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
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'
CNBC
34 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The US labor market is creating new jobs, but maybe not yours
Your own job is a binary event — you either have one or you don't. Labor market data so closely tracked by investors offers a different story about US employment, one told in the aggregate. And reconciling the two right now has made discussion about the overall state of the US job market particularly rich. In May, the US economy added 139,000 new jobs while the unemployment rate held steady at 4.2%. Data on job openings posted last week showed a surprise increase in April, though hiring demand continues to cool from post-pandemic highs. That's at least according to the US government. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Data from payroll processor ADP published last week, however, suggested there were only 37,000 roles added to the private sector, the fewest since March 2023. For recent college grads and others at the entry level of the workforce, the job market hasn't been this challenging in years. Take this labor market data together with surveys from the services and manufacturing industries, and some economists see signs of "paralysis" forming in the US economy. As President Truman once said, it's a recession when your neighbor loses their job and a depression when you lose yours. A reimagining of this quote might say it's an economic expansion when your recent college graduate secures a job before being handed their diploma and a recession if they're still out of work when school starts again in the fall. In a modern labor market context where many thousands of people cobble together disparate income streams via consulting, contract work, influencing, and so forth, the lines around employment and unemployment might blur. Employment insurance data published weekly by the Department of Labor is less ambiguous. Though again, here we see enough room for two visions of the labor market to appear. On a weekly basis, initial filings for unemployment insurance remain low, tallying 247,000 last week. And though this was the most since October, economists at Barclays said in reaction to the report that the figures looked "exaggerated" due to a large increase from Kentucky and lingering seasonal adjustment issues related to the pandemic. Contrasting that are the continuing jobless claims — or the number of people who have filed for benefits after at least one week of unemployment — which have risen to nearly four-year highs in recent weeks. "The elevated level of continued claims is consistent with other data, like a low hiring rate and increasing duration of unemployment, indicating that it is difficult for those who are unemployed to find new jobs," Nancy Vanden Houten, lead US economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a note last week. In May, the number of Americans unemployed for at least 15 weeks totaled 2.5 million; a year ago, this stood at 2.31 million. Some interpretations of the data offer close watchers scope to choose their own adventure through this shift in the labor market. But what's clear is that there has been a shift. And after many years of the labor market continuing to prove resilient, the risks are tilted toward ignoring a change in character and forgetting that while your own employment may have an on/off switch, the US economy is too big and plodding to turn at the speed of life. "The main risk is that the appearance of an okay labor market on the surface lulls the Federal Reserve into a false sense of security about the future," wrote Neil Dutta, head of economics at Renaissance Macro, in a note following Friday's monthly jobs report. "Labor market conditions are slowing down, and cyclical parts of the labor market continue to weaken."Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
