Mayor Rawn holds community meeting ahead of encampment sweep
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (KNWA/KFTA) — Mayor Molly Rawn hosted a community conversation on Sunday, June 8, to address homelessness and housing insecurity in Fayetteville.
The event took place from 4 to 6 p.m. at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, a day before a scheduled sweep of a University of Arkansas property used by dozens of unhoused people in Fayetteville.
During the meeting, attendees shared ideas and expressed concerns about the city's housing challenges. Two individuals were asked to leave after tensions rose.
'My takeaway is there are a lot of people in our community who are hurting, they feel forgotten,' Rawn told KNWA/FOX24. '… That's not how I want anyone in our city to feel.'
More than 30 people attended, including both unhoused and housed residents, along with members of local advocacy groups.
'There is no magic bullet to this,' Rawn said. 'If there were, then people who have been on our council and who have been elected officials much longer than I have, who are also are advocates for this cause, would have solved it.'
Fayetteville's new student housing adds 800+ beds for UA
Though the city does not oversee the University of Arkansas property where the encampment sweep is planned, Rawn acknowledged the need for collaboration and support.
'I absolutely believe there are actions we can take, that we have taken and that we continue to take…' Rawn said. 'I'm excited to move forward I think there some really good suggestions that came out of this group this evening.'
The city has also offered to send Fayetteville Police Department social workers to assist during the sweep, according to a news release.
A letter sent to people living on University of Arkansas property near 19th Street states the university will clear and clean the area on Monday, June 9. Residents were told to remove all personal belongings and necessities or risk having them discarded.
Thomas Crane, 54, said he has been living 'off and on' in the 19th Street encampment area for around eight years.
'A lot of people aren't ready for it, a lot of people have nowhere to go,' Crane told KNWA/FOX24.
Police calls to 19th Street encampment increase more than sevenfold in 2025
Police data from University of Arkansas and Fayetteville authorities show a sharp rise in incidents around the 19th Street unhoused encampment.
Since Feb. 2024, Fayetteville Police have responded nearly 60 times to the area, with most calls in the past six months. University police reported an even steeper increase, calls for service jumped from 86 to 642 in a recent three-month period, alongside spikes in criminal charges.
A recent attempted murder case also originated from the camp. A few residents of the camp area told a KNWA/FOX24 reporter they felt unsafe, especially at night.
of Fayetteville's housing crisis.
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
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Travel Ban Reinstated By Trump With Mostly Muslim Countries
President Donald J. Trump, citing national security concerns, has reinstated and expanded the controversial nationality-based travel ban first introduced during his initial term. The new ban, formalized in a Presidential Proclamation that came into effect on Monday, June 9, 2025, suspends the entry of nationals from 19 countries, primarily targeting Muslim-majority and African nations. The proclamation fully suspends immigrant and nonimmigrant visa issuance to nationals of 12 countries: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It imposes partial restrictions on B-1/B-2 tourist visas and F, M, and J student and exchange visas for nationals of Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Exceptions apply to green card holders, dual nationals, certain special immigrant visa holders, athletes in international competitions, and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The administration relies on a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of noncitizens deemed 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' That authority was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), which ruled 5-4 that President Trump's third version of the travel ban was constitutional, emphasizing executive deference on immigration and national security. But critics argue that this expanded ban perpetuates discriminatory intent, noting the disproportionate impact on Muslim and African nations and the invocation of Trump's 2024 campaign pledge to 'restore the travel ban and keep radical Islamic terrorists out.' Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, predicts court challenges but warns that they may fail under the current precedent. 'Even if this expansion is legal, it is not good policy,' he said. 'Families will be separated, and we are not necessarily safer.' The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called the order 'ideologically motivated,' 'unnecessary,' and 'overbroad,' criticizing its chilling effect on lawful travel, academic exchange, and humanitarian reunification. Legal scholars have started to question the constitutionality of this policy. More specifically, they contend that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from denying equal legal protection, while the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids favouring or disfavoring any religion. Critics argue that Trump's policy, which targets specific nations commonly associated with certain religions, risks violating both clauses by enabling discrimination based on nationality and faith. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national origin quotas to prevent such bias. By reinstating restrictions linked to religious or national identity, opponents claim the policy mirrors discriminatory practices that the law aimed to eliminate. Jeremy Robbins, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council, noted: 'Blanket nationality bans have never demonstrated any meaningful national security value. This ban hurts our economy and punishes immigrants who qualify to come legally.' According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) 'In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute.' Nationals from the banned countries represent more than 475 million people globally. Beyond family separations, the ban may deter students, scientists, and health professionals at a time when the U.S. is experiencing labor shortages in STEM and healthcare. Universities like Harvard have expressed alarm at the targeting of international students, as the administration simultaneously suspended new visas for foreign scholars at select institutions, further stoking fears of ideological purges in academia. The 2025 travel ban echoes policies from Trump's first term and extends their scope. The first 'Muslim ban' of 2017 was repeatedly struck down until a more narrowly tailored version survived judicial review. Today's ban, while more procedurally refined, raises the same fundamental concern: are Americans safer by denying entry based on birthplace? Lyndon B. Johnson's signing of the 1965 INA famously stated that 'the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system' would never return. Critics now argue that President Trump has revived that very shadow, using presidential proclamations instead of legislative quotas. 'This is not national security—it's national scapegoating,' said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. 'It undermines constitutional values and stigmatizes entire populations for political gain.' The legality of the 2025 travel ban reinstated as it is may pass muster under Trump v. Hawaii, but its morality, logic, and long-term consequences remain in question. As lawsuits mount and civil rights groups prepare their defences, the nation must decide: do we protect ourselves by shutting doors or by standing firm in our values of openness, equality, and due process?
The Verge
24 minutes ago
- The Verge
YouTube has loosened its content moderation policies
YouTube has relaxed its moderation policies and is now instructing reviewers not to remove content that might violate its rules if they're in the 'public interest,' according to a report from The New York Times. The platform reportedly adjusted its policies internally in December, offering examples that included medical misinformation and hate speech. In training material viewed by the Times, YouTube says reviewers should now leave up videos in the public interest — which includes discussions of elections, ideologies, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, censorship — if no more than half of their content breaks its rules, up from one quarter. The platform said in the material that the move expands on a change made before the 2024 US election, which allows content from political candidates to stay up even if they violate its community guidelines. Additionally, the platform told moderators that they should remove content if 'freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk,' and take borderline videos to a manager instead of removing them, the Times reports. 'Recognizing that the definition of 'public interest' is always evolving, we update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion we see on the platform today,' YouTube spokesperson Nicole Bell said in a statement to the Times. 'Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube while mitigating egregious harm.' YouTube didn't immediately respond to The Verge 's request for comment. YouTube tightened its policies against misinformation during Donald Trump's first term as US president and the covid pandemic, as it began removing videos containing false information about covid vaccines and US elections. The platform stepped back from removing election fraud lies in 2023, but this recent change goes a step further and reflects a broader trend of online platforms taking a more lax approach to moderation followingTrump's reelection. Earlier this year, Meta similarly changed its policies surrounding hate speech and ended third-party fact-checking in favor of X-style community notes. The changes follow years of attacks on tech companies from Trump, and Google in particular is in a vulnerable legal situation, facing two Department of Justice antitrust lawsuits that could see its Chrome browser and other services broken off. Trump has previously taken credit for Meta's moderation changes. As noted by the Times, YouTube showed reviewers real examples of how it has implemented the new policy. One video contained coverage of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s covid vaccine policy changes — under the title 'RFK Jr. Delivers SLEDGEHAMMER Blows to Gene-Altering JABS' — and was allowed to violate policies surrounding medical misinformation because public interest 'outweighs the harm risk,' according to the Times. (The video has since been taken off the platform, but the Times says the reasoning behind this is 'unclear.') Another example was a 43-minute video about Trump's cabinet appointees that violated YouTube's harassment rules with a slur targeting a transgender person, but was left up because it had only a single violation, the Times reports. YouTube also reportedly told reviewers to leave up a video from South Korea that mentioned putting former president Yoon Suk Yeol in a guillotine, saying that the 'wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.'
Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Gives U.S. Negotiators Room to Lift Export Controls on China
Ahead of U.S.-China talks in London, President Trump authorized Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's team to negotiate away recent restrictions on the sale of a wide variety of technology and other products to China, according to people familiar with the matter. It's a novel strategy, underscoring the impact of China's rare-earth controls on U.S. industries. 'Historically, export controls have never been used as leverage for trade negotiations,' said Kevin Wolf, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld who specializes in international trade. 'There is no precedent for this.'
