's domain, the very idea of content regulation by the agency came to seem absurd to all parties, including the FCC itself. Who would think of invoking a doctrine that originated in 1927 to police speech in the 21st century? Then came Trump and the loyalty-above-law appointees of his second term. Evident from the Trump legal filing against CBS is that not even the president's own lawyers took his complaint seriously. Three whopping clues give away the game about the filing's farcicality. The first is where the lawsuit was brought: the Amarillo division of the U.S. district court for the northern district of Texas. CBS is not domiciled in Amarillo. Neither is Trump or Harris or any person significantly connected with the 60 Minutes segment. What is located in Amarillo is America's premier pick for right-wing forum-shopping, a practice criticized not only by liberal counterparties but also, at least implicitly, by The Wall Street Journal and National Review. Amarillo is the court where a partisan-conservative plaintiff goes with a case that would be summarily thrown out elsewhere. The next clue is the language of the filing, which reads like direct dictation from the president: As President Trump stated, and as made crystal clear in the video he referenced and attached, 'A giant Fake News Scam by 60 Minutes & CBS. Her REAL ANSWER WAS CRAZY, OR DUMB, so they actually REPLACED it with another answer in order to save her or, at least, make her look better. A FAKE NEWS SCAM, which is totally illegal. TAKE AWAY THE CBS LICENSE. Election interference. She is a Moron, and the Fake News Media wants to hide that fact. AN UNPRECEDENTED SCANDAL!!! The Dems got them to do this and should be forced to concede the election? WOW!' See President Donald J. Trump, TRUTH SOCIAL (Oct. 10, 2024). And so on, through 65 paragraphs of irrelevant name-calling and Trump-quoting obsequiousness. The final clue lies in the carelessness of the complaint's quoted sources, two of which actually argue against the Trump claim. A cited law-review article concluded that 'the reinvented news distortion doctrine would undermine the very democratic norms marshaled in its defense.' Similarly, an FCC decision referenced found against taking action (in another case involving CBS)—explicitly on free-speech grounds: 'In this democracy, no government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.' One has to wonder whether Trump's lawyers even read the texts they cited. The complaint's flimsy legal basis—including Trump's claim of standing under a Texas consumer-protection law—indicates its pure-nuisance quality. And yet, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a case that it could almost certainly have won for a fraction of the price. U.S. law forbids both accepting a bribe and soliciting a bribe, yet they're not exactly the same offense. There is an important difference between a police officer who takes money to let a criminal escape and a police officer who uses the threat of arrest to extort money from an innocent citizen. Paramount did not come up with the idea to pay Trump $16 million; Trump decided to squeeze Paramount for the money. What's going on here is extortion—and it does not get any less extortionate for being laundered through Trump's hypothetical future library. A systematic pattern has emerged: shakedowns of law firms, business corporations, and media companies for the enrichment of Trump, his family, and his political allies. Every time targets yield, they create an incentive for Trump to repeat the shakedown on another victim.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Hendersonville EV charging stations projected to see 18% more use in 2025, still free
HENDERSONVILLE - Hendersonville's electric vehicle charging stations saw significantly increased average monthly use in the first months of 2025 compared to all of 2024, according to a city official. In 2023, the city's charging stations put out 6,480 kilowatt-hours, Hendersonville Public Works Superintendent for Sustainability Caitlyn Gendusa said July 2 a presentation to City Council. In 2024, that number was 10,736, up an impressive 66% over 2023. And that usage has continued to increase in 2025, she told the Times-News July 3. While some of the increase in 2024 might be attributable to the installation of two new stations at the end of 2023, usage in 2025 is projected to go up by 18% over last year. Gendusa said she expects 12,700 kilowatt-hours to be used at charging stations in 2025, based on the average from January through April. And that's not taking the spring and summer months into account, when tourism season is in full swing. Gendusa told the Times-News the rise could be attributable to 'a bigger population base that's using the chargers.' The city started its EV charging program around 10 years ago, and in that time, it has 'saved 18 tons of greenhouse gas emissions,' Gendusa told Council during the June 2 meeting. Electric vehicle charging costs Hendersonville around 95 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's factoring in the cost of energy itself, the cost of the infrastructure and fees paid to the manufacturer for support services. She said that in comparable North Carolina cities where users pay for charging, the cost is around 40 cents per kilowatt-hour, but that many cities still subsidize charging. City Manager John Connet asked Gendusa if there was an alternative to ChargePoint, pointing out that fees the city paid the company were greater than the cost of electricity itself. In response Gendusa said that, without paying the fee to ChargePoint, the city wouldn't be able to track electricity usage at its stations. The fee also includes warranty and support services, she told the Times-News. Each Hendersonville station cost between $7,000 and $8,000, plus another $600 for installation, she said, but Gendusa told Council that, according to the Public Works Department, maintenance costs have been low. Up until now, the cost of charging at one of the city's four stations has been 100% subsidized by the city as a 'service to the community,' Connet said. Electric vehicle drivers pay nothing to charge up at city stations. It's possible that may change in the future. In the July 2 meeting, councilors mentioned the idea of changing to a pay structure but came to no conclusions. 'Folks are already paying a fee to park in the city, which is new, so I know (the city and council are) more cautious about having another fee, even if it's an additional service that someone's getting,' like charging, Gendusa said. ChargePoint, the charging manufacturer, would take 10% of any charging fee. More: After McDowell County fatality, NC's Helene-related death toll rises to 108 More: Are fireworks legal in NC? Here's what to know this Fourth of July George Fabe Russell is the Henderson County Reporter for the Hendersonville Times-News. Tips, questions, comments? Email him at GFRussell@ This article originally appeared on Hendersonville Times-News: Use of Hendersonville EV stations projected to rise 18% in 2025
