City leaders pursuing regulations to ensure fair conditions among Charlotte's affordable housing supply
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Charlotte City Council members now have city staff members' recommendations for improving the city's affordable housing supply and ensuring good conditions in those homes.
Code enforcement managers presented their findings to a council committee Monday afternoon.
The council started looking at where Charlotte could do better after tenants were forced out of the Lamplighter Inn off Freedom Drive in December. The former motel had become permanent housing for dozens and had fallen into total disrepair.
Recommendations presented Monday include:
Providing guidance on when and how to report poor housing conditions to Code Enforcement
Offering additional subsidies for people when they need to be relocated
Finding out what tenants need for housing and work before they are moved into a new location
'We have a lot of opportunities to address issues more proactively and more holistically in addition to strong code enforcement,' said Rebecca Hefner, director of Housing and Neighborhood Services.
Committee members, like LaWana Mayfield, also want to make sure landlords pay their fair share when repairs are needed or tenants are displaced because of poor conditions.
'This isn't a Republican or Democrat conversation. This is a tax dollars conversation, and we need to figure out a way to be compensated by this bad business,' she said.
Recommendations presented Monday will now be brought to the full council who will have to decide and vote on what changes to make.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
With Baumgartner in audience, Trump signs bill blocking Washington's electric vehicle mandate; state sues in response
Jun. 12—WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday signed legislation into law that blocks Washington and other states from following California's lead in phasing out gas-powered vehicles. Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Spokane was among dozens of Republican lawmakers invited to the White House for the occasion, which the president used to riff on a variety of topics in addition to the bill. Between calling Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell "a numbskull" and highlighting his own popularity on TikTok, Trump celebrated the revocation of Biden-era waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that let California impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government. After the Biden administration allowed California to ban the sale of gas-powered cars starting in 2035, Washington followed suit in 2022, requiring that all new cars sold in the state be either fully electric or plug-in hybrids. A total of 17 states has adopted similar rules that the newly signed law revokes. "The automakers didn't know what to do, because they're really building cars for two countries," Trump said. "When you have 17 states, you're building cars for two countries." In an interview before the bill-signing ceremony, Baumgartner said the California regulation and its progeny would have been devastating to the U.S. economy. "There does not exist the ability to magically create electric semi-trucks that move nearly 70% of the goods that Americans consume, so it would have been crippling to our economy if this rule was left in place," he said. "You can't run semi-trucks across America on unicorn laughter and aspirational dreams of environmental extremists." To revoke the waivers, the EPA issued under a previous administration, lawmakers invoked the Congressional Review Act, which allowed them to skirt the 60-vote supermajority required to pass most bills in the Senate. They did so despite the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber's neutral adviser on rules, both informing senators that the EPA waivers didn't count as the executive-branch rules for which the act applies. Despite near-unanimous opposition from Democratic senators, the bill revoking California's waivers received significant bipartisan support in the House, plus a single Democratic senator, Michigan's Elissa Slotkin. Trump was surprised on Thursday when a GOP lawmaker in the room told him 35 House Democrats had voted in favor. One of them was Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of southwest Washington, who runs an auto repair shop with her husband and has been a frequent critic of her party's push to speed a transition to electric vehicles. Shortly after Thursday's ceremony concluded, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a joint lawsuit with nine other states challenging the elimination of California's waiver. The suit alleges that the resolution violates the separation of powers, the Take Care Clause and multiple federal statutes, including the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedure Act. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff states allege that the Congressional Review Act has "never before been used in any context that resembles this one. It has certainly never been used, as it was here, to negate particular state laws." The lawsuit seeks to have the resolution declared unlawful and to require the federal government to implement the Clean Air Act consistent with the granted waivers. "Transportation is the single greatest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution in Washington, and our residents understand the transition to zero-emission vehicles is critical in the fight against climate change," Brown said in a statement Thursday. "This is the Trump administration's latest unlawful attempt to derail Washington's and the nation's transition to a clean future." At the White House, Trump railed against Democrats' efforts to use state and federal laws to phase out gas-powered vehicles — the country's biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions — and speed the adoption of wind, solar and other low-carbon energy sources. "They're making you buy stuff that doesn't work," the president said. "You should be given the option to buy the electric car, by a gasoline-powered car, buy a hybrid. Probably not hydrogen, because hydrogen has the tendency that when it blows up, you're gonzo. It's over." After the room broke out in laughter at that line, Trump turned to Rep. Steve Scalise and said, "It'll make your accident look like peanuts," apparently referring to the 2017 shooting that left the Louisiana Republican in critical condition. Washington state officials have taken steps in recent days to prepare for the new federal law. In a June 6 memo, the Washington State Department of Ecology notified vehicle manufacturers that it would temporarily pause compliance requirements for some vehicle categories. "This recent federal action introduces new uncertainty for states, manufacturers, and consumers at a time when both businesses and consumers are making real progress in reducing the transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions," Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller said in a statement June 6. "It undermines states' rights, negatively impacts public health, and puts U.S. automakers at a competitive disadvantage in a global market that is rapidly transitioning to zero-emission vehicle technology." Sixkiller added that the agency would work with legislators, industry partners, local governments and other states to "stay on track and ensure continued progress toward our climate and public health goals." After the federal bill cleared the Senate in late May, Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement that the action was "brazenly out of step with the law, science, and public will." "For more than 50 years, states have possessed the ability to adopt stronger vehicle emissions standards to protect public health. Washington has exercised that right, along with 17 other states, resulting in cleaner air and healthier communities," Ferguson said. "Despite this retreat from public health by the federal government, I'm committed to ensuring Washington moves forward on building a healthier, cleaner future." Thursday's bill signing drew praise of the Washington Trucking Association, which said it remains committed to working with Washington lawmakers and the Department of Ecology on a "workable path to electrification." "California's EV trucking mandates have been a disaster for states like Washington, and have caused real harm to the trucking industry, a key link in our trade-dependent state's supply chain network," the association's president and CEO, Sheri Call, said in a statement. "Washington state does not have the infrastructure in place to properly institute such a sweeping mandate like this, and the technology has not advanced enough yet to support the trucking industry's rapid transition to clean energy. Our neighbors in Oregon recently opted out of these mandates for these same reasons." Vicki Giles Fabré, vice president of the Washington State Auto Dealers Association, said that Washington's franchised new car and truck dealers have "made substantial investments in electrification and remain committed to selling electric and hybrid vehicles." "The Washington State Auto Dealers Association intends to work with state policymakers to find solutions that incentivize increased adoption of these vehicles, while also supporting the needs of franchised dealers, their employees, and the customers they serve," Fabré said in a statement Wednesday. According to Sixkiller, one in five new vehicles sold today runs on zero-emission technology. "We're not going to slow down that progress. Washingtonians already experience the impacts of climate change every year, from drought and wildfire to flooding and sea-level rise," Sixkiller said in a statement following the Attorney General's lawsuit. "As our Attorney General's Office fights to protect our state's rights, we'll continue working with the Legislature, industry partners, local governments, and other states to continue our progress on clean transportation. At a time of great uncertainty, that's a promise we can keep." Orion Donovan Smith's work is funded in part by members of the Spokane community via the Community Journalism and Civic Engagement Fund. This story can be republished by other organizations for free under a Creative Commons license. For more information on this, please contact our newspaper's managing editor.
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
The Trump vs. Musk battle was inevitable — but once again the president comes out on top
Look, the breakup between President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk was inevitable. Both men expect to get 100% of what they desire, and a complete coincidence of desires would have turned them into alter egos of each other. Yet both are American originals. They come from different places, succeeded in different businesses, belong to different generations. Divergence, I repeat, was inevitable — and given the personalities of the two men, the tiniest space between them was bound to lead to the political equivalent of a barroom fight. When Trump and Musk came together in one big beautiful embrace, I told myself, 'This can't last six months.' That turned out to be about right. At the moment, the temptation is great to play up the conflict as the ultimate sporting event. I confess that I have succumbed to this guilty pleasure myself. I mean, Trump vs. Musk — it's the clash of titans. It's the rumble in the jungle. When the most powerful man in the world and the richest man in the world duke it out in front of a global audience, we are allowed to enjoy the spectacle for a time, and cheer or hiss depending on our rooting interests. A tricky balance My job, however, is to make sense of things. And I think I can make the case for a higher meaning to the Trump-Musk heavyweight championship fight. Start with Trump. He's the deal-maker. He honed this skill in the predatory environment of New York City real estate. The president, without question, is committed to radical change. He aims to sweep away the debris left behind by the rolling catastrophe that was the Biden administration. But he's also chief executive and head of a multifarious movement. He must herd the 273 Republican cats in the House and Senate, staff, fund and manage the federal government, and keep the world from blowing up, while exchanging blows in the arena of public opinion with his ideological enemies in the Democratic Party and the media. Trump will take the best deal that promotes revolution — thus disrupting his own government — while also ensuring that things keep running, thus sustaining the status quo. It's a tricky balance. Musk, on the other hand, is a hard-line optimal-outcome seeker. President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington. AP For every transaction, he demands nothing less than the perfect result, and he seems to feel no internal or external pressures to compromise. He evidently believed he could do to the federal government what he had done with Twitter, where he fired two-thirds of the workforce, or with Tesla, a company he brought from the brink of bankruptcy to colossal success. These qualities made Musk an unfettered revolutionary — by no means the first engineer to believe he could design a flawless society. His instrument was to be the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to which Trump ceded a remarkably free hand in slashing and reshaping existing government agencies (see: USAID). Musk's goals for DOGE were ambitious, if not utopian: saving more than $1 trillion by ending fraud and redundancies. Politics, however, is the graveyard of tidy plans. As any creature of The Swamp could tell Musk, the Earth was likelier to spiral out of its orbit before that much wealth was surrendered by that many vested interests. Betrayal of revolution? We don't have the details of what happened. DOGE is supposedly still in business. But at some point, Musk looked into the president's Big Beautiful Bill, making its way laboriously through Congress — with all the political give-and-take that entails — and he decided it was a betrayal of the revolution. The rhetorical style of digital communications is nasty and personal. Musk, who might compete with Trump for the title of supreme digital communicator, got there fast. He accused the president of association with the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump, uncharacteristically, was more restrained, though he did suggest that his old ally had 'lost his mind.' If we look beyond the name-calling, we can discern a serious dispute about the fundamentals of government: taxes, programs, debt, and budget-making. At one level, this was a generational collision. In Sergey Turgenev's novel 'Fathers and Sons,' the fathers were liberals and the sons became nihilists. In the 21st-century version of the story, Trump, the father figure, is a populist change-agent, while the younger Musk has evolved into a burn-it-down rebel. But that's not quite accurate. By temperament and ideology, Trump, in fact, has turned out to be a revolutionary leader. Tesla CEO Elon Musk attends the opening of the Tesla factory Berlin Brandenburg in Gruenheide, Germany, March 22, 2022. AP At the heart of the conflict is a disagreement regarding what the revolution should be about. Musk is uncompromising on savings and debt. His revolution would reduce the size and debt of the federal government and make it more transparent and accountable to the public. Trump is a culture warrior. His 'revolution of common sense' would annihilate every vestige of the race-gender-climate ideology imposed on American institutions by the dedicated zealots who ran the Biden administration. When it comes to the nation's finances, the president would rather cut taxes and regulations than deal with deficits and debt. The Big Beautiful Bill is the Trump Tower of legislation. Besides making permanent the original 2017 tax cuts, it enshrines into law an immense heap of cultural victories — from banning diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs to building the longed-for wall on the southern border — while splashing gold paint on the ugly bits that deal with the debt. Trump, for whom 'big' is always 'beautiful,' has never been a small-government politician. A small, unintrusive government would deprive him of the most potent weapon in his attempt to reorient American culture — and it's this reorientation, far more than a balanced budget, I believe, that is most ardently desired by his followers. If the Tea Party revolt of 2010 was about cutting the government down to size, the MAGA movement consists of voters who want their country back from the clutches of the identitarians. There are anti-debt fundamentalists in the Republican Party — but they are leftovers, not part of the fuel and fire that propel Trump's revolution. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Bambi versus Godzilla All of which hints at the answer to the inescapable question: Who wins the slugfest between Musk and Trump? In reality, the correlation of forces (as the Soviets loved to say) is highly skewed. Whereas Musk and Trump compete on an almost equal footing in the theater of attention that is the web, when it comes to politics, it's Bambi versus Godzilla. Musk may be admired by many in the MAGA crowd, but he represents no ideological tendency or personal constituency. As a political force, he exists entirely by the grace of Trump. All the president had to do is federalize the National Guard and send it against rioters in Los Angeles, and Musk, together with his complaints, sunk to a vague, inchoate whisper at the back end of the news cycle. This fight was over before it began. The final question is whether the quarrel will generate any lasting problems for Trump. Conservative personalities have expressed concern that the administration, which has been on a roll since Inauguration Day, will see its momentum dissipated by infighting. 'Unity, not discord, is needed now — and quickly,' urged historian Victor Davis Hanson. 'I want to tell them if they're both watching, knock it off,' said Fox News host Greg Gutfeld. 'Don't let the Dems get back up from the floor where they belong.' Certainly, when the two leading figures in a movement turn on each other, the intuitive analysis would say that the movement will be weakened and possibly split asunder. 'Sinister' minister But I wonder. Trump is in no immediate political danger — interestingly, his popularity kept rising throughout the incident. Musk lacks the heft to divide MAGA, a movement that belongs heart and soul to the president. Yet Musk's ruthless work with DOGE had inspired nearly equal levels of loathing from the left to what is habitually aimed at Trump. Musk was the chief 'oligarch,' a heartless despoiler of the civil service — and one of the Democrats' few coherent lines of attack against the administration consisted in painting it as a tribe of rapacious billionaires intent on fleecing the country. But if the president is now battling the most despicable of the oligarchs, what does that say about Trump? A very old trick in a ruler's palette of power is to allow the top minister to accrue all the hatred and unpopularity — then, at the appropriate hour, the minister finds himself beheaded to universal applause. Long term, Musk could remain a thorn in the president's side. Besides being fabulously wealthy, he's also brilliant. But he may have auditioned, unwittingly, for the role of the minister whose departure counts as a political gain.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump moves to block California electric cars program
US President Donald Trump on Thursday signed resolutions blocking California's landmark efforts to phase out gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles, a move the state immediately contested in court. Trump's action, a rebuke of Democratic climate change policies, comes after the Republican-led Congress revoked the state's waiver allowing it to set more stringent regulations for cars. California had planned to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, among other ambitious efforts. During the signing ceremony at the White House, Trump lashed out at the state's bid as "a disaster for this country" and said the resolutions he was signing would save the industry from "destruction." California swiftly sued the Trump administration over the resolutions, with Attorney General Rob Bonta saying: "The President's divisive, partisan agenda is jeopardizing our lives, our economy and our environment." "It's reckless, it's illegal, and because of it, we'll be seeing the Trump administration in court again for the 26th time," he added. California, the nation's wealthiest state with around 40 million people, has long used the waiver in the Clean Air Act to set its own emissions standards as it tries to mitigate some of the worst air pollution in the country. The size of the auto market in the state -- and the fact that several other states follow its lead -- means automakers frequently use its standards nationwide. Trump's move also came as he clashes with California over immigration enforcement. California Governor Gavin Newsom has accused the president of acting like a tyrant over his use of the military to control small-scale protests in Los Angeles. - Environmental concerns - Trump's action was condemned by environmental groups who say the rules are key for easing pollution. And Newsom recently argued that rolling back the state's EV ambitions would boost China's position on the market. While China is a manufacturing hub for such vehicles globally, the United States is a net importer of them, he said in a May statement. This is despite the United States being home to technologies that have pioneered the clean car industry, he noted. Trump has repeatedly criticized subsidies to encourage the EV industry despite significant federal funding allocated to projects in Republican districts -- where thousands of jobs are expected to be created. He took aim at the sector as part of his flurry of executive orders on his first day in office this January in a bid to ensure what he called a "level" playing field for gasoline-powered motors. hg-bys/md
