Latest news with #JakeZuckerman
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why is the Ohio Power Siting Board allowing fossil fuel interests to shut down solar farms?
Solar panels in Damariscotta, Maine. (Photo by Evan Houk/ Maine Morning Star) It is now well-documented — such as this news story by the Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica about actually purchasing a newspaper in Knox County to use as a source of misinformation — that the exorbitantly wealthy fossil fuel industry in Ohio is seeking to halt solar farms because they are competition. As Jake Zuckerman reported for in March: 'Ohioans and their elected representatives have killed enough solar development to roughly power the state's three largest cities in the three years since state lawmakers passed one of the nation's most stringent restrictions on new solar development.' But this is now poised to take a quantum leap due to a case at the Ohio Supreme Court. At issue is whether the Ohio Power Siting Board will be allowed to grant what is essentially 'veto power' over solar projects to a small handful of local officials. If granted, it will provide an almost perfect vehicle for causing the demise of solar projects across Ohio. Here is how this policy translates into solar rejections. When decisions are given to only a few individuals, there is no longer any need to persuade a majority of the public — the way a democracy works. Instead the 'blitz' can be focused on just these few, making abuse extraordinarily easy. Solar advocates are becoming placed in an essentially impossible bind. If local officials are already 'locked up' by excessive lobbying from fossil fuel interests, there now appears virtually no chance of prevailing. It is not an exaggeration to call this a de facto 'rigging' of the process. A notorious example of this process at work is the Grange Solar Grazing Project. A count revealed a full 80% of public comments were in favor. Yet when a handful of local officials expressed opposition, this 80% majority — and the democratic process itself — got over-ridden and the project was rejected by power siting board staff. Rural Ohioans oppose solar farms, right? Not so, developer finds The Grange project was located in the home district of Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon — a primary co-sponsor of the openly anti-solar SB 52 legislation. This writer is not privy to details, but it stands to reason this juxtaposition generated major pressure on local officials. The pattern repeated again on April 17: 'In yet another case of the state's hostility to utility-scale projects, state regulators have unanimously rejected a 150 MW project outside Canton because of organized opposition from local officials.' Due to an appearance of favoritism, the solar advocacy group Third Act Ohio legitimately asked the OPSB to explain why such authority was being handed to local officials. While completely ignoring the question, this group was referred to 'criteria' in a statute to guide decisions, and directed to a link. When examined, this statute contained no requirement that a project meet approval of local officials. Instead, the group found a separate statute specifically FORBIDDING such. The very title is 'No Local Jurisdiction.' There is a strong appearance that this action is being 'manufactured out of thin air.' If reinforced by the state Supreme Court, the stage seems set for a sweeping shutdown of utility scale solar in Ohio. Why does this matter? Ohio is not just one state among many. It is the fifth most prolific producer of carbon emissions. Failure in Ohio would combine with a nationwide failure promoted by Trump and the Republican Party to inflict drastic global consequences. Science warns that crossing a climate 'tipping point' will unleash a continuing spiral of increasing temperatures, with little public awareness about the immense scale of harm that would bring. When our current 1.5 degree C increase spirals toward a 3 degree C increase, a band around the earth paralleling the equator would dry up from massive drought. This area — called a 'dead zone' because of its unlivability — would spread north and south. Tens of millions affected by collapsed food supply would escalate into the hundreds of millions. On a matter affecting survival of life as we know it, the OPSB must not be allowed to become the proverbial 'fox guarding the chicken coop' and tilt the process toward the vested interests it was supposed to regulate! Gary Houser is a long time Ohio solar advocate, who also produces video resources on the frightening danger of a climate tipping point. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
NBC Sports
11-04-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Ohio governor Mike DeWine opposes bonds for new Browns stadium
Yes, it's getting harder and harder to get public money for private football teams. Via Jake Zuckerman of Ohio governor Mike DeWine opposes the notion of $600 million in state-issued bonds for the construction of a new Browns stadium in suburban Brook Park. 'This is clearly not the way to go,' DeWine said during a radio appearance, one day after the Ohio House of Representatives passed a bill including the bonds desired by the Browns. DeWine, a Republican, has the power to veto any bill passed by the Ohio legislature. The current plan has Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam paying for $1.2 billion of the amount, with the bonds covering $600 million and Cuyahoga County coming up with the remaining $600 million. The Browns' current stadium opened in 1999. The team prefers a new facility to renovation of the current one. The issue of taxpayer money for sports stadiums is becoming more and more politically unpopular. A invitation for reader input on whether the state should have any involvement in funding stadium construction resulted in more than 200 text messages — with only 12 saying yes. If the Browns can't get the public money they want, it remains to be seen what the Browns will do.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill expanding ‘ethnic intimidation,' defining antisemitism in Ohio reemerges at Statehouse
The Ohio Statehouse. (Photo by Jake Zuckerman, Ohio Capital Journal.) An Ohio Senate Republican has reintroduced a bill to expand criminal charges of 'ethnic intimidation' and define antisemitism in state law, aligning the definition with a previous executive order by Gov. Mike DeWine. State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, brought Ohio Senate Bill 87 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He said one of the drivers for the bill was the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, after which, he said, 'a concerning wave of extremist demonstrations' on Ohio college campuses included 'disturbing displays of aggression and intolerance.' With antisemitism 'seemingly on the rise' particularly at 'pro-Gaza' protests on college campuses, Johnson said he wants Ohio law to include an expansion of the charge of ethnic intimidation, when combined with other charges. 'Ethnic intimidation is already against the law here in Ohio and can be added as an additional charge for violations such as aggravated menacing, menacing, criminal damaging, or endangering and criminal mischief,' Johnson told the committee. 'This legislation would expand that charge to also include aggravated rioting and rioting committed by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group.' A charge of riot can be leveled when five or more people 'participate in a course of disorderly conduct' for the purpose of committing a misdemeanor offense. It can also be charged to a group of five or more people accused of intimidating a public official or employee 'into taking or refraining from official action, or with the purpose to hinder, impede or obstruct a function of government,' according to the bill. Rioting can also be charged when a group is accused of trying to 'hinder, impede or obstruct the orderly process of administration or instruction at an educational institution.' If someone is charged with a riot offense, the charge of ethnic intimidation would be a fifth-degree felony. A charge of aggravated riot would bring an ethnic intimidation charge considered second, third, or fourth-degree felony 'depending on the circumstances of the offense,' according to an analysis by the Legislative Service Commission. A bill on which S.B. 87 is based was brought by Johnson in the last General Assembly, and it received both praise and criticism in committee hearings. Those who stood against the bill called it 'un-American' and said it conflated 'legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with hatred.' Critics like the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Ohio chapter Executive Director Faten Odeh said the previous bill would dampen dissent and could have placed the government 'in the role of silencing political opposition.' Opponents also questioned how words used at protests will be interpreted, and who will decide what is considered illegal. 'Who will interpret my words,' asked Patricia Marida in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in December. 'How far can I go in criticizing the state of Israel? How might I be pointed out, sanctioned, or even targeted by those who disagree with me?' Along with expanding the criminal offense of ethnic intimidation, the bill codifies a definition of antisemitism 'for the purpose of investigations and proceedings by state agencies.' The definition is taken from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — the same definition used in a 2022 executive order by DeWine. It encourages state agencies to use it for agency investigations, including those at higher education institutions. 'An executive order is a handy thing, executive orders are easier to change than things that are actually placed in law,' Johnson said when asked on Wednesday why the bill is needed if DeWine's executive order already exists. 'I think this is a weighty enough situation that it needs to be in law.' Under the definition, antisemitism is 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish Community institutions and religious facilities.' Supporters of the bill in its previous form included Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and the group Ohio Jewish Communities, whose president and CEO, Howie Biegelman, said the alliance's definition would help authorities determine whether incidents rise to the level of 'actual antisemitism.' Biegelman said he was confident the bill would still allow First Amendment rights to continue, only jumping in 'when that hatred morphs into a crime or other action covered by a school or work policy.' Groups such as the Jewish Voice for Peace are opposed to the Holocuast remembrance alliance definition of antisemitism, saying it 'conflates criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism' and warning about the legislation 'possibly tying it to enforcement mechanisms like firing critics of Israel for organizations, and schools getting government funding.' In introducing the new bill, Johnson said it is 'explicitly stated that this legislation shall not be construed to diminish or infringe on any right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Ohio Constitution.' 'The freedom of speech and public demonstrations are ingrained in our American way of life,' Johnson told the committee. 'It is crucial for such protests to adhere to the principles of respect, empathy and constructive dialogue between all perspectives.' While the previous bill passed the Ohio Senate, it didn't make the cut as the General Assembly term drew to a close at the end of 2024. Johnson also said the bill hit some 'unexpected roadblocks from House leadership' that kept it from moving forward, though he didn't specify what those roadblocks were. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
