What NJ lawmakers are doing to help businesses affected by I-80 sinkholes
WHARTON, N.J. (PIX11) — Tensions are high in this part of Morris County, with the chokehold of sinkholes and subsequent Interstate closures in the area proven to be merciless.
The sinkholes have upended the lives of many small business owners in Wharton, some of which are running out of runway to survive.
More Local News
'I have no income for my family,' said Arledy Arroyade, owner of Colossal Mexican restaurant in Wharton. 'This is my income for my family right now. I put all my effort and my savings into this business.'
Arroyade opened Colossal, which sits at the foot of I-80 in Wharton, just 7 months ago. 'You try to have hope but at this point it's just like, you know, how are you going to pay?'
'Everybody's suffering, whether you're a big box store or a small mom and pop, the sales are not the same,' said YAzan Muheisen, owner of nearby Pop's Bagel Shop.
Republican State lawmakers, Senator Anthony Bucco and Assemblywoman Aura Dunn, have just introduced a package of bills aimed at bringing relief to these small businesses.
'Time is of the essence here,' said Bucco (R-NJ 25th District). 'We recognized that, that's why we moved quickly.'
One bill would create a $1 million grant program through the New Jersey Economic Development Authority to address the increased costs of transportation. Another bill would give tax credits for small businesses that lost revenue and workers who lost wages.
'We're going to do everything we can to get these folks the relief they desperately need,' said Bucco.
'We need to address it as an emergency measure,' said Dunn (R-NJ 25th District).
Dunn says the bills will have to advance through committees before they end up on the floor for a vote, let alone the Governor's desk. While unable to give a timeline, she says she's confident Democrats will support the legislation and get it on a fast track.
'I think the will is there to get this done,' said Dunn, 'and if I could encourage others, no matter what district you're from, you call your representative and say, 'we support this bill.''
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
'Sick puppy' Tim Walz should never have been on Dems' 2024 ticket, Trump says
President Donald Trump called Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz a "sick puppy" who should not have landed on the Democrats' 2024 presidential ticket. "He's a sick puppy, that guy, that poor guy. I feel sorry for him," Trump said Thursday from the Oval Office while meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. "But, they made a bad choice with him." Trump's comments followed a reporter asking Trump about his relationship with Elon Musk after the former Department of Government Efficiency chief repeatedly assailed the "big beautiful bill," the sweeping legislation that will fund the Trump administration's agenda and touted by the president as key legislation that demands GOP unity for passage. Musk was a key ally of Trump's during the campaign cycle, holding rallies in the top seven battleground states to rally support, including in Pennsylvania. Trump remarked that the Democrat Party should have tapped Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro to join former Vice President Kamala Harris as her running mate on the presidential ticket, but instead chose Walz. "Elon endorsed me very strongly. He actually went up and campaigned for me. I think I would have won. Susie would say I would have won Pennsylvania easily anyway, even if the governor had the real governor, not the governor, for a Minnesota," Trump said before calling Walz a "sick puppy." "But if you picked Shapiro or anybody else, I spoke to him recently about his, you know, his house being set on fire, which was terrible. But if they picked him, I would have won Pennsylvania," he added, referring to how Shapiro's home was targeted by arson while his family slept back in April. Walz joined Harris on the Democrat ticket in August 2024, just days after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race in July 2024 amid mounting concerns over his mental acuity, giving way to Harris at the top of the ticket. The Harris campaign had just more than 100 days between Biden dropping out and rallying support for the Harris-Walz ticket before Election Day on Nov. 5. After the election, Walz revealed he would run for president in 2028 if the opportunity presented itself. "Well, I had a friend tell me, 'Never turn down a job you haven't been offered,'" Walz told the New Yorker in March when asked if he would run for president. "If I think I could offer something ... I would certainly consider that," he said. "I'm also, though, not arrogant enough to believe there's a lot of people that can do this." He said that under the correct circumstances and if he had the right "skill set" for the 2028 race, "I'll do it." "You might do it?" the New Yorker asked. "I'll do whatever it takes," Walz said. "I certainly wouldn't be arrogant enough to think that it needs to be me."
Epoch Times
35 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
