Latest news with #Alter
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Austin City Council votes to fund columns for 3 park decks, 2 ped bridges over I-35
Following weeks of rare infighting fueled by a major budget crunch, the Austin City Council on Thursday approved $104 million to pay for columns to support three large decks and two pedestrian bridges over parts of Interstate 35 near downtown. While the 8-2 decision, with one abstention, was limited to funding for the support structures, it also served as a de-facto vote on the scope of the city's long-planned effort to physically reunite historically segregated East Austin with the heart of the city by covering a soon-to-be lowered I-35 with parks, walkways and other amenities. That's because the Texas Department of Transportation needs to know by months' end how many decks and bridges to account for as it prepares to lower and expand I-35 through Central Austin. As previously envisioned, the project included six park decks and two pedestrian bridges. The plan approved Thursday accounts for three caps, from Cesar Chavez to Fourth streets; Fourth to Seventh streets; and 11th to 12th streets, as well as two 300-foot pedestrian bridges, or "stitches," near 41st Street along the Red Line train path. The downsizing was the result of a major compromise. Ahead of the vote, the 11-member council was nearly evenly split on how many caps and stitches it should build. One camp had pushed for funding only two decks, citing the city's worsening financial outlook, while another camp had pushed for at least four. Council Member Ryan Alter was in the latter group but voted in favor of the slightly downsized plan. "What we ultimately approved is a significant investment and opportunity in not only bridging east and west, but creating meaningful spaces for people to come and enjoy," Alter said in an interview after the vote. Council Member Paige Ellis voted in favor, too, but only after her motion to pay for support structures for two caps and two stitches failed 5-6. 'This may feel like an episode of Family Feud, but we're all really fighting for the same green future,' she said. The two 'no' votes came from Council Members Marc Duchen and Krista Laine. Council Member Mike Siegel abstained. All cited concerns with the cost of the project. "The city of Austin is holding all of the financial risk of cost overruns when we all know they are coming," Laine said. "It's wild." The city is facing a $33 million budget deficit and also expecting to lose a $105 million federal grant that would have paid for one of the caps. The total project cost, accounting for the reduced number of caps, was not immediately available Thursday. With all six caps and both stitches, the estimated price tag had been $1.4 billion. The sentiments expressed during the public comment period mirrored the split on council. Many residents and groups said they wanted columns for some or all of the caps funded, saying it was an investment for future generations of Austinites. "This is one of those 'yes and' moments," said Jim Walker of the Cherrywood Neighborhood Association. "You're going to have to address the urgent needs and meet these big, multigenerational moments when they arise. They don't come very often." But others weren't so sure. Several local advocacy groups and residents opposed the plan, saying that money was needed for other more immediate needs like affordable housing, similar to the concerns of the dissenting council members. "This is not the time to put a down payment on a project that the people of Austin cannot afford," Barbara McArthur, a district 7 resident, said during public comment at Thursday's meeting. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Austin council votes to fund columns for 3 decks, 2 bridges over I-35
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Parks over I-35: In final push, some Austin city council members pitch new $143M plan
AUSTIN (KXAN) — The day before Austin City Council is set to vote on how much money it will commit to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for the roadway elements of future covers over TxDOT's I-35 expansion project, some council members are putting forward a new plan. As of Wednesday, there are two sub quorums of five city council members — each with different ideas on how to proceed. The council is made up of 10 members, meaning the vote is split right down the middle. That leaves the tiebreaker to Austin Mayor Kirk Watson. One group — Council Members Ryan Alter, Chito Vela, Jose Velasquez, Zo Qadri and Natasha Harper-Madison — want the city to invest in roadway elements for as many highway covers, known as caps and stitches, as possible. The other group — Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes, Council Members Krista Laine, Marc Duchen, Mike Siegel and Paige Ellis — are willing to go only as far as city staff's latest proposal, a paired down plan that commits funding to the early construction elements of two downtown caps. The mayor announced Tuesday he will vote with this group. Parks over I-35: Mayor to vote for more conservative plan amid council split That latter sub quorum posted on the message board earlier this week and said in-part: 'We understand that the staff recommendation for Thursday's decision will require a $49M commitment. Given our overall debt capacity of $750M, Council can commit this sum towards building the support structures for two important caps and still have $701M remaining for the 2026 Comprehensive Bond package to address our community's wide range of needs – from parks to housing to mobility to libraries to climate resilience – or caps. This is a balance we can support.' You can read more about each stance in my coverage from Tuesday. Wednesday afternoon, that first group put forward a new proposal they hope will sway council members from that second more conservative group. 'And that compromise is to do the roadway elements for the downtown caps — that's Cesar Chavez to 4th, 4th-7th and 11th-12th as well as one northern cap,' Alter said. The divide between these sub quorums isn't necessarily the desire to have caps — but concern about the city being on the hook for paying for them and what spending money on this venture might take away from other city services. 'Yes, and approach': Council members combing through alternate funding options for I-35 covers 'My sub quorum said let's be realistic about our limited dollars and create a plan that we know we can fund that when we promise to build something we can deliver it,' Austin City Council Member Paige Ellis said Tuesday (before the new proposal came out). The new proposal includes new funding methods that don't take away from the city's borrowing capacity, Alter said. The funding proposal boils down to this: Pay for the roadway elements for the Cesar Chavez to 4th Street cap ($40M) by asking Austin voters to approve a car rental tax for this purpose Fund the roadway elements for the 4th-7th Street cap ($29M) and the 11th-12th Street cap ($9M) using a state loan the city has already been awarded for this project And finally, the sub quorum proposed the city pays for a northern cap ($65M) using right-of-way fees and through a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Altogether, that proposal shakes out to $143 million. The new proposal also 'directs staff to generate a funding plan for the roadway elements and future caps that can incorporate the sources we have offered here or come up with additional ideas, but which does not rely on any additional debt that limits the City's ability to issue GO debt, beyond the $49 million amount we all seem to agree on,' the sub quorum wrote. 'I would just highlight that what we're trying to do here is preserve future options and do it with the least amount of debt possible,' Alter said. KXAN has reached out to the members of the other sub quorum as they look through those new details. We will update this story when they issue a response. A spokesperson for the city of Austin said staff couldn't immediately comment but would be at the city council meeting Thursday to answer council questions on any of the proposals put forward. You can read the latest full proposal here. Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, and Representatives John Bucy, Sheryl Cole, Lulu Flores, Vikki Goodwin, Gina Hinojosa, Donna Howard and James Talarico sent a letter to Austin leaders making this decision Thursday. Austin staff recommend reduced number of 'caps' over I-35 expansion project 'We urge you to prioritize this project and to secure the necessary funding and support from local, state, and federal stakeholders. By pushing for State financial support and exploring additional funding streams in place of the General Fund, we can ensure adequate financial backing without a significant impact to Austin's other priorities. As a result of this investment, the I-35 Cap and Stitch will create lasting positive change for generations to come. We are eager to see it move forward and assist in whatever ways we can,' the letter said in-part. 'We all care about these values. What the city is working through right now is how much money we can spend on a State project and what we should use on city projects. I appreciate any assistance from our local delegation to help secure funding to mitigate adverse impacts for I-35 when we have little control over the schematics. I know they are working hard for our constituents right now at the Capitol,' Ellis responded. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Anonymous Democrats confess to Time Magazine their party is too extreme on abortion, trans athletes
Some Democrats admitted in a new article on the party's struggles that they had gone too far to the left on significant social issues like abortion and transgender athletes, although the writer wryly noted they were afraid to identify themselves for fear of angering progressives. In a Time Magazine profile on Democrats facing the political wilderness at the dawn of the second Trump administration, some party members acknowledged left-wing purity tests were hampering their ability to win, such as on transgender females participating in girls' sports. "There are some sports where trans girls shouldn't be playing against biological girls," one Democratic lawmaker anonymously told Time's Charlotte Alter. He said most of his fellow Democrats agreed but claimed they were "afraid of the blowback that comes from a very small community." The same goes for abortion, Alter wrote, saying some Democrats want a retreat from a totally "enthusiastic embrace" through the third trimester. Mark Penn: The Only Thing That Will Save Democrats In The Age Of Trump "Refusing to say that even in the third trimester there's no limits on it, it's not where the average American is," another anonymous Democratic lawmaker told Time. "The really embarrassing truth is Donald Trump is closer to the median voting on abortion than Democrats were." Read On The Fox News App It didn't escape Alter's attention that those Democrats were scared to go on the record about social issues that inflame activist passions. "[T]he fact these lawmakers would only share these thoughts without their names attached shows how much Democrats still fear antagonizing their liberal base," she wrote. Abortion was an issue that helped power Democrats to a better-than-expected showing in 2022 because of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, but Alter said the sugar high of that midterm showing may have created "dangerous complacency" going into 2024, when Donald Trump and the Republicans took full control of Washington. Alter took a slightly disgusted tone with Democrats she interviewed for the piece about how they could claw their way back to power. Van Jones Says Democrats Need To Apologize To The American People If They Want To Win Midterms "Many of these conversations made my head hurt," she wrote. "Democrats kept presenting clichés as insights and old ideas as new ideas. Everybody said the same things; nobody seemed to be really saying anything at all." There could be an opportunity there for a party that's hit "rock bottom," she added, noting the party seems to be recognizing the importance of electoral victory and not sidelining popular figures in the party like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. "Most in the party recognize this is a crisis moment," she wrote. "But every crisis is also an opportunity—a chance to rethink policies, reframe messaging, and recruit new leaders who can meet the moment. The last time Democrats were this deep in the wilderness was in 2005, when few outside the DNC had heard of Barack Obama."Original article source: Anonymous Democrats confess to Time Magazine their party is too extreme on abortion, trans athletes
The Guardian
04-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Historians alarmed as Trump seeks to rewrite US story for 250th anniversary
Donald Trump, it could be said, takes a breezy, Sam Cooke style approach to history. Like the legendary 'king of soul' in his 1960 hit Wonderful World, the US president has admitted to not knowing much about historical events or figures of the past – even when faced with authorities on the subject. Recalling a conversation at Mar-a-Lago shortly after Trump's 2016 election victory, the American historian Douglas Brinkley recently recounted his shock when Trump – who has mused about having his name carved on Mount Rushmore alongside the nation's most celebrated presidents – told him he had never read a book about Abraham Lincoln. 'He was thinking about what he would do for his inaugural address, and he said he knew nothing about past history,' Brinkley told a webinar organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'It startled me, because when you talk to politicians, they even make up books. They pretend they read a lot. He just kind of shrugged it off and told me that he was a visual guy. That translated as his sense of history in a true sense began with John F Kennedy.' Ignorance, however, appears to be no barrier as Trump seeks to grasp control of the US's historical narrative in the run-up to next year's landmark celebration of the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, also known as the semiquincentennial. Under an executive order issued in January, the president has started to churn out his own approved version of US history that professional historians fear will resort to the tried and tested authoritarian playbook of airbrushing out inconvenient and inglorious chapters that do not align with his vision of American greatness. 'He is not now and never has been a student of history, but is basically a restorationist,' said Jonathan Alter, a historian and biographer of several US presidents, including Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt. Alter described a 'restorationist' as a 'political figure who operates on the politics of nostalgia'. 'He's ignorant of economic history, he's ignorant of political history. And his idea for the 250 is to use it as a way to celebrate him,' Alter added. 'We don't know yet exactly how he'll hijack that event next year, but he will certainly try to do so.' As a first step, Trump's order established himself chair of a White House taskforce 250 and vowed a 'grand celebration' to mark the country's 250th birthday on 4 July 2026 and 'other actions to honor the history of our great nation'. One of those was under way last month when the first of a series of short videos, entitled 'The Story of America', was posted on the White House 250 website. The videos were produced in partnership with Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian institution in Michigan. In the opening video, the college's president, Larry Arnn – a former research director for Winston's Churchill official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert – drew similarities between Lincoln and Trump, citing the current president's signature slogan 'Make America Great Again'. 'He has a famous slogan that I will not repeat here, but everybody knows what it is, and it ends with the word again,' said Arnn, who did not respond to the Guardian's interview request. 'He wants to do something again, something that's already been done … And it places him somewhere near the politics of Abraham Lincoln.' In another, perhaps unintended, parallel, Arnn, describing the text of the independence document, recounts how the founding fathers justified the declaration by asserting that King George III 'violated his rightful powers by invading the authority of the legislature, which indicates separation of powers would be right, and that he has interfered with representation, our ability to elect our government, which means consent of the governed … and … interfered with the judicial branch'. The videos are being rolled out weeks after Trump, in another executive order, called for a radical makeover in how the country's past is presented in federally funded museums such as the Smithsonian, and national parks. The administration has also unveiled plans for a national garden of American heroes, with the National Endowment for the Humanities offering partial funding for life-size sculptures of 250 notable figures from the country's past. Yet with critics accusing the president of defying court orders, usurping powers normally reserved for Congress and of behaving like a despot, Arnn's narrative inadvertently exposes the political risks to Trump of trying to identify himself with America's revolutionary founders. The problem for Trump, argued Johann Neem, a professor of US history at Western Washington University, is that the revolution was a rebellion 'against tyranny and arbitrary power' of the type that he is now trying to wield. 'Any continuity between the actual political meaning of the revolution and what Trump is doing to our constitution is false,' he said. 'Anybody who teaches about the American revolution knows that the thing the founders feared the most is someone like Donald Trump – someone who would be lawless and and have arbitrary power, that's not limited by the rule of law.' Trump's bid to annex the historical narrative is part of a wider culture war, historians said, fueled in part by leftwing discourses on the central position of race in the national story. Those views were exemplified by the New York Times's 1619 Project, which takes a critical view of some of the most revered figures in the American revolution and their attitudes to slavery. The Pulitzer-winning project drew a splenetic response from Trump, who attacked it as 'totally discredited' and typical of a leftwing critique that 'defiled the American story with deceptions, falsehoods and lies' at a White House history event in 2020. 'This project rewrites American history to teach our children that we were founded on the principle of oppression, not freedom,' he told the event. In response, he commissioned a 1776 report – released in the final days of his first term – which drew up plans for a 'patriotic education' that would refute teachings on issues like systemic racism and critical race theory. Critics accused the report of distorting the country's history of racism and painting a misleadingly benign picture of some of the revolution's slave-owning founding fathers and misappropriating quotes from Martin Luther King. Neem called Trump's perspective a 'hyper-nationalist overreaction' to what he called 'a post-American approach' adopted by some left-leaning historians who depicted racism as so central to the country's founding principle, that it left ordinary citizens feeling there was little to celebrate. The results, he warned could be a 'saccharine' and simplified version of America's often complex national story that would amount to 'an abuse of history' and serve an 'autocratic playbook.' 'He is speaking for a group of intellectuals and activists that truly believe progressives have corrupted American culture and have stolen their country,' Neem said. 'The critical turn in American history is just one piece of a larger problem and and they see historians, as well as other experts, as a kind of impurity.' Some historians are fighting back against Trump's encroachment onto their territory. Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College and a specialist in the US in the 19th century, is producing a series of 90-second videos called Journey to American Democracy she hopes will eventually be watched in school classrooms. She predicted that Trump's efforts to control history through the taskforce 250 was doomed to fail, because other historians were seeking to project 'grassroots history' to a wider audience online. 'We are looking at the different ways in which our always multicultural society constructed a nation, and that is a story of extraordinary triumph, but also of missteps and tragedy,' said Cox Richardson. 'The idea that we had a perfect past that needs to be recovered is an ideology in service to an authoritarian, strongman, and one of the things you see with the rise of a strongman is the attempt to destroy real history.' 'But if you look around the United States now, you see that the ability to affect culture is slipping away from the president's hands. The more he talks about it being this sanitized work of a few ideologically pure white leaders in the past, the more other people will speak up and say, 'Well, no, not really.''
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
LiveRamp Holdings (NYSE:RAMP) Might Have The Makings Of A Multi-Bagger
If we want to find a potential multi-bagger, often there are underlying trends that can provide clues. Firstly, we'd want to identify a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and then alongside that, an ever-increasing base of capital employed. Put simply, these types of businesses are compounding machines, meaning they are continually reinvesting their earnings at ever-higher rates of return. So on that note, LiveRamp Holdings (NYSE:RAMP) looks quite promising in regards to its trends of return on capital. The end of cancer? These 15 emerging AI stocks are developing tech that will allow early identification of life changing diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. For those that aren't sure what ROCE is, it measures the amount of pre-tax profits a company can generate from the capital employed in its business. The formula for this calculation on LiveRamp Holdings is: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.0076 = US$7.8m ÷ (US$1.3b - US$232m) (Based on the trailing twelve months to December 2024). Thus, LiveRamp Holdings has an ROCE of 0.8%. In absolute terms, that's a low return and it also under-performs the Software industry average of 9.2%. View our latest analysis for LiveRamp Holdings Above you can see how the current ROCE for LiveRamp Holdings compares to its prior returns on capital, but there's only so much you can tell from the past. If you're interested, you can view the analysts predictions in our free analyst report for LiveRamp Holdings . Shareholders will be relieved that LiveRamp Holdings has broken into profitability. The company was generating losses five years ago, but has managed to turn it around and as we saw earlier is now earning 0.8%, which is always encouraging. While returns have increased, the amount of capital employed by LiveRamp Holdings has remained flat over the period. So while we're happy that the business is more efficient, just keep in mind that could mean that going forward the business is lacking areas to invest internally for growth. So if you're looking for high growth, you'll want to see a business's capital employed also increasing. As discussed above, LiveRamp Holdings appears to be getting more proficient at generating returns since capital employed has remained flat but earnings (before interest and tax) are up. Astute investors may have an opportunity here because the stock has declined 18% in the last five years. With that in mind, we believe the promising trends warrant this stock for further investigation. If you want to continue researching LiveRamp Holdings, you might be interested to know about the 1 warning sign that our analysis has discovered. While LiveRamp Holdings may not currently earn the highest returns, we've compiled a list of companies that currently earn more than 25% return on equity. Check out this free list here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Sign in to access your portfolio
