Latest news with #OpenMeetingLaw
Yahoo
08-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Las Vegas residents sue state over ‘arbitrary decision' to put a $200M housing project in their neighborhood
Helping the homeless is a good thing – but residents of a suburban neighborhood in Las Vegas say there's been a lack of transparency and due process in a new project. I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it In 2023, Nevada lawmakers approved $100 million in funding for Campus for Hope, a $200 million housing project meant to address homelessness in the city. The rest of the money is being provided by a nonprofit backed by the gaming industry. The proposed site is the 6100 block of West Charleston Boulevard near Jones Boulevard, and two property owners who live about three blocks away have decided to fight it by filing a lawsuit. They say their quality of life, safety, and home values will be affected by the 'arbitrary decision' to place the facility in the current location. As 8 News Now reports, the suit, which was filed in Clark County District Court, alleges that state officials violated Nevada's Open Meeting Law by greenlighting the project without giving residents proper notice or allowing members of the public to comment on it. Last month, the governor even signed a bill to speed up construction of the project, says News 3. "Why are they trying to push this $200 million project so secretly into the neighborhood?' said homeowner Matthew Wambolt, one of the plaintiffs in the case, to 8 News Now. The plaintiffs argue the project creates an 'incurable defect' in the location and seek to halt it until independent studies are conducted on the potential impact of the facility. The plan is for Campus for Hope to be a 900-bed, 26-acre transitional housing facility. According to Nevada Current, the project will take up space on the Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services campus and there are fears that it will displace existing mental and behavioral health services. According to the lawsuit, the facility raises safety concerns since it is less than a mile from the Linda Smith and Christopher Smith Family Campus, which serves children and adults with intellectual disabilities, and within a 2-mile radius of over 20 schools serving K-12 students. 'This project will dramatically alter the fundamental character of our neighborhood, transforming our quiet residential area into one marked by significantly increased congestion, activity, and potential crime,' it says. 'Ultimately, we believe this project will substantially lower property values and negatively impact the quality of life for local residents." It also says that the approval process for Campus for Hope was not transparent enough. 'Given the secretive nature of project approvals, the deliberate avoidance of community engagement, and the removal of normal oversight mechanisms … there is a distinct appearance of impropriety in the actions and backroom collaboration of certain state legislators and their large donors within the gaming industry are at play here,' says the lawsuit. Read more: No millions? No problem. With as little as $10, here's of diversified assets usually only available to major players "I have a question for the governor. The Strip, the casinos are giving hundreds of millions of dollars for this project. You're going to move these people off the Strip to this area?' said homeowner Gail Johnson to 8 News Now. Campus for Hope said it has 'met all the state and local requirements for the construction of the facility,' in a statement to 8 News Now. Boyd Katz, who works for a security company in the area, told the news station that it's not that residents don't want to help the homeless, they simply believe the project needs proper oversight. "If we add a facility with that many beds here just like that it's going to severely affect that area … not just the commercial area, but the residential neighborhood nearby," he said. Another issue is who's paying for the project. 'Local municipal authorities claim alternative locations were considered but have repeatedly refused to disclose any addresses, evaluation criteria, or comparative assessments that justify selecting our community as the ideal site," James Root, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, wrote in an affidavit. "Our city alone bears the responsibility for an estimated annual $15 million in operating expenses." The Nevada Current reports once construction is complete, Campus for Hope will run on taxpayer dollars almost entirely, split between local governments and the state. It will be overseen by a board of directors that does not include state or municipal representatives. With a total estimated $30 million a year in operational costs, this project could also result in a hefty tax burden on residents. This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Money doesn't have to be complicated — sign up for the free Moneywise newsletter for actionable finance tips and news you can use. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Idaho AG drops ‘transparency' lawsuit over University of Phoenix deal
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador dismissed his lawsuit against the Idaho State Board of Education after it ratified an end to the proposed deal between the University of Idaho and the University of Phoenix. Labrador sued the State Board in June 2023 over the way the controversial transaction came about. He accused the State Board of violating Idaho's open meetings law when it negotiated the U of I's planned purchase of the online, for-profit school in private. He said in a news release Wednesday that the legal battle was about government transparency. Both parties agreed to cover their own litigation costs. 'This case was never about the merits of any particular transaction, but about ensuring government remains open and transparent for all Idahoans,' Labrador said. 'Idaho's Open Meeting Law requires government entities to conduct state business in public meetings with proper notice, ensuring transparency when taxpayer resources and state institutions are involved. The law reflects the principle that government accountability depends on public access to decision-making processes, particularly for transactions of significant scope and financial impact.' The universities called the proposed $550 million acquisition quits on June 3 after two years of negotiations. The deal was plagued by ridicule and legal challenges from the start. In December, the Idaho Supreme Court returned a 4-1 victory in Labrador's favor, overturning a lower court ruling that would have OK'd the secret government negotiations, according to the release. The acquisition would have had Four Three Education, a nonprofit created by the U of I, buy Phoenix from its hedge fund owner, Apollo Global Management. The U of I spent over $17 million trying to complete the deal, according to Jodi Walker, a spokesperson for the university. By terminating it, Phoenix is expected to fully reimburse the U of I for out-of-pocket expenses it incurred while pursuing the sale. University of Idaho, University of Phoenix call off $550M acquisition As Idaho's nursing shortage persists, a private Christian university could help
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New poll shows drastic rightward shift for notoriously blue state
Surprising new data has revealed that New York isn't leaning as politically 'blue' as usual. An April poll by the political analysis firm GrayHouse shows that President Donald Trump, a Republican, has a higher approval rating than New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who assumed office in 2021. The poll revealed that 36% of participants approve of Gov. Hochul's performance, while 55% disapprove. In contrast, 43% of participants approve of President Trump's performance, and 56% disapprove. Additionally, 49% of participants found Gov. Hochul's political views to be 'too extreme' for the state, although the poll results did not refer to any of the governor's specific stances. The poll of 826 registered New York voters was held in late April, as President Trump approached the 100th day of his second term. The data hints at a trend of New York voters leaning more purple than expected in the recent past. While Kamala Harris won New York in the 2024 presidential election, President Trump earned 43.6% of the state's vote, up from 36.8% in 2016. Hochul, who is the first woman governor of New York, is running for reelection in 2026. The state's last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, was in office from 1995 to 2006; prior to that, Republican Malcolm Wilson served as New York's governor from 1973 to 1974, taking over the role when Gov. Nelson Rockefeller resigned. Springfield protests loss of $20M federal grant to protect environment 'Such a stain': Here's what pushed a major Trump loyalist to break with him Trump's 'big beautiful bill?' Not so much, Mass. pols say, as GOP rolls it out South Coast lawmaker makes multi-limbed argument against octopus farming Is Worcester breaking Open Meeting Law by going virtual? What the AG's office says Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Is Worcester breaking Open Meeting Law by going virtual? What the AG's office says
The City of Worcester announced Monday that Tuesday night's city council meeting and standing committee on finance meeting would be held virtually instead of at City Hall 'out of an abundance of caution' regarding 'public safety concerns.' The city hall itself will be closed to the public at 5 p.m., per the notification. In a statement released on Tuesday morning, Worcester Mayor Joseph Petty said that the change in venue is due to 'threats of violence' made to elected and city officials. Petty said tensions in the city have been high since a Brazilian woman was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Eureka Street last Thursday. Following the incident, the 'events of the last few days ... have been deeply disturbing and raised many questions,' the mayor said. 'As a result, many people — regardless of their viewpoint — are frustrated and angry.' 'Unfortunately, elected and city officials have received threats of violence,' Petty continued. 'City employees and department heads have also faced threatening calls and emails. It is important to remember that the people that keep city hall alive are just that — they are people. Employees have shared concerns about their safety." The announcement of the change in venue was made public less than 48 hours before the meeting, raising the question as to whether the city violated the state's Open Meeting Law. Guidance on holding meetings remotely under a continuation of COVID-19 measures in Massachusetts reads that meetings, including meeting locations, need to be posted at least 48 hours in advance — that's true even if the meeting is taking place remotely. Section 20 of the law states that, except in the case of an emergency, 'a public body shall post notice of every meeting at least 48 hours prior to the meeting, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays.' According to the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, a public body, in this case the city council, is allowed to change venues and post an amended notice at least 48 hours in advance. However, if a meeting location is changed less than 48 hours in advance, the public body needs to provide the public with sufficient notice of the location change. Additionally, a public body should also publicize the location through whatever channels it uses to communicate with the public, according to the Attorney General's office. Examples of these channels include automated email notifications, social media platforms and online messaging boards, according to the Attorney General's office. The public body must also be able to provide a rapid response to any email or phone inquiries from the public about meeting access. Monday's announcement of the venue change was publicized by the city on social media platforms such as X, Instagram and Facebook. On the city's website, a notification about Tuesday's meeting is highlighted at the top of the webpage. Clicking on the notification will bring the viewer to the full statement from the city along with a Zoom link, access code and telephone number to call into the meeting. 'In order to ensure active public engagement, remote participation for both meetings is available through at the City Council's Zoom link,' the statement reads. A protest at City Hall against the actions of ICE and the Worcester Police Department is set to take place on Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. The protesters will demand that the city council request City Manager Eric D. Batista write a new policy for the Worcester Police Department that would prevent them from becoming involved in ICE operations, according to organizer Jim Miller of Worcester. Protesters had planned to attend the city council meeting in person and speak during the meeting's public comment period, Miller said. He confirmed to MassLive on Tuesday that the protest is still on for 5:30 and that some rally members will speak at the city council meeting remotely. Worcester judge sets trial date for woman detained by ICE on separate charge Worcester mayor says council meeting will be remote due to 'threats of violence' Worcester City Council meeting to be held virtually 'due to public safety concerns' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
South Coast lawmaker makes multi-limbed argument against octopus farming
A South Coast lawmaker is pushing a bill that would ban the commercial farming of octopus for food, citing ethical concerns about the treatment of what he says are one of the ocean's most intelligent creatures. Testifying on his bill before the Joint Committee on Agriculture on Tuesday, Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-11th Bristol, described octopi as having a 'level of sentience and awareness that is exceptional in the animal kingdom.' 'Octopus display problem-solving ability, short and long-term memory, play behaviors, even signs of individual personality. Their capacity for suffering is now widely acknowledged by the scientific communities,' he said. Hendricks emphasized that the bill specifically targets commercial aquaculture of octopi for human consumption, which he said involves 'raising them in really confined, barren tanks, commercial tanks, for food production.' 'As a Portuguese-American from New Bedford, I have no interest in banning octopus consumption throughout the commonwealth,' he clarified. Instead, the bill targets only the farming and sale of farm-raised octopi, and does not affect the consumption or sale of octopi caught in the wild. Framing the proposal as a preventative measure, he emphasized that no octopus farms currently exist in the state. 'Let's nip this in the bud,' he urged. Rep. James Arena-DeRosa, 8th Middlesex, who also sits on the panel, said advocates have been active around this issue. 'And you're absolutely right, that it's not an industry yet, so we're not hurting anybody, as far as we know,' Arena-DeRosa said. Springfield protests loss of $20M federal grant to protect environment 'Such a stain': Here's what pushed a major Trump loyalist to break with him Trump's 'big beautiful bill?' Not so much, Mass. pols say, as GOP rolls it out Is Worcester breaking Open Meeting Law by going virtual? What the AG's office says Mass. Gov. Healey pitches energy plan to save $10B over 10 years Read the original article on MassLive.
