Mecklenburg County leaders consider buyout for flood-prone properties impacted by Hurricane Helene
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) – The Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners is set to vote Tuesday on final approval for accepting offers to buy several properties near Mountain Island Lake impacted by flooding after Hurricane Helene.
The proposals are part of the county's voluntary Floodplain Buyout Program, to which Storm Water Services allocated $8.5 million to the program.
The properties listed on the meeting's consent agenda include lots on Riverside Drive, Harwood Lane, Lake Drive, and Riverhaven Drive, all of which sit among one of the hardest hit areas of Mecklenburg County after the storm.
RELATED |
Commissioners approved several buyout grants in November to help cover the cost of demolition or elevating a home to prevent more flooding in the low-lying area.
County officials say around 170 structures in the Catawba River Floodplain took on damage last September.
Grant totals awarded to each owner will vary based on property value, federal assistance offered, and private insurance. Properties eligible must be at risk of flooding again or pose a risk to human life.
On the state level, lawmakers in Raleigh are considering a bill to lessen restrictions on rebuilding in floodplains.
Senate Bill 266 removes state and local floodplain requirements if the building was destroyed in a '200-year flood event' and has less than a 0.5% probability of flooding again.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
NC, SC attorneys general among those urging Meta to crack down on deceptive ‘pump and dump' Facebook ads
RALEIGH, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) – North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson is among 42 across the country urging Meta to crack down on deceptive ads. The joint letter claims the social media giant is allowing these so-called 'pump and dump' schemes on Facebook, conning users out of hundreds of millions of dollars. 'Scammers are using fake Facebook ads to trick people into losing millions in scam investments,' said Jackson in a statement. 'It's Meta's job to take these ads down and make sure their platform is as safe as possible for users everywhere. Meta needs to act now.' Consultant behind AI-generated robocalls mimicking Biden goes on trial in New Hampshire Jackson's office says these ads frequently use images of well-known financial figures like Warren Buffet, Cathie Wood and Elon Musk to make users think they're legitimate. They'll advertise stocks with outrageous returns, free consultations, or offer to give investment advice. The AGs claim that clicking on the ads directs users to join a WhatsApp group, where the scammers allegedly urge victims to buy penny stocks to rapidly inflate the share prices. After 'pumping up' the price of the stock, the scammers will 'dump' their shares, causing the prices to fall and leaving victims unable to get their money back. South Carolina AG Alan Wilson is among the co-signers. The letter cites several examples of victims, including a 65-year-old woman who lost her 401(k) to this scheme after clicking on a Facebook ad for what seemed to be a reputable investment management company. And three victims in South Florida spoke to a news outlet reporting direct losses of more than $85,000 and pointing to two-dozen other victims who lost millions more. The attorneys general are asking Meta to either strengthen its advertisement review practices to prevent these ads from being shown to Facebook users or remove all investment ads from the platform. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gaston County residents receive more than $8M in housing assistance from FEMA since Helene
GASTONIA, N.C. (QUEEN CITY NEWS) — Gaston County officials shared the federal assistance its residents received following Hurricane Helene last fall. Gaston County was one of the hardest hit areas in North Carolina outside the mountains. There was a series of flooding along the Catawba River that affected areas of Mount Holly and Belmont. One storm-related death was reported there. Since FEMA aid arrived there, the county has landed more than $8.7 million in housing-related assistance. As of Tuesday, here is how those funds have allocated for the county's 242,000 people: $7.2 million in Individual and Households Program (IHP) assistance 10,536 registrations through 10 Multi-Agency Resource Centers $1.5 million in Housing Assistance ($5,800 per household) $5.1 million in Other Needs Assistance ($1,620 per household) 'These numbers reflect real help for real people,' the county's Office of Emergency Management wrote. 'Whether it's housing repairs, essential items, or other recovery needs, FEMA and our local partners are here to help our residents rebuild and recover.' In May, FEMA upheld its decision to deny matching 100 percent of the State of North Carolina's expenditures used for Hurricane Helene recovery. Gov. Josh Stein's office said then it also asked the Trump administration and Congress to send $19 billion to the state for disaster relief. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
N.C. bill gives big energy users a break — at the expense of households
Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills. The analysis shows the legislation is a better deal for industrial customers than the status quo, said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. 'They will pay less to use the same amount of energy, and residential ratepayers will pay more,' he said. SB 266 is the latest version of a Senate-passed measure that would unravel the state's climate targets. It was publicly unveiled moments before it was debated and approved by the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee last week, and received fulsome praise from Duke, industrial groups, and others in testimony. On Tuesday, despite protests from clean energy advocates and some Democratic lawmakers, the bill easily cleared the Republican-controlled House and now returns to the Senate, also run by the GOP. The study, conducted by independent analysis group EQ Research, has a narrow scope, homing in on the ramifications of just one section of the 30-page bill — the part that covers how purchased power is billed to customers. 'We were pretty laser-focused,' said Justin Barnes, president of EQ Research, 'because that's the analysis we could do with readily available information quickly.' While Duke generates much of its own electricity from a fleet of fossil fuel and nuclear plants, it also contracts to buy some of its solar power from independent producers and purchases energy from other generators under certain conditions, such as when demand spikes. Under current law, the entire cost of this purchased power is passed on to customers annually along with a charge for natural gas and other fuels. The utility divvies up the costs of this fuel "rider" between residential and industrial customer groups based partially on their peak electricity demand and partially on their overall energy use. According to EQ's analysis of Duke's latest filings with regulators, the fuel rider totals about $2.75 billion for the company's two North Carolina entities, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas. The purchased power portion is around $1.1 billion. Of the purchased power portion, residential customers currently pay about 41.2%, and use just over 40% of the energy. SB 266 eliminates any weight given to overall energy use in allocating purchased power costs, according to EQ, shifting charges from large industrial users of electricity to residential consumers. The result is that households would pay just under 49% of those costs while using the same 40% of energy, the group's study found. 'It is not going to be a savings for us ratepayers,' said Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat, speaking against SB 266 on the House floor. 'It is going to be an increase.' The EQ study does not incorporate the potential effects of other parts of the bill, including alleged savings from eliminating a 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution, and the impact to customers of allowing the utility to recoup some costs for power plants not yet delivering electricity. Rep. Dean Arp, the Union County Republican championing SB 266, said last week in committee that erasing the 2030 climate target would save all customers a total of $13 billion by 2050. He said allowing Duke to recover plant-construction financing costs early would net them another $1.4 billion. He echoed those claims Tuesday on the House floor, rounding up the total savings by over half a billion dollars. 'A vote against this legislation is a vote to make all ratepayers pay $15 billion more in electricity costs,' Arp said. But opponents of the bill reject the allegation that striving for more wind and solar energy in the near term will contribute to rising rates, an assertion stemming from an elusive study from the state-sanctioned customer advocate, Public Staff, that hasn't been provided widely to legislators or members of the public. Clean energy advocates say the Public Staff analysis considers only the cost of building new power generation, not the rising price of fossil fuels. And they continue to question the wisdom of allowing Duke to charge consumers for costs related to nuclear and gas plants that may never come online. Perhaps above all, EQ's findings show why more time is needed to vet the bill with all interested parties, including clean energy and consumer advocates, not just Duke and large industrial customers, critics contend. 'When we rush processes like these and don't include all the stakeholders, we can end up with results that unfairly burden North Carolina households,' said Scott with the Environmental Defense Fund. 'I hope that we can slow down and make the adjustments we need so that this bill doesn't cause unnecessary pollution or unnecessary costs.' But the House's public deliberation of the measure has been anything but slow. In less than a week, it cleared two committees and two required floor votes. It could appear on the desk of Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, as soon as this week. 'There are all kinds of reasons to vote no on this bill,' Harrison said to the full House on Tuesday, including its treatment of residential customers, its abdication of climate targets, and the process by which it was rushed through the chamber. As the House prepared to vote around 7 p.m., she said, 'It's not clear why we're doing this tonight.'
