Committee postpones vote on Gary repayment bill after proposed amendment
The Indiana House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee has postponed the vote on a bill that would require Gary to pay approximately $12.3 million to East Chicago and Michigan City.
Indiana House Bill 1448, authored by Rep. Hal Slager, R-Schererville, addresses issues with supplemental payments that were added into state law during the 2019 session.
The bill would require the funds to be paid back within three years. Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago, proposed an amendment to give Gary 10 years to pay the funds.
'While I appreciate the plan that Rep. Slager has put together, it puts Gary in a position of now finding out those funds are owed to other cities when they've already planned out multiple years of their finances,' Harris said during the committee's meeting Wednesday.
Slager said he's 'sympathetic to the situation' but doesn't know how extending the time would be beneficial. He repeatedly told Harris that he thinks a 10-year time period is too long.
A mistake by the Indiana State Comptroller sent funds to Gary that should've been distributed to East Chicago and Michigan City to ease the financial burden following the move of the Majestic Star casinos to Hard Rock Casino Northern Indiana, located along Interstate 80/94, according to Post-Tribune archives.
Harris said he proposed the amendment in case Hammond is affected once 2025 numbers are released. Jennifer Thuma, general counsel for the comptroller's office, previously said Hammond was part of the original 2019 bill but wasn't included on House Bill 1448 because the city didn't see a wager tax revenue.
Thuma also said Gary won't receive additional distributions in 2025, according to Post-Tribune archives.
As of Wednesday afternoon, House Bill 1448 would require Gary to pay the two cities over the course of three years.
Starting in fiscal year 2026, approximately $2.9 million should be paid to East Chicago and approximately $2.2 million should be paid to Michigan City for funds not paid in fiscal year 2022, according to the bill.
For fiscal year 2027, approximately $3.6 million should be paid to East Chicago and approximately $2.2 million to Michigan City for funds not paid in fiscal year 2023, according to the bill.
'We're coming up with a solution that works for everyone in repayment and payment to the cities that are owed without causing Gary deep financial harm,' Harris said. '(Gary) will make adjustments over 10 years, which are smaller adjustments in terms of paying the loan off, versus over a small number of years having to pay off large chunks of money.'
Rep. Gregory Porter, D-Indianapolis, said on Wednesday that he agrees with the amendment because the comptroller is at fault, not the city of Gary. Porter believes it's important to give the city some leeway.
The state representative also said it's not an issue of the city not wanting to pay the money.
'It wasn't their fault,' Porter said. 'How do we do it in a palatable way that's not distributive to the city of Gary and other surrounding areas?'
Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, agreed that an extended time for the money to be repaid would be best for Gary.
'We've been working diligently here for the last few years to help Gary,' he said. 'They've got a plan to move forward, and all of a sudden, we're going to say, 'Whoops, you got $12 million you're not supposed to have.' I think stretching it out over time makes sense.'
By the end of the discussion, Slager still said a 10-year repayment period is still too long, but he believes they could negotiate and compromise. The committee is expected to vote on the bill Thursday.
Gary Mayor Eddie Melton, City Controller Celita Green, and Common Council Vice President Lori Latham, D-1st, spoke at a Ways and Means Committee meeting on Jan. 22 about how the bill would impact Gary's finances.
State Comptroller Elise Niseshalla called the issue a difficult situation.
Latham told committee members that House Bill 1448 will set Gary back and unravel the city's success.
'It was never really about gaming,' she told committee members on Jan. 22. 'Instead, it was an opportunity to optimize our casino license, one of the many economic development tools created by this body through legislation, and allowed us to use every asset at our disposal to catalyze our city's economic development, progress and upward mobility.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
a day ago
- Atlantic
In Minnesota, America's Luck Ran Out
Early this morning, a gunman apparently impersonating a police officer targeted two Democratic Minnesota state lawmakers in their homes. First, he shot State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, who were seriously wounded. Law-enforcement officials believe the same gunman then shot Melissa Hortman, who served as Minnesota's speaker of the House from 2019 to 2024. She was killed, along with her husband, Mark. In September 2023, shortly after Donald Trump yet again encouraged direct political violence against his opponents, I wrote this: 'As a political scientist who studies political violence across the globe, I would chalk up the lack of high-profile assassinations in the United States during the Trump and post-Trump era to dumb luck … Eventually, all luck runs out.' That luck has now run out, in an idyllic Minneapolis suburb. Although details are still emerging, law-enforcement officials are searching for a former appointee of Democratic Governor Tim Walz in connection with the killings, which Walz called 'politically motivated.' The gunman reportedly had a manifesto and a list of targets that included the names of other Minnesota politicians as well as abortion providers in the state. Law-enforcement authorities intercepted but were not able to arrest the shooter shortly after he assassinated Hortman. Had they not, it's possible that he would have made his way to the homes of other Minnesota officials, trying to murder them too. Political violence—and assassinations in particular—are notoriously difficult to predict, precisely because the violence is often carried out by 'lone wolf' attackers. Just one deranged zealot is sufficient to carry out an act of consequential violence. In a country of 340 million people and even more guns, there will always be a small pool of potential killers eager to wreak havoc on the political system. That's why researchers who study political violence, including myself, try to understand what elevates or reduces the risk of violence, even if it can never be fully eradicated. In a context such as the United States, three key factors stand out: easy access to deadly weapons, intense polarization that paints political opponents as treasonous enemies rather than disagreeing compatriots, and incitements to political violence from high-profile public figures. When you combine those three social toxins, the likelihood of political violence increases, even as it remains impossible to predict who will be targeted or when attacks might be carried out. Again, law-enforcement officials still don't know the attacker's precise motivations, and trying to draw conclusions from any single act of political violence is foolish. Because they are rare, randomness plays a role in these instances, and many perpetrators are mentally unwell. But consider this comparison. Although we can't say that climate change caused a specific hurricane, we know that climate change produces stronger hurricanes. Similarly, we may not be able to draw a direct link from rhetoric to a specific act of violence, but we do know that incitements to violence make killings more likely. The United States has repeatedly refused to do anything about easy access to deadly weapons, despite having, by far, the highest rate of mass killings among developed democracies. As a result, the only feasible levers are reducing polarization and stopping high-profile incitements to commit violence. Instead, during the Trump era, polarization has sharply increased. And over the past decade, Trump himself has been the most dangerous political actor in terms of routinely inciting violence against his opponents, including against specific politicians who could become assassination targets. Such incitements matter. When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that encourages violence, attacks become more likely. From the April 2023 issue: Adrienne LaFrance on America's terrifying cycle of extremist violence From the beginning of his first campaign for president, Trump encouraged supporters to beat up hecklers at his rallies, saying he'd cover their legal bills if they ' knock the crap ' out of them. He floated the ideas of shooting looters, shooting shoplifters, and shooting migrants crossing the border. Trump also targeted the press, sharing a variety of violent memes involving specific outlets. He endorsed Greg Gianforte, now the governor of Montana, specifically because he violently attacked a reporter. ('Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type,' Trump said, to cheers.) And, at the end of his first term, Trump's speech on the National Mall on January 6 doused an already incendiary environment, culminating in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Trump's rhetorical incitements to violence extend to politicians, too. He has called his political opponents ' human scum.' Even more worrying are Trump's endorsements of violence against specific Democrats. In 2016, he suggested that maybe there was something that ' Second Amendment people ' could do to deal with Hillary Clinton. In October 2022, when a QAnon disciple who had peddled Trump's lies about the 2020 election attempted to assassinate then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and fractured her husband's, Paul's, skull with a hammer—Trump made light of the incident. (His son Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and a pair of underwear like the ones Paul Pelosi had been wearing during the attempted murder, with the caption: ' Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.') Less than a year later, Trump openly mused that Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be killed. When such language becomes normalized, deranged individuals may interpret rhetoric as marching orders. In 2018, Cesar Sayoc, a die-hard Trump supporter, mailed 16 pipe bombs to people who frequently appeared as targets in Trump's tweets. (Nobody died, but only because Sayoc wasn't skilled at making bombs.) In 2020, Trump tweeted that people should 'LIBERATE MICHIGAN!' in response to its COVID policies. Thirteen days later, armed protesters entered the state capitol building. A right-wing plot to kidnap the governor, Gretchen Whitmer, was narrowly foiled months later. It also matters that Trump is one of the biggest vectors for spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation in the United States. When a major political figure disseminates lies about shadowy plots and treasonous acts carried out by the 'human scum' on the other side of the aisle, that can increase the likelihood of violence. (Several followers of QAnon, which Trump has repeatedly amplified himself, have carried out political violence based on the conspiracy theory.) Trump often makes a brief show of condemning political violence—as he has with the killings in Minnesota. While trying to play both the arsonist and the firefighter on social media, his actions in power make clear where his true loyalties lie, sending much stronger signals. One of his first official acts at the start of his second term was to pardon or grant clemency to people convicted for their involvement in the January 6 riots, including those who had violently attacked police officers and were targeting lawmakers. In recent weeks, Trump has floated the possibility of pardoning the far-right zealots who sought to kidnap Governor Whitmer in Michigan. The message is unmistakable: Use violence against my political opponents and there may be a pardon waiting. Joe Biden abused his pardon power to protect his son from tax-evasion charges. Donald Trump abused his pardon power to condone those who attacked cops and hoped to murder politicians. Both abuses were bad. But they are not the same. Trump, more than anyone, should be aware of the risks of political violence. After all, he narrowly escaped an assassin's bullet last summer. He would be dead, but for a gust of wind or a slightly different tilt of his head. But when that assassination attempt happened, Biden didn't mock it; Kamala Harris didn't float the idea of pardoning the assassin; and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hadn't previously mused that Trump should be executed, or that he was human scum, or that Jeffries would pay the bills of people who used violence against Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on the risks of political violence. Democrats and Republicans in public office are targets who face credible threats in a hyper-polarized political climate. Likewise, supporters of Democrats and supporters of Republicans are both capable of carrying out political violence. (There have also been a small number of statements by Democrats that could be interpreted as incitements to violence, including some by Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Dan Goldman of New York. Goldman apologized for his phrasing the following day.) The difference is that only one party is led by someone who uses his megaphone to routinely normalize and absolve acts of political violence. There is overwhelming evidence of this asymmetric rhetoric between those in party leadership. The United States is a fraying society, torn apart by polarization, intense disagreement, and ratcheting extremism. Cheap weapons of mass murder are readily available. And into that tinder box, Trump adds incendiary rhetoric. We don't know when or where the deadly conflagration will strike next, but more flames will no doubt come. We may still be shocked by tragic acts of political violence like the assassination in Minnesota, but we can no longer feign surprise.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Florian Wirtz: An Era-Defining Deal for Liverpool
Florian Wirtz to Liverpool: A Move of Purpose, Not Panic This is an abridged version; the full article is available on our 'It Was Always… Liverpool' Substack page: Smart Recruitment in a Noisy Market In an era when transfer windows are often defined by noise and spectacle, Liverpool have opted for precision. Their move for Florian Wirtz, reportedly worth up to €136.3 million, is not a gamble dressed up as ambition. It is a carefully calculated investment in a player who fits their evolving identity. At 22, Wirtz is already one of Europe's most complete attacking midfielders. He chose Liverpool over Bayern Munich and Manchester City not because they paid more, but because they offered something rare: clarity. Why Wirtz Said Yes to Anfield Bayern promised comfort. City offered glamour and a post-De Bruyne spotlight. But both came with uncertainty. Wirtz wanted more than prestige. He wanted a defined role, a club with a plan and a manager who spoke plainly. Arne Slot did not sell dreams. He outlined responsibilities. Wirtz was told he would be central, not just creatively but structurally. In return, the German turned down easier paths for the chance to shape something new. Built for Purpose, Not Headlines Wirtz is not a flair-first luxury signing. He ranks in the 99th percentile for expected assists, through balls and successful dribbles. His pass completion under pressure is 88.8 percent, second only to Phil Foden. He also recovered the ball 35 times in the final third last season, a sign of work rate to match his talent. This is a player who plays through pressure rather than around it. He wants the ball when the game is tight and does something with it when others hesitate. What This Means for Slot's Liverpool Wirtz fits into Liverpool's reshaped left-sided attack, likely linking with new left-back Milos Kerkez and old Leverkusen teammate Jeremie Frimpong. He drifts into tight half-spaces, connects midfield to final third and offers balance to a right side still anchored by Salah. Slot will use him as a pivot point, a pressure breaker, and a system driver. This move is less about replacing anyone and more about defining a new era. Liverpool did not just buy talent. They secured intent.
