Maggie aldermen oppose bill that would slash local control over development
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
May 7—MAGGIE VALLEY — A bi-partisan bill swiftly making its way through the General Assembly that would allow developers to sue individual local officials for zoning decisions and eliminate density and minimum lot size requirements has drawn the opposition of the Maggie Valley Board of Alderman.
So much so that the board of alderman voted 3-1 to pass a resolution opposing the legislation just 90 minutes before a key House committee was set to debate the issue Tuesday afternoon.
House Bill 765 would make major changes to zoning and land use regulations that opponents say would take the development decision making powers way from local governments. Proponents of the bill say that the legislation will make it easy for people to gain affordable housing.
"Provisions within this legislation would be contrary to the will of the vast majority of Maggie Valley residents and would severely diminish or eliminate the ability of local government to determine what is best for its community or even allow community input or involvement in the decision-making process," part of the resolution reads.
Mayor Mike Eveland and Aldermen John Hinton and Jim Owens supported the resolution that opposes the bill. Alderman Phillip Wight voted against it. Alderman Tim Wise did not attend Tuesday's meeting, but Owens told the board that Wise was 100% in support of the resolution.
Maggie Valley Planning Director Sam Cullen told aldermen Tuesday morning that the proposed legislation would take away the town's ability to have minimum density and lot size requirements. The bill also would eliminate design standards, vegetation buffer requirements and parking, street design and setback standards.
"There is a ton in the bill," Cullen said. "This bill would take the say away from the local board and give it to the state."
As currently written, the legislation would also open up local elected officials and volunteer planning board and zoning board officials to personal legal liability for the zoning decisions they make.
"In other words, if you make a decision on a development approval, the aggrieved party will sue you (aldermen) and not the town of Maggie Valley," Cullen said.
Alderman John Hinton voiced strong opposition to the legislation saying, "this is not the direction we want to head." He called the provision opening up individual alderman and planning and zoning board members to civil liability "crazy."
"We sure don't need civil liabilities on us," Hinton said. "Who are you going to get to run?"
State Rep. Jeff Zenger, R-Forsyth, told the House Housing and Development Committee on Tuesday afternoon that the bill is designed to make housing more affordable for first-time homebuyers.
"Home ownership is supposed to be the first rung of economic success in this country," Zenger said. "We've got it now where you have to start off on the fourth rung. Go home and put a ladder up and try and start on the fourth rung. It is very, very difficult."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Legislature to repeal MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults
Demonstrators gather for a protest organized by the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee calling for the continuation of MinnesotaCare for undocumented adults at the Minnesota State Capitol Tuesday, May 27, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Despite Democratic-Farmer-Labor control of the state Senate, the governor's office, and half of the House, Republicans forced Democrats to roll back one of their signature accomplishments from the 2023 legislative session: health care for undocumented people. The Legislature is expected to vote Monday to repeal undocumented adults' eligibility for MinnesotaCare, the state-subsidized health insurance program for the working poor. Children would still be covered. Republicans successfully used their leverage — the threat of a government shutdown starting July 1 — to force the Democrats' hand on an issue that is of supreme importance to GOP lawmakers. The DFL pulled out all nearly of the stops to avoid cutting health care access for undocumented adults. During negotiations, DFL leaders offered Republicans concessions related to paid leave, earned sick and safe time, and noncompete agreements — but Republicans didn't budge, said Sen. Alice Mann, DFL-Edina. 'They turned all of those things down, because all they wanted…was to make sure that the 17,000 people were left out to die, that we worsen our health care system and that we decrease our tax revenue,' Mann said at a press conference Monday decrying the move. When Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders announced a budget deal — contingent on repealing MinnesotaCare eligibility for undocumented adults — on May 15, lawmakers with the People of Color Indigenous Caucus protested outside the door. They told reporters later that they were blindsided by the deal. After the announcement, POCI caucus members brought alternatives to legislative leaders, said Rep. Liish Kozlowski, DFL-Duluth. The POCI caucus suggested capping undocumented enrollment in MinnesotaCare, raising premiums, allowing children currently enrolled to retain coverage instead of aging out, or making exceptions for elderly people or those with chronic conditions. None of those options made it into the bill, which is expected to be heard first on the House floor during a 21-hour special session beginning at 10 a.m. Republicans have repeatedly exaggerated the cost of providing health care to undocumented people enrolled in MinnesotaCare. Enrollment has exceeded the state's expectations, however, with more than 17,000 undocumented people currently enrolled. Meanwhile, per-person spending on the undocumented population has been lower than expected, according to the Department of Human Services. Federal politics and funding have complicated the issue: A budget bill passed by the GOP-controlled U.S. House would cut funding to states that provide health care to undocumented people, including Minnesota. And while the federal government pays for some of the cost of MinnesotaCare, it doesn't contribute any money for undocumented enrollees. Walz is expected to sign the bill into law.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.
New York Post
30 minutes ago
- New York Post
Elite universities offer to spend more endowment cash to stave off tax hit after Trump attacks ‘woke' policies: report
Some of the richest universities in the US are proposing a deal with the federal government that would allow them to spend more of their own money in exchange for a reprieve on a proposed tax on their endowments, according to a report. Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke and the University of Chicago — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. In return, they're asking Congress to scale back a proposed 21% tax on their investment income, a massive jump from the current 1.4% rate, the Wall Street Journal reported. Advertisement 4 Students walk on the Stanford University campus in this 2019 file photo. AP The White House has framed the tax hike as a way to hold 'woke, elitist universities' accountable. President Trump has launched an aggressive campaign against elite universities, accusing them of hoarding tax-advantaged wealth, embracing 'woke' politics and defying federal law. His administration has moved to revoke their tax-exempt status, block access to federal research grants, and restrict international student enrollment — turning once-reliable sources of funding into pressure points. Advertisement The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. They'll increase annual spending on things like financial aid and research, and in exchange, they're asking lawmakers to scrap the House-passed tiered tax system in favor of a much lower flat rate — either 2.4% or 3.4% on investment income. 'What I hear from Republican members of Congress is a desire to ensure that colleges are using their charitable endowments to support today's students and researchers rather than saving too much for the future,' Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber told the Journal. Advertisement 4 Nearly two dozen elite schools — including Harvard — are backing a plan that would commit them to distributing at least 5% of their endowment value each year. AP 'Those are valid concerns, and this proposal directly addresses them.' Eisgruber argued the plan would free up billions of dollars for student-focused spending and local economic development, while a steep tax hike would have the opposite effect — discouraging schools from using their endowments. The Learn Alliance says its plan would generate at least $30 billion in additional spending over a decade. Advertisement That far exceeds the $6.7 billion in federal revenue the current House-endorsed tax is expected to raise during the same time period, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. If adopted, the proposed 5% distribution rule would mark a major shift. Private foundations already follow a 5% payout rule, but colleges and universities have long resisted such mandates, arguing they need flexibility to manage for the long term. The new House bill would also increase the tax on private foundation investment income to 10%, up from the current 1.39%. 'This would be a significant shift in national policy,' Liz Clark, vice president of policy and research at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, told the Journal. 4 The schools, which are part of a group called the Learn Alliance, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill that outlines a compromise. Yale is one of the members of the alliance. Shutterstock She added that schools are under unusual pressure in the current political climate to show they're putting their money to work. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and frequent critic of large endowments, said Thursday that lawmakers were only beginning to dig into the endowment tax issue. Advertisement 'I've heard from small colleges in Iowa who say these tax increases would hit them hard,' he said. According to a recent analysis by higher education research group Ithaka S+R, most schools that would fall under the proposed 21% tax rate currently distribute less than 5% of their endowments annually. 4 The image above shows Blair Hall on the campus of Princeton University in Princeton, NJ. LightRocket via Getty Images Over a five-year period ending in June 2023, the report found that several top universities failed to meet the 5% mark in most years. Advertisement 'Even small percentage increases in spending would translate to a significant jump in dollar terms because the endowments are so large,' said Catharine Bond Hill, an economist at Ithaka. Not all schools are taking the same approach. A group of smaller colleges is lobbying Congress to cap the investment tax at 1.4% for institutions with fewer than 5,000 full-time students. These schools, which lack the diversified funding sources of larger institutions, say the higher rates would hit them disproportionately hard. Meanwhile, another coalition — including Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis — is pushing for a system that rewards schools with tax breaks if they meet certain benchmarks, like enrolling a higher percentage of low-income students.
