Western Illinois University looks to add new program with latest senate bill
Western Illinois University is looking for an upgrade to its Quad Cities campus. State Senate Bill 1308, introduced by State Sen. Mike Halpin, D-Rock Island, could potentially bring $7.2 million to help fund the project.
The university president wants an innovation center to help bridge the school's programs with the Quad Cities' workforce.
'We know the Quad Cities is a major manufacturing place in the Midwest and the ability to have a space where Western Illinois University, as well as other university partners and other partners can come together to create, to innovate, to invent,' said Kristi Mindrup, the president of the university. 'This is the vision that we have.'
The center would focus on three key areas: education, engineering and healthcare. The school has already laid the groundwork.
'There are precursors to the innovation center, some partnerships that have led to the conceptualization of the innovation center, as well as plans and programming that can follow it with support of the funding,' said Mindrup.
The partnerships include Iowa State University, the University of Illinois and the Rock Island Arsenal. Additionally, a business incubator is in discussion. This would help local entrepreneurs learn skills and get help in building their businesses.
'We have underutilized space, and we're trying to elevate the role of the Quad Cities campus in terms of its ability to drive economic development, community development and innovation,' said Chris Merrett, the dean of innovation at the university.
The school believes this bill could be a new start for the Quad Cities campus.
'Having a public higher education available in the Quad Cities in a way that strategically aligns with the needs of the community, this is the next evolution of Western Illinois University,' said Mindrup.
The bill is currently awaiting approval in the Appropriations-Education Committee.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.
First the government seized Kenneth Michael Sikorsky's home and all of its equity over a tax debt worth far less than what it took. Now a federal court has ruled that Sikorsky has successfully stated a claim for a taking—an early sign that the legal landscape is shifting since the Supreme Court weighed in on these sorts of seizures two years ago. In 2012, the city of Newburgh, New York, foreclosed on Sikorsky's house after he fell behind on his property taxes. The parties were later able to broker an agreement that allowed him to repurchase the home for the price of his outstanding debt. But he was unable to satisfy those regular installments, prompting the city to cancel the sale. The government later found another buyer who could pay much more than the value of Sikorsky's debt, which with penalties, interest, and fees stood at $92,786.24. The sale went through in June 2021 for $350,500. The city then pocketed the profit: $257,713.76. Sikorsky is far from the first person to experience this nightmare scenario. But his case coincided with a petition that would upend the practice nationwide. Geraldine Tyler argued that the practice was unconstitutional after Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her Minneapolis condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. This worked its way through the court system until 2023, when the Supreme Court sided with Tyler. "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more." The decision centered around the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which says the government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation." So foreclosing on a property to collect a debt is constitutional, but pocketing the profit is not. Sikorsky's suit made it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York shortly after that ruling. Sounds like perfect timing, yet the court ruled against him. But now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that he can, in fact, sue for his equity under the Takings Clause, resuscitating his suit and sending it back to the district court for review. While the high court ruled the practice unconstitutional, several states—including Arizona, Alabama, New Jersey, and Sikorsky's home of New York—responded by passing labyrinthine debt collection statutes that seek to technically comply with the law while simultaneously making it difficult for property owners to collect their surplus equity. Michigander Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her house in 2021 over a $3,863.40 tax debt. Manistee County, Michigan, then auctioned it off and kept the $102,636 profit. But the state's supreme court had already ruled the practice illegal in 2020—after which the Legislature approved a debt-collection law that sends owners on an obstacle course should they want to get their leftover equity back. Koetter, according to her complaint, submitted a form 8 days late, which the government said justified its decision to keep her six figures of equity. In Sikorsky's case, New York's new statute applies only to people whose properties were sold on or after May 25, 2023, so he will get to proceed under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead. But future plaintiffs who lose everything after falling on hard times may find it much harder to recover their money. The post He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit. appeared first on
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
California asks court for restraining order to block Guard, Marine deployments in L.A.
California on Tuesday asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's deployment of both state National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid mass protests over sweeping federal immigration enforcement efforts. The request was filed in the same federal lawsuit the state and California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed Monday, in which they alleged Trump had exceeded his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution by sending military forces into an American city without the request or approval of the state governor or local officials. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is handling the litigation on behalf of both Newsom and the state, said the restraining order was necessary to bring an immediate stop to the deployments, which local officials have contended are not needed and only adding to tensions sparked by sweeping immigration detentions and arrests in communities with large immigrant communities. "The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him," Bonta said in a statement Tuesday. "It's not just immoral — it's illegal and dangerous." Newsom, in his own statement, echoed Bonta, saying the federal government "is now turning the military against American citizens." "Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy," Newsom said. "Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President." The state's request Tuesday asked for the restraining order to be granted by 1 p.m. Tuesday "to prevent immediate and irreparable harm" to the state. Absent such relief, the Trump administration's "use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest," the state contended. The request specifically notes that the use of military forces such as Marines to conduct domestic policing tasks is unlawful, and that Trump administration officials have stated that is how the Marines being deployed to Los Angeles may be used. "The Marine Corps' deployment for law enforcement purposes is likewise unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement," the state's request states. "And the President and Secretary Hegseth have made clear—publicly and privately—that the Marines are not in Los Angeles to stand outside a federal building." At Trump's direction, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the state's National Guard on Saturday after Trump said L.A. was descending into chaos and federal agents were in danger, then mobilized another 2,000 members on Monday. The Pentagon approved the deployment of 700 U.S. Marines from the base in Twentynine Palms to the city Monday, with the stated mission of protecting federal buildings and agents. Hegseth said the deployments would last 60 days, and the acting Pentagon budget chief said the cost would be at least $134 million. He told members of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that the length of the deployments was intended to "ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere." Local officials have decried acts of violence, property damage and burglaries that have occurred in tandem with the protests, but have also said that Trump administration officials have blown the problems out of proportion and that there is no need for federal forces in the city. Read more: All of L.A. is not a 'war zone.' We separate facts from spin and disinformation amid immigration raids Constitutional scholars and some members of Congress have also questioned the domestic deployment of military forces, especially without the buy-in of local and state officials — calling it a tactic of dictators and authoritarian regimes. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass questioned what Marines would do on the ground, while Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the arrival of military forces in the city without "clear coordination" with local law enforcement "presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city." Bonta had said Monday that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits federal power around such deployments, that the deployment of National Guard forces to quell protests without Newsom's consent was "unlawful" and "unprecedented," and that the deployment of Marines would be "similarly unlawful." On Tuesday, he said the state was asking the court to "immediately block the Trump Administration from ordering the military or federalized national guard from patrolling our communities or otherwise engaging in general law enforcement activities beyond federal property." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
California asks court for restraining order to block Guard, Marine deployments in L.A.
California on Tuesday asked a federal court for a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's deployment of both state National Guard forces and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid mass protests over sweeping federal immigration enforcement efforts. The request was filed in the same federal lawsuit the state and California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed Monday, in which they alleged Trump had exceeded his authority and violated the U.S. Constitution by sending military forces into an American city without the request or approval of the state governor or local officials. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is handling the litigation on behalf of both Newsom and the state, said the restraining order was necessary to bring an immediate stop to the deployments, which local officials have contended are not needed and only adding to tensions sparked by sweeping immigration detentions and arrests in communities with large immigrant communities. 'The President is looking for any pretense to place military forces on American streets to intimidate and quiet those who disagree with him,' Bonta said in a statement Tuesday. 'It's not just immoral — it's illegal and dangerous.' Newsom, in his own statement, echoed Bonta, saying the federal government 'is now turning the military against American citizens.' 'Sending trained warfighters onto the streets is unprecedented and threatens the very core of our democracy,' Newsom said. 'Donald Trump is behaving like a tyrant, not a President.' The state's request Tuesday asked for the restraining order to be granted by 1 p.m. Tuesday 'to prevent immediate and irreparable harm' to the state. Absent such relief, the Trump administration's 'use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest,' the state contended. The request specifically notes that the use of military forces such as Marines to conduct domestic policing tasks is unlawful, and that Trump administration officials have stated that is how the Marines being deployed to Los Angeles may be used. 'The Marine Corps' deployment for law enforcement purposes is likewise unlawful. For more than a century, the Posse Comitatus Act has expressly prohibited the use of the active duty armed forces and federalized national guard for civilian law enforcement,' the state's request states. 'And the President and Secretary Hegseth have made clear—publicly and privately—that the Marines are not in Los Angeles to stand outside a federal building.' At Trump's direction, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mobilized nearly 2,000 members of the state's National Guard on Saturday after Trump said L.A. was descending into chaos and federal agents were in danger, then mobilized another 2,000 members on Monday. The Pentagon approved the deployment of 700 U.S. Marines from the base in Twentynine Palms to the city Monday, with the stated mission of protecting federal buildings and agents. Hegseth said the deployments would last 60 days, and the acting Pentagon budget chief said the cost would be at least $134 million. He told members of the House appropriations defense subcommittee that the length of the deployments was intended to 'ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere.' Local officials have decried acts of violence, property damage and burglaries that have occurred in tandem with the protests, but have also said that Trump administration officials have blown the problems out of proportion and that there is no need for federal forces in the city. Constitutional scholars and some members of Congress have also questioned the domestic deployment of military forces, especially without the buy-in of local and state officials — calling it a tactic of dictators and authoritarian regimes. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass questioned what Marines would do on the ground, while Police Chief Jim McDonnell said the arrival of military forces in the city without 'clear coordination' with local law enforcement 'presents a significant logistical and operational challenge for those of us tasked with safeguarding this city.' Bonta had said Monday that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits federal power around such deployments, that the deployment of National Guard forces to quell protests without Newsom's consent was 'unlawful' and 'unprecedented,' and that the deployment of Marines would be 'similarly unlawful.' On Tuesday, he said the state was asking the court to 'immediately block the Trump Administration from ordering the military or federalized national guard from patrolling our communities or otherwise engaging in general law enforcement activities beyond federal property.'
