logo
Can council repeal the city's camping ban?

Can council repeal the city's camping ban?

Yahoo14 hours ago
Jul. 4—MORGANTOWN — Now that a new lineup has been sworn in, could Morgantown City Council simply repeal the camping ban ordinance upheld by the city's voters on April 29 ?
Technically, yes. Based on the city charter, there's nothing preventing it.
Is it going to ?
"I don't think so, " Mayor Danielle Trumble told The Dominion Post, explaining she's not been involved in any conversations regarding the law's repeal.
"I respect the decision of the voters, " she added. "But this is a good time to ensure that we are being compassionate with enforcement."
The Morgantown camping ban debate kicked off July 2, 2024, and basically ran hot until the end of April, when Morgantown's voters opted not to repeal the ban in a closely contested ballot referendum — 982 voted against repeal while 904 voted to strike it from the books.
As part of that same ballot, Morgantown elected two new council members, shifting the apparent majority opinion on the issue based on votes cast and /or public commentary offered by Trumble, Deputy Mayor Brian Butcher, Jodi Hollingshead and Mark Downs.
But even if a majority of council is aligned and the city's charter is hands-off on the matter, repealing a law immediately after it was upheld by the voters is shaky ground — not only electorally, but potentially legally.
When asked about the legality of a repeal, Trumble consulted the city's attorney and said she was informed that while there's nothing preventing it, there would likewise be nothing preventing a lawsuit for negating the vote.
Further, it was explained that most places build in a moratorium on action involving the subject of a referendum.
As for enforcement, Morgantown Communications Director Brad Riffee said there had been six warnings issued—but no citations written—as of Wednesday morning. The law took effect June 4.
Under the ordinance, a first violation results in a written warning and information about available shelter and services. A second violation may result in a fine of up to $200, and a third violation within a year may result in a fine up to $500 and /or up to 30 days in jail.
Individuals cited under the law are eligible for alternative sentencing if they seek assistance with substance use, mental health, or housing-related case management. The city is working with Valley HealthCare Systems to manage the alternative sentencing program.
Further, the law says no citation will be issued unless the person in violation has been offered "alternative shelter " and refused the offer. An offer of shelter means an alternate location, which may include "emergency shelter or any alternate indoor or outdoor location where the person may sleep overnight."
The problem is—and has been—that there are very limited shelter beds in and around Morgantown.
During the most recent council meeting, Butcher said the West Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness made him aware of multiple individuals whose offer of alternative shelter was in another city.
"If this shelter was aware of the fact that we were sending people there, they would probably not be too happy about it. It was out of town. I don't know how that necessarily qualifies as an offer of shelter. Technically, I guess it does, " he said. "This is what I was worried about, and the things I was talking about when I said we're putting our first responders in a bad position—where they have to respond to these things in ways that don't necessarily meet the needs of the people they're talking to."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers

Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Musk calls Bannon a ‘fat, drunken slob' and says he should be arrested as their feud rages on
Musk calls Bannon a ‘fat, drunken slob' and says he should be arrested as their feud rages on

Yahoo

time44 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk calls Bannon a ‘fat, drunken slob' and says he should be arrested as their feud rages on

Elon Musk and Steve Bannon escalated their feud over the July Fourth weekend by exchanging fiery insults over their respective platforms. On Bannon's podcast War Room, the former Trump adviser raged against Musk for polling his X followers about starting a new political party in the United States, saying Musk was being disingenuous and should be deported. 'Only a foreigner could do this,' Bannon said. 'Think about it, he's got up on Twitter right now a poll about starting an American Party – a non-American starting an American Party. No, brother, you're not an American; you're a South African.' 'If we take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported,' Bannon stated. Bannon, a devoted Trump loyalist who went to federal prison for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena, believes Musk has ulterior motives for being close to the president. He's called for Musk to be investigated multiple times. On Musk's X account, the tech billionaire responded by calling Bannon a 'fat, drunken slob' who should be in prison for committing crimes. 'The fat, drunken slob called Bannon will go back to prison and this time for a long time. He has a lifetime of crime to pay for,' Musk wrote. Musk has been a United States citizen since 2002. Despite the two men being close to Trump at various periods, they have little in common. Unlike Trump's first administration, Bannon does not have a formal role in the White House. But he has still used his platform to bolster Trump and defend him against all attacks. Bannon has been vocal about his disdain for Musk, advocating for the revocation of his government contracts and questioning his citizenship status. Musk, who helped get Trump elected with generous donations, spent several months in the administration before a bitter falling out with the president over their different perspectives on Trump's signature legislation. As a result of the recent falling out, Bannon appears to have upped his attacks on Musk. The hostile relationship between the two escalated specifically because Musk polled his 221 million X followers about launching a new political party, called the 'America Party,' on Independence Day.

ThinkCareBelieve: Week 24 of America's Victory
ThinkCareBelieve: Week 24 of America's Victory

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

ThinkCareBelieve: Week 24 of America's Victory

Washington, DC, July 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Link to ThinkCareBelieve's Article: has published an article on America's Week 24 under President Trump's leadership. This has been a truly historic week. Alligator Alcatraz went live this week, the Fed got a spanking for not lowering interest rates, the best jobs report ever came out, numerous wins and victories, our lovely First Lady made a visit to a healing garden with some beautiful children and the One Big Beautiful Bill was passed and officially signed into law. Celebrations for Our Nation's 249th Birthday abound and they mark the beginning of a year-long celebration leading up to our 250th Birthday celebration one year from now. The article shows the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill that brings promise and prosperity to America and fuels its climb into the Golden Age of Prosperity. The signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill has already brought America into a fine style of celebrations. It's time to bring back our love for our country and for us to fall in love with Americana again. Wonderful things to come and good growth, joy and prosperity. Get ready for good things to happen. The article has victories like CNN's report this week that President Trump's approval ratings are so high that they have surpassed those of Ronald Reagan. Eggs have become so plentiful now that Waffle House has announced that its egg surcharge is officially off the menu. The article also has CNBC's report of an incredible 147,000 non-farm jobs this week. Representative Andy Ogles has officially sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum requesting that President Trump be added to Mount Rushmore. This amazing week concluded with an American Freedom Picnic and a roaring American Birthday Fireworks Celebration. For all who love our country, and all who have sacrificed, let us all appreciate this moment together. Let us thank God for being One Nation Under God. This is the beginning of a year-long celebration of our country, and it's return to greatness and the article has President Trump's full plan for all the good that is planned for this year. A moment of prayers for Texas and those devastated by the flood and the search and rescue of the residents and the children that is taking place now. is an outlook. ThinkCareBelieve's mission for Peace advocacy facilitates positive outcomes and expanded possibilities. To achieve Peace, we will find the commonalities between diverse groups and bring the focus on common needs, working together toward shared goals. Activism is an important aspect of ThinkCareBelieve, because public participation and awareness to issues needing exposure to light leads to justice. Improved transparency in government can lead to changes in policy and procedure resulting in more fluid communication between the public and the government that serves them. America needs hope right now, and Americans need to be more involved in their government. ### CONTACT: CONTACT: Joanne COMPANY: ThinkCareBelieve EMAIL: joanne@ WEB: in to access your portfolio

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store