Sanford, Lee County chosen for affordable housing initiative
The initiative is part of UNC's Carolina Across 100 project, which aims to 'enhance the quality of life for all people in the state' through meaningful partnerships.
The 'Our State, Our Homes' program will connect the S3 Housing Connect Taskforce and City of Sanford and Lee County staff with UNC's faculty, staff and students from various disciplines to examine affordable housing and develop a plan of action that suits the community's needs and resources.
'This program is provided at no cost to participants,' explained Tradell Adkins, city planner and liaison to S3. 'The only commitment required is our time and effort to determine best practices and identify strategies to address affordable housing needs in Sanford.'
Sanford/Lee County was among 14 community teams chosen to participate. The teams — made up of business, civic, education, nonprofit, faith-based and government entities — represent 22 North Carolina counties, each with their own unique challenges.
Sanford and Lee County represent Team 9: 'The Heart of the Carolinas,' a name that reflects its 'well-centered' location in the state.
'This program avoids a one-size-fits-all approach,' Adkins said. 'We will have access to real-time local housing data to tailor solutions specific to Sanford and Lee County.'
Along with City of Sanford and Lee County staff, Sanford's team includes Lee County Re-Entry Services, Trillium Health Resources and Brick Capital Community Development Corp. The cohort will participate directly in forums and sessions, and then share their training with local organizations to drive implementation.
Fore more information about the initiative, go online at carolinaacross100.unc.edu/program5.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Yahoo
Tennis Players' NCAA Prize Money Case Certified as Class Action
A federal judge in North Carolina this week certified a class action lawsuit against the NCAA over rules that 'severely limit' the amount of prize money current and prospective college tennis players can accept without forfeiting their D-I eligibility. Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles ruled that UNC tennis player Reese Brantmeier—the 2025 ACC Player of the Year—and former University of Texas tennis player Maya Joint have satisfied the requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to represent two classes. More from NCAA Trying to Block 24-Year-Old Rutgers Transfer From Playing UNLV Lineman Denied Bid for Fifth Season in Antitrust Decision Trump Executive Order on College Sports Unlikely to Move the Needle The first class demands NCAA rule changes (injunctive relief) and represents the approximately 12,000 students who have either competed in D-I tennis since March 19, 2020, or who were deemed ineligible to compete due to prize money rules. The second class is much smaller—court filings indicate somewhere between 21 and about 60 people—and demands monetary damages on account of voluntarily forfeiting prize money earned in a tennis tournament to comply with NCAA rules. The case takes aim at the NCAA prohibiting tennis players from accepting more than $10,000 per calendar year in prize money prior to attending college, with allowances for additional prize money not exceeding actual and necessary expenses. Athletes must submit information to the NCAA eligibility center about prize money they have accepted. Brantmeier has earned $123,100 in prize money over her career, much of it before she started college in 2022. The 20-year-old Wisconsin native competed in junior tournaments at the U.S. Open, Wimbledon and the French Open and was the No. 1 player from the high school class of 2022. Brantmeier has had to forfeit most of her prize money to preserve her NCAA eligibility. Joint similarly earned tens of thousands of dollars prior to attending Texas and had to forfeit most of it. Joint left UT after her first semester and is now a pro tennis player. The 19-year-old Australian is currently ranked 45thin the world by the WTA. Joint, Eagles wrote, would still like to compete in D-I but is no longer eligible under NCAA rules after taking prize money. The gist of the legal argument is that the NCAA and its member schools and conferences have unlawfully agreed to restrain earning opportunities for tennis players. Brantmeier and Joint contend prize money rules amount to price fixing and reflect a group boycott of players who would otherwise play D-I tennis but can't due to prize money rules. A nationwide market of colleges competing for the labor of D-I tennis players is allegedly harmed as a result of prize money rules. Prize money caps have arguably become harder to justify in a more commercialized college sports world. College athletes can now earn unlimited amounts through NIL deals, and with the House settlement, some D-I athletes will also receive revenue shares from their schools. Brantmeier sued the NCAA in March 2024 in a North Carolina federal court on behalf of herself and other D-I athletes in individual sports. That category includes tennis, golf, swimming, track and field, wrestling, gymnastics, skiing, fencing, women's bowling, indoor and outdoor cross country, women's triathlon, women's equestrian, rifle and skiing. However, in October 2024, Eagles denied Brantmeier a preliminary injunction. The judge reasoned that the 'evidence of harm to competition from the prize money rules' was 'remarkably thin.' The judge also questioned whether prize money rules deter enough athletes from competing in some D-I individual sports to meaningfully impact the kind of market that antitrust law would protect. Brantmeier filed an amended complaint that limited the claims to tennis players and added Joint as a plaintiff. Eagles certifying Brantmeier & Joint v. NCAA as a class action should not be confused with her opining that the case is likely to succeed on the merits. The judge has not (yet) made that determination, and the case will take time to play out in the pretrial process. However, class certification makes it a potentially more costly and complicated case for the NCAA to resolve since it represents far more people. The NCAA declined to comment to Sportico on Eagles' ruling Brantmeier and Joint are represented by Peggy J. Wedgworth and other attorneys from Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, and Miller Monroe Holton & Plyler. Best of College Athletes as Employees: Answering 25 Key Questions
Forbes
28-07-2025
- Forbes
Student Loan Defaults Threaten Federal Aid At 1,100 Colleges
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA - JUNE 29: People walk on the campus of the University of North Carolina ... More Chapel Hill on June 29, 2023 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admission policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution, bringing an end to affirmative action in higher education. (Photo by) New federal data suggests that over 1,100 colleges and universities are at risk of losing access to federal financial aid programs (such as Pell Grants and federal student loans) because too many of their former students are not repaying their student loans. This alarming statistic is known as the Cohort Default Rate (CDR). It tracks the number of students who are in default on their student loans three years after graduation. The Covid-era payment pause that lasted from March 2020 to October 2023 offered temporary relief to millions of borrowers, and in turn dropped the CDR to 0%. However, now that repayment has resumed, nonrepayment has become a serious problem - and the impact extends to the colleges as well. When the CDR is above 30 percent for three consecutive years, the school loses access to Title IV financial aid funds. If the CDR is above 40 percent in any single year, the school immediately loses access to Direct Student Loan funds. According to the latest data from the Department of Education, 1,113 colleges had nonrepayment rates above 30 percent in May 2025. And 388 of those colleges had rates above 40%. That's nearly 20 percent of the 5,736 colleges that the Department of Education tracks - meaning nearly one-fifth of colleges nationwide are at risk of losing federal financial aid dollars. This could have profound effects in access to higher education. What The Cohort Default Rate Measures A school's Cohort Default Rate (CDR) is calculated by dividing the number of borrowers who default on their student loans within three years by the total number of borrowers who entered repayment in that time. Default is defined as failing to make a payment for 360 days. If a college's CDR exceeds 30 percent for three years in a row, or exceeds 40 percent in a single year, the Department of Education can remove access to federal financial aid for its students. This matters because federal financial aid, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, is the primary way millions of students pay for college. If a college is cut off for accessing federal financial aid programs, students may not be able to afford to attend, and the school could see enrollment and revenue collapse. In the past, only a small number of for-profit institutions triggered CDR penalties each year. But that may be about to change. Colleges can appeal a failing CDR, but the process is not automatic and does not guarantee relief. Even if aid is not immediately cut off, a high CDR is an embarrassing signal to students, families, and policymakers that an institution is not serving its graduates well. The premise is that if such a high percentage of students cannot afford to repay their student loans after graduation, the school is charging too much and/or not preparing its students for the workforce after graduation. Which Colleges Are At Risk? The Department's data are not final cohort default rates but rather a proxy using interim data: the percentage of borrowers who entered repayment after January 2020 and were either in default or more than 90 days delinquent as of May 2025. Nearly 400 institutions already exceed 40 percent in this measure, while hundreds more hover above 30 percent. And it's not just for-profit schools, there are many public colleges impacted as well: One example of a public college is Albany State University. Of the 11,200 borrowers who entered repayment since 2020, 32 percent are now in default or more than 90 days behind. Others include private colleges like Remington University in Texas, which had 14,900 borrowers enter repayment, and currently has a 43 percent default rate. This puts the college in immediate danger of losing federal aid unless the numbers improve significantly. Community colleges, regional public universities, and private institutions all appear on the list of schools with high nonpayment rates. The Department says it will release official CDRs next year, covering borrowers who entered repayment in 2023 and defaulted during 2023, 2024, or 2025. Why Is This Happening Now? The spike in nonpayment is not just a reflection of economic hardship. It also highlights the struggle to restart student loan repayment after a nearly five-year pause combined with all the confusion about the changes in student loan repayment. As of May 2025, only 38 percent of borrowers with Direct Loans or Department-held FFEL loans are current on their payments, according to Department estimates. Roughly one-quarter are already in default or late-stage delinquency. The Department resumed collections in May and plans to begin wage garnishment by the end of summer. In a 'Dear Colleague' letter sent in May, the Department urged colleges to take responsibility for improving repayment outcomes. Schools are being asked to contact all borrowers who left since 2020 to remind them of their obligations and direct them to repayment options on Colleges are also required to conduct entrance and exit counseling, disclose tuition and net price clearly, and report enrollment and student contact information accurately. These steps help ensure that borrowers know their responsibilities, can be contacted by their loan servicer, and avoid student loan default. The Department emphasized that institutions have a financial stake in the outcomes of their former students. If students default in large numbers, the schools could lose the aid dollars that allows them to operate. What Happens If Colleges Lose Access To Financial Aid Dollars? Under federal rules, the consequences for high default rates are clear: Even schools that stop offering federal student loans cannot escape penalties. Borrowers can enter repayment years later, and the CDR calculation continues as long as any former students from that school still hold federal loans. Appeals are allowed for colleges, and they may stop some short term penalties, but long term, if the colleges don't improve their student outcomes, they will lose access to these dollars. The net result is that colleges who don't improve the CDR of their borrowers risk losing federal aid dollars. Some colleges receive upwards of 90% of their revenue from Title IV funds - meaning if they are cut off from these sources, they'll have no choice but to close. What Happens Next? The return of repayment has exposed not just borrower struggles, but also structural problems at many institutions. High loan default rates often correlate with low graduation rates, low earnings, or high debt levels. These are signs that students may not be getting the value they expected from their education. Colleges that do not bring down their default rates risk more than just embarrassment, they may lose the main revenue source that keeps their doors open. And this can have profound effects for both existing students and graduates.
USA Today
23-07-2025
- USA Today
How much is UNC's football program valued at?
How much does the UNC football program cost? Thanks to the invention of NIL money and the transfer portal, college football continues to become increasingly professional by the day. UNC's 2025 offseason is a perfect illustration of the changing CFB landscape. Needing a starting quarterback for the fall, North Carolina paid $4 million to land South Alabama transfer quarterback Gio Lopez. The Tar Heels replaced their entire starting defensive line through the portal, plus added Marshall kicker Rece Verhoff. With college football now essentially a "mini-NFL," the question of selling teams comes into play. In The Athletic's recent "valuation rankings", UNC would sell for $572 million, making it the 26th-most valuable college football franchise. North Carolina is one spot behind Ole Miss, which has a $591 million price tag, plus a spot ahead of South Carolina ($563 million.) The Tar Heels generate an average $63.6 million in annual football revenue, a figure that is lowest amongst the Top 30. The portal is a great addition to college sports, particularly for senior-heavy teams needing to replace a plethora of starters, but the portal is also essentially free agency. Think about professional sports: you have franchise cornerstones, who remain on the same rosters for extended periods of time, but trades and free agency create a sense of unknown. UNC has high expectations heading into its 2025 season, thanks to hiring 8-time Super Bowl champion Bill Belichick as its next head coach. If North Carolina somehow wins the ACC and makes the College Football Playoff, its program value will shoot up closer towards SEC numbers. If the Tar Heels struggle again this fall, their value will stay the same – or even decrease. People are less likely to pay and see a losing product, which UNC proved to be again in 2024. Follow us @TarHeelsWire on X and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of North Carolina Tar Heels news, notes and opinions.
