Morgantown announces alternative sentencing program for camping ban
A homeless camping ban will go into effect in Morgantown, W.Va., on Thursday, May 29, 2025. Voters rejected repealing the camping ban ordinance in April. (Getty Images)
As an ordinance aimed at prohibiting homeless people from sleeping on public property goes into effect in Morgantown, the city announced Tuesday an alternative sentencing program for enforcing the camping ban.
Morgantown's camping ban goes into effect Thursday, 30 days after the city's residents voted 986 to 905 against repealing the ordinance during its election April 29.
According to a news release Tuesday from the city, beginning June 4, the city is launching the sentencing program with Valley Healthcare Systems, a provider of mental health, substance use treatment, housing services and case management.
Valley Healthcare Systems will be contracted through the city to 'conduct assessments and guide individuals toward support systems that address housing instability and offer recovery options,' the city said in a news release.
The organization will help define the requirements of completing the alternative sentencing program under the ordinance, the city said.
'City staff and administration are committed to enforcing all local provisions, laws, and ordinances with fairness and objectivity,' Brad Riffe, the city's public relations and communications director, said in the news release. 'Our responsibility is to apply these regulations as written, ensuring accountability while always acting in the best interest of the entire community. We will always strive to balance compliance with compassion and any strategy we follow will reflect a model that offers consideration to all citizens.'
The alternative sentencing program will be similar to the West Virginia Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, a diversion program for low-level offenses that are often related to substance use or mental health issues that allows offenders to get treatment or recovery services, the news release said.
'We're proud to partner with the City of Morgantown to help develop meaningful alternatives for individuals cited under the new ordinance or anyone for that matter,' Steve Bennett, director of the LEAD program and crisis services for Valley HealthCare Systems, said in the news release. 'By connecting people to housing, treatment, and long-term support, especially those struggling with substance use disorders, we can reduce repeated offenses, improve public safety, and offer individuals a real path toward stability and recovery.'
Bennett did not immediately return an email seeking more information.
According to the ordinance, people who violate the ban are first given a warning and information about shelter, second violations are subject to up to a $200 fine, and a third violation within 12 months may result in a fine of up to $500 or 30 days in jail along with information about available shelter and alternative sentencing options.
Morgantown City Council originally passed the ordinance in September. The Morgantown Coalition for Housing Action successfully petitioned the city council to reconsider the ordinance by repealing it or putting it on the ballot for voters to decide. Council members chose the latter, and city voters upheld the ban.
Proponents of the law have said homeless people sleeping in public areas is a health and safety issue.
Opponents of the ordinance have pointed out that the city does not have enough emergency housing beds for the 100 homeless people that were counted in Monongalia County during the 2024 point in time count, and that the camping ban does not address the cause of homelessness.
Morgantown is one of dozens of cities around the country that have implemented camping bans after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar ban in Grants Pass, Oregon last summer.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Needs to Get Real on Trade
U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during a tariff announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 2, 2025. Credit - Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images The roller coaster that is President Donald Trump's trade war steamed ahead this week. On Wednesday, a federal district court dealt a major blow to Trump when it ruled that his sweeping global tariffs were illegal. On Thursday, an appeals court ruled the levies could remain in place for now. And then, on Friday, Trump accused China of violating a preliminary trade deal and suggested he would respond. As all this unfolds and the U.S. legal system lumbers toward a final verdict, one thing is clear: the White House needs to get a real trade strategy, and fast. Read More: The Five Small Businesses That Helped Block Trump's Tariffs Few issues are more fundamental to Trump's worldview than trade. For Trump, trade is not merely an economic issue, but a litmus test of whether America is winning or losing on the world stage. Even matters of war and peace, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, have seemingly taken a back seat to Trump's stubborn fixation on China's trade surplus with the U.S. During his first term, Trump launched a trade war against China with a goal, as he framed it, of punishing China's unfair trade practices. The trade war ended with a Phase-one deal wherein China promised to increase its future purchases of American products and enact structural reforms. Ultimately, this deal failed to deliver. The Chinese underperformed on their pledges. Trump blamed the Biden Administration for not enforcing the deal. Unbowed by the disappointment of his first trade war with China, Trump launched a second one when he returned to office earlier this year. This time, he surrounded himself with loyalists who supported his instincts for public confrontation and rapid escalation to force China to the negotiating table. Trump's approach appeared to be built on an assumption that China's economy was brittle, and Beijing would buckle under pressure. Read More: Why Trump Will Blink First on China That bet backfired. China retaliated with counter-tariffs. Beijing also implemented novel new export controls on critical minerals and magnets upon which U.S. industries depend. Chinese policymakers moved swiftly to shore up China's economy while expanding trade ties with other partners. Rather than fold, China punched back. As the economic costs of the trade war mounted on both sides of the Pacific, Trump designated his Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate a 90-day truce. The Chinese accepted. Trump's trade war with China is not over. It is merely paused. Trump will continue returning to the well of grievance about America's trade imbalance with China until he can secure a deal that he can sell as a win to the American public. But therein lies the rub. Based on my recent exchanges with Chinese officials and experts, it seems Beijing has taken America's measure in recent weeks and concluded that China has greater capacity to withstand economic pain than the U.S. China's leaders lack confidence that any agreement with the mercurial Trump will last. At a more fundamental level, China's leaders are unclear on what specifically Trump seeks—and what he would offer in return. On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Bessent said that U.S.-China talks were 'a bit stalled' and suggested Trump and Xi Jinping 'have a call.' But until the Trump Administration can articulate its concrete objectives, its strategy for achieving them, and its vision of a productive process for doing so, the U.S.-China trade war will stay stalemated. Read More: It's Time for Trump and Xi to Meet To be clear, the Trump Administration has legitimate grievances about China's unfair economic practices. China's market access barriers, forced technology transfers, and state-directed subsidies to preferred industries and businesses have created massive global trade distortions. But grievance is not a strategy. And daily improvisation is not a formula for progress in negotiations. The 90-day trade truce gives the Trump Administration time and space to do its homework. That means discarding the failed assumptions that Xi will cave under pressure and instead doing the hard work of homing in on what specifically Trump is aiming to achieve and what he is prepared to give in return. In the end, trade policy is not about scoring points or undermining competitors. It is about making America stronger, safer, and more prosperous. If Trump wants to succeed, he will need to move beyond theatrics and prepare for the grinding process of negotiating with China that awaits. Contact us at letters@
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Groundbreaking new treatment for aggressive breast cancer has 100% survival rate
Hope is on the horizon for patients with aggressive, inherited breast cancers. A recent clinical trial, led by researchers at Cambridge University, explored the effects of combining chemotherapy with the targeted cancer drug olaparib before surgery. Every patient who received this protocol survived the critical three-year post-treatment period. Advertisement 3 BRCA cancers are notoriously aggressive and difficult to treat. Vasyl – The research, published in Nature Communications, suggests this preemptive, two-part approach could be the most effective plan of treatment for early-stage breast cancer linked to BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations. Breast cancer or BRCA genes are present in every cell of the human body. When functioning, BRCA1 and BRCA2 repair DNA and prevent cancerous changes. However, when a mutation compromises these genes, cancer risk increases. Inheriting this damaged DNA can increase the risk for breast and ovarian cancer in women and breast and prostate cancer in men. Advertisement BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are more common in young women, and these mutations increase cancer risk by as much as 84%. Six percent of all breast cancer patients carry BRCA gene mutations, but in patients under 45, roughly 12% carry the gene. BRCA cancers are notoriously aggressive and difficult to treat. In 2013, Angelina Jolie, who carries the faulty BRCA1 gene, made headlines when she underwent a preventative double mastectomy. As a result of the procedure, Jolie, who lost her own mother to breast cancer, saw her chances of developing breast cancer drop from 87 percent to less than 5 percent. Advertisement The current protocol for treating BRCA cancers includes shrinking the tumour using chemotherapy and immunotherapy, before removing it through surgery. 3 Angelina Jolie, who carries the faulty BRCA1 gene, underwent a preventative double mastectomy. Getty Images The first three years after surgery — when there is the greatest risk of relapse or death — are critical. The trial recruited patients from across the UK and aimed to test the efficacy of combining chemotherapy with olaparib before surgery and carefully timing when these treatments were administered. Advertisement 'It is rare to have a 100% survival rate in a study like this and for these aggressive types of cancer.' Professor Jean Abraham The study revealed that allowing a 48-hour 'gap' between chemotherapy and olaparib treatments led to more positive outcomes. Researchers believe this interval allows the patient's bone marrow to recover from chemo while leaving tumor cells receptive to olaparib. Olaparib, sold under the brand name Lynparza, is typically taken for 12 months post-surgery. However, trial patients took the tablets pre-surgery for a period of 12 weeks. The survival rate among the control group who received chemotherapy alone was 88%. Of these 45 patients, nine relapsed and six died within three years of surgery. In contrast, there was a 100% survival rate among the 39 patients who received chemotherapy followed by olaparib. Of this cohort, only one patient relapsed in the three years following surgery. 'It is rare to have a 100% survival rate in a study like this and for these aggressive types of cancer,' said trial lead Professor Jean Abraham. 3 Olaparib, sold under the brand name Lynparza, is typically taken for 12 months post-surgery. However, trial patients took the tablets pre-surgery for a period of 12 weeks. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Advertisement 'We're incredibly excited about the potential of this new approach, as it's crucial that we find a way to treat and hopefully cure patients who are diagnosed with BRCA1 and BRCA2-related cancers.' Compared to current care protocols, the two-pronged approach of chemo and olaparib pre-surgery offers a more cost-effective and less toxic treatment for patients. Abrahams and his team are planning the next research phase, which will aim to replicate their results in a larger study. Advertisement They are hopeful their findings can and will be applied to treat other cancers caused by mutated BRCA genes, including some ovarian, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among US women after skin cancer. About 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Though breast cancer starts in a localized part of the breast tissue, it can spread to other areas of the body, significantly decreasing rates of survival. Survival rates among breast cancer patients whose cancer is detected before it spreads are high, between 86% and 89%. Yet if the cancer is detected after the cancer cells have migrated, that number drops to 31%.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Ben & Jerry's rips Israel for ‘genocide' in Gaza amid fight with parent company Unilever
Ben & Jerry's stoked controversy on Thursday after its independent board issued a statement labeling the conflict in Gaza a 'genocide' — placing renewed strain on its already tense relationship with parent company Unilever. 'We stand with all who raise their voices against genocide in Gaza—from petition-signers to street marchers to those risking arrest,' the left-leaning ice cream maker's board said in a statement that was first reported by The Wall Street Journal. 'When humanity is at stake, silence is not an option, now is the time to speak truth to power.' Advertisement 4 Ben & Jerry's stoked controversy after its independent board issued a statement labeling the conflict in Gaza a genocide. In Pictures via Getty Images The statement marks one of the most forceful corporate condemnations of Israel's conduct in Gaza since the conflict began, and could further deepen the divide between Ben & Jerry's progressive board and the more cautious multinational that owns it. Ben & Jerry's has long used its brand to champion progressive causes. In 2021, it stopped selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied territories, citing inconsistency with its values — a move that triggered backlash, shareholder divestment and legal disputes with parent company Unilever. Though the matter was settled in 2022, a new lawsuit alleges Unilever has again tried to silence the brand's support for Palestinian rights. Advertisement Unilever on Thursday quickly moved to distance itself from the board's remarks. 'The members of Ben & Jerry's social mission board do not speak for anyone other than themselves,' a Unilever spokesperson told the Journal on Thursday. 'We call for peace in the region and for relief for all those whose lives have been impacted.' Advertisement The response is the latest indication of a longstanding and fraught dynamic between the Vermont-based brand and its London-based owner. 4 An Israeli soldier stands on a tank as it is taking position in front of the northern Gaza Strip on March 18. Getty Images Last month, Unilever said it had no intention of selling Ben & Jerry's — despite a bid by the founders of the popular ice cream brand to buy back the company. Unilever also recently threatened to cut its $5 million annual funding to the Ben & Jerry's Foundation unless it agrees to a fast-tracked audit of its donations, escalating tensions over the brand's progressive activism. Advertisement In March, Ben & Jerry's accused its corporate owner of ousting the ice cream maker's chief executive over the brand's anti-Trump political activism. When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000, the deal included a unique arrangement: the company's independent board retained authority over the brand's social mission and marketing. That unusual structure has led to numerous public clashes in recent years, particularly over the Israel-Palestinian dispute. 4 A woman holding a baby cries as Palestinians check the site of an overnight Israeli strike in the central Gaza Strip on Friday. AFP via Getty Images In legal filings, Unilever has criticized the board's 'decision to continue to embroil B&J's and Unilever in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most divisive and polarizing topics of our time.' Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen made headlines earlier this month when he and other activists disrupted a Senate health committee hearing. As he was removed by security, Cohen shouted: 'Congress is paying to bomb poor kids in Gaza and paying for it by kicking poor kids off Medicaid in the US.' The latest statement comes amid renewed scrutiny of Unilever's ice cream division. Advertisement The company recently announced plans to spin off its ice cream business entirely in order to streamline operations and focusing on higher-growth areas. Analysts have noted that Ben & Jerry's activism — and the backlash it frequently generates — has added complications for the broader Unilever brand. 4 Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen was removed by Capitol Police on May 14, 2025, during a Senate Health Committee hearing on the Department of Health and Human Services budget. REUTERS Tensions between the two entities reached a boiling point in 2021 when Ben & Jerry's announced it would stop selling its products in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — citing inconsistency with its values. Advertisement That decision prompted legal and financial consequences for Unilever, which was accused of violating anti-boycott laws in several jurisdictions. The backlash led to lawsuits, sanctions and the withdrawal of hundreds of millions of dollars in Unilever stock, according to a March legal filing by the company. In response, Unilever sold its Ben & Jerry's business in Israel to a local distributor — an effort to ensure continued sales across Israel and the West Bank. Advertisement Ben & Jerry's then sued its parent company, alleging that the sale breached the terms of the acquisition agreement and undermined the board's control over social impact decisions. The Post has sought comment from Ben & Jerry's and Unilever.
