Latest news with #RondaChurchill
Yahoo
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
We can't arrest our way out of homelessness
(Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) Punishing people for being poor doesn't make them less poor. And jailing someone who's homeless doesn't make them housed. But that's exactly what President Trump's new executive order does: it makes criminals out of people trying to survive our nation's housing crisis. Only affordable housing and accessible healthcare will get people off the streets so they can live a stable life. Instead, Trump's order calls for local and state governments to ticket and arrest people for living on our streets. These policies waste taxpayer dollars just to make our homelessness crisis worse. If you need a preview of how Trump's disastrous order will play out, just look at my home state of Kentucky. In April 2024, the Kentucky legislature passed HB 5 — the bill that paved the way for Kentucky to ticket and arrest people trying to survive outside. These laws, labeled 'camping bans,' are popping up across the country. They're rooted in the myth that people choose to be homeless — and the only way to help is through jail or involuntary commitment. Not only is this cruel and inhumane. It also doesn't work. In Louisville earlier this year, a pregnant woman in active labor was ticketed by police because she had no choice but to sleep outside. Law enforcement did not offer her help, Fortunately, she was able to deliver a healthy baby. But she's still housing insecure — and now burdened with a citation too. Her story proves that making criminals out of people who have nowhere to go doesn't reduce suffering — it makes it worse. So it's not surprising that even with this new law in place, there was still an over 10 percent rise in homelessness in Kentucky just last year. Similarly, national rates continue to increase even as more cities and states pass 'camping bans.' I'm the director at VOCAL-KY, a movement of low-income people. I've gotten to know the folks living in Louisville's shelters and on the streets. It's not hard for me to relate. When I lost my housing, my family and I lived out of my car until we could get back on our feet. We work day in and day out to support our neighbors who live outside by providing a safe space and connection to services. And the pregnant woman, Samantha, who was cited while in active labor, is now a part of our drop-in center community. This is what compassion looks like — not citations that put struggling people further in debt or behind bars. People living on our streets and in our shelters want services and housing, but there isn't enough to go around. With this executive order, the Trump administration is diverting even more money toward arresting and jailing people — and away from the housing and care that urban, rural, and suburban America all need. Instead of distractions and dictatorial decrees rooted in stereotypes and stigma, we need real leadership on real solutions to homelessness, like higher wages and rents people can afford. The reality is most Americans are closer to becoming homeless than becoming billionaires. But instead of investing in solutions, Trump and the GOP gave massive tax breaks to the ultra rich — including to some of the same people and companies who make billions off driving up rents — while cutting programs for low-income people. In all likelihood, next year we'll see another record number of Americans in homelessness. We need federal lawmakers to sign onto the Housing, Not Handcuffs Act and invest in communities by directing federal funds to support local solutions that address the root causes of homelessness, not just force people into jail or detention centers dressed up as treatment. Trump's plan to arrest our way out of homelessness won't work, because it's never worked. Only housing, care, and services will help people get back on their feet, and we need our policies and politicians to act on those solutions now more than ever.
Newsweek
10-07-2025
- Climate
- Newsweek
Millions of Americans Advised to Stay Indoors in 4 States
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of Americans have been advised to stay indoors across four states on Thursday amid soaring summer temperatures. The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued heat-related alerts in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon, warning of "dangerously hot conditions" in parts. Temperatures are forecast to reach as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of California. A heat warning sign in the Death Valley National Park, California, in 2023. A heat warning sign in the Death Valley National Park, California, in 2023. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images Why It Matters Extreme heat can lead to heat-related illnesses, especially in older adults, young children and those with chronic medical conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Symptoms may include heavy sweating, muscle cramps, dizziness and nausea. The CDC said more than 700 people die each year in the U.S. because of extreme heat. Additionally, rising temperatures can worsen ground-level ozone pollution, which presents additional health risks. What To Know The NWS issued extreme heat warnings for southeast California and southwest Arizona on Thursday. These warnings mean "extremely dangerous heat conditions are expected or occurring." Temperatures up to 120 degrees are forecast in the Coachella Valley, San Diego County deserts, and San Gorgonio Pass near Banning, the NWS said. "Drink plenty of fluids, stay in an air-conditioned room, stay out of the sun, and check up on relatives and neighbors," the service advised. In Arizona, the NWS said afternoon temperatures could soar to 116 degrees in central La Paz County, Parker Valley, Kofa, Yuma, southeast Yuma County, and the Gila River Valley. In New Mexico, a less severe heat advisory is in place for the Middle Rio Grande Valley including the Albuquerque metropolitan area, the west Central Highlands, and the Northwest Plateau. Temperatures between 100 and 104 are expected in these areas, the NWS said. An extreme heat watch is also in effect for southwest Oregon and northwest California. This is issued when dangerous heat is possible. What People Are Saying The NWS forecast office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Wednesday: "Dangerous heat will still impact many lower elevation locations on Thursday, especially within northwestern and central New Mexico where a heat advisory is in effect from 12pm to 7pm." The NWS office in Eureka, California, wrote on X, Tuesday: "Hotter weather is forecast to return on Thursday and Friday. Interior heat risk is forecast to increase during the weekend and persist into early next week." What Happens Next The extreme heat warnings are currently in force until 8 p.m. on Thursday. New Mexico's heat advisory is in force until 7 p.m. Regular forecast updates are issued by the NWS on its website.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NV Energy asking to raise rates by more than twice as much as needed, say experts
(Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) The Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection says NV Energy requires less than half of the $224 million rate hike it's asking the Public Utilities Commission to approve for Southern Nevada customers, and criticized the utility for attempting to charge ratepayers for lavish spending on lodging and limos for company gatherings. The 9% proposed rate hike is expected to cost the average customer an additional $15 to $20 a month. An expert witness testifying on behalf of the BCP, Mark Garrett, says NV Energy, based on a formula used to determine its revenue requirement, needs a rate hike of $106 million to provide service to its customers in the south. The utility is asking the PUC to include in the rate hike the cost of constructing Greenlink, a massive transmission line project, while it is still under construction and not benefitting ratepayers. Greenlink's cost has ballooned from just under $2.5 billion to more than $4.2 billion, and could increase even more, depending on the outcome of President Donald Trump's trade wars with Mexico and Canada. The increase related to Greenlink alone would hike rates by $60.6 million, or about $3.60 a month, for a little more than two years. The company argues that including the cost of construction while in progress, which is usually not permitted because it requires customers to pay for a service not yet provided, will generate cash flow, and help maintain credit ratings. In 2021, NV Energy's then-CEO Doug Cannon told state lawmakers that 'Nevadans will not be asked to pay for this investment until at least five to six years down the road.' Cannon left the company last month, following the revelation that the utility overcharged some 80,000 customers, some going back as far as 20 years. 'The company is faced with meeting the demands of growth, addressing system reliability, resource adequacy, legislative goals and mandates, and operational needs as it relates to sufficient levels of staffing, technology, and insurance – all of which necessitates investments above those currently reflected in the existing revenue requirement,' NV Energy vice president and chief financial officer Mike Behrens said in testimony submitted to the PUC, justifying the utility's rate requests. Behrens testified that including the costs of constructing Greenlink, while work is in progress, would help avoid a bond rating downgrade and higher interest rates on future debt. Garrett, on behalf of the BCP, recommended the cost of constructing Greenlink not be included in the upcoming rate case. 'The company has not demonstrated a financial need,' Garrett countered, and said the claim that charging customers now for constructing the project would save money 'is inaccurate.' While including the cost of construction in progress in the base rate would save the company $35 million in interest, it would cost customers $52.7 million in higher rates, and 'makes no economic sense for ratepayers,' Garrett testified. NV Energy is also seeking to recoup $16.4 million in affiliate expenses incurred by the company or its affiliates, such as Berkshire Hathaway Energy, its holding company. Among the expenses is an invoice for just under $1.3 million for Red Rock Resort, including $14,940 for incidentals, $152,156 for 'guest room attrition,' $575,068 for banquet food and beverages, $17,140 for internet, $78,482 for audio/visual services, and $3,248 for luggage porters. Nichole Loar of the BCP recommended the PUC disallow all $16.4 million in affiliate expenses – including: Chauffeured transportation services; Washington, D.C. office building and related labor; 'Excessive lodging charges' at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, D.C. and the J.W. Marriott in Phoenix; Lobbying expenses; Outside counsel; Corporate airfare; Alcoholic beverages; Entertainment; and Charitable donations 'The utility needs to be reminded they operate with a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (given by the PUC), which is a privilege to serve as a monopolistic entity, not a right,' Loar testified. 'The recent proposed increases are placing vulnerable demographics at a heightened risk for heat-related illnesses, such as heatstroke,' Las Vegan Angel DeFazio of the National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation said in a news release following a consumer input session last week on the proposed increase. She noted that seniors and others on fixed incomes are challenged to cover essential expenses, such as food and medicine, and pay for energy, especially during the summer months when bills skyrocket. The PUC is expected to hold hearings on the proposed rate hike in September. If approved, rates would increase on Oct. 1.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Housing vouchers, already scarce, would be even harder to get under Trump's budget bill
An estimated 15,300 people in Nevada rely on housing choice vouchers, formerly known as section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance subsidies provided for low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities. (Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) More than 15,000 households in Nevada rely on federal funded housing vouchers with thousands more waiting years to access vital rental assistance. Representatives from the local housing authorities worry many would be locked out of vouchers and other assistance under President Donald Trump's proposed budget, which calls for billions of dollars in cuts to housing programs. 'Based on our current average monthly subsidy in our Housing Choice Voucher Program, we've estimated that for every million-dollar reduction in housing assistance, it would be approximately 93 fewer households that we would be able to serve,' said Dr. Hilary Lopez, the executive director for the Reno Housing Authority. An estimated 15,300 people in Nevada rely on housing choice vouchers, formerly known as section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance subsidies provided for low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number doesn't include other types of specialized vouchers, such as emergency solutions housing vouchers designed to pay rent for people and families at risk or experiencing homelessness. Another 2,500 people live in public housing throughout the state according to the data from the CBPP. Trump's budget requests, which have been formed into the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' were passed overwhelmingly by House Republicans in late May and are currently being debated in the Senate. The proposal, which aims to slash Medicaid and food assistance programs, would reduce the Department of Housing and Urban Development's budget by more than 40% amid a national housing and homeless crisis. The cuts to homeless assistance dollars include a $27 billion reduction in funding to the State Rental Assistance Block Grant, which funds housing vouchers. The recommendations released by the White House in May said the proposed cuts 'would encourage States to provide funding to share in the responsibility to ensure that similar levels of recipients can benefit from the block grant.' If these proposed cuts are approved it 'would be staggering in both scale and impact,' Renee Willis, the president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said in a press call last week. 'Rather than preserving and strengthening the federal rental assistance program that serves as a lifeline for these communities, the budget proposed consolidating HUD's five largest rental assistance programs into a single state-run block grant,' Willis said. 'It also imposed a two-year time limit on assistance.' She added that the budget proposal is not only 'misguided but fundamentally unjust' but that it 'abdicates the government's responsibility to address poverty and housing stability.' While the full scope of these cuts, or the state and local impact of reductions, has yet to be determined, social service providers and local governments fear any cuts to HUD funding would reduce Nevada's already fragile social safety net to tatters. The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority declined to answer questions about the proposed budget cuts as well as how it currently used federal funding dollars. 'While federal funding changes are uncertain at this time, we remain laser focused on our mission to provide safe, sanitary and affordable housing to eligible residents within our jurisdictions – housing that will provide an environment that fosters independence, self-sufficiency and community pride,' Lewis Jordan, executive director of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority said in a statement. Bill Brewer, the executive director for the Nevada Rural Housing Authority, said he is still waiting to see what the final budget will look like. Any amount would mean less people in rural areas being served. 'Worst case scenario, if we took a 40% cut to our vouchers, then we would be looking at cutting about 500 households off of assistance out of our approximately 1,275 voucher holders,' he said. 'If it was just 12% or 10%, then we're still looking at losing 120 to 130 households' The Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority currently oversees the lion's share of housing assistance, around 12,000 vouchers for low income residents. Reno Housing Authority, which provides assistance throughout Washoe County, allocated around 2,094 housing choice vouchers last year. Nevada Rural Housing Authority oversaw about 1,100 vouchers, not including specialized housing assistance. Reno Housing Authority relies on two main federal funding sources: $32 million from the federal government to provide housing vouchers along with $3 million to administer public housing. 'It does fluctuate on an annual basis and really depends upon federal appropriations,' Lopez said. Of the more than 2,000 households – roughly 3,600 people – that rely on housing choice vouchers in the Reno area, Lopez said close to three-quarters of clients who receive housing choice vouchers are seniors or disabled households. The breakdown is similar for the 600 households living in a public housing unit. Average income for those relying on housing vouchers is roughly $18,000, according to the authority's 2025 annual report. Nevada's housing shortage and skyrocketing rent prices have made it difficult for the authority to meet the demand for services, Lopez said. 'Over the last several years, we've seen those rents consistently rise,' Lopez said. 'What that means is that the average rental subsidy that we're providing has also been increasing over time and that also impacts the number of clients that we can assist.' The rural authority gets about $12 million for its housing choice vouchers, which funds its 1,077 vouchers throughout the rural areas. Additionally it received last year $786,340 for Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Vouchers, which provides assistance for 76 veterans experiencing homelessness. Similar to the Reno authority, Brewer said roughly two-thirds of housing voucher recipients are elderly or disabled. 'They're not the kind of folks that can go out and get a job and take care of themselves,' he said. 'They're already living on Social Security or supplemental Social Security, and they simply can't afford a $1,500 a month rent payment. That's all the money they get in most cases.' Demand for housing assistance is growing. Reno's authority has about 4,000 people waiting to apply for housing vouchers while the rural authorities have 2,248 applicants waiting. 'What we try to do for households on our wait list, we try to serve them within anywhere from about 18 to 36 months,' Lopez said. The waitlist in rural Nevada opened last year and 'within a week's time, we had about 5,000 applicants on there,' according to Brewer. 'We had to close the list.' 'It will take us at least two years, if not longer, to work through that list,' he added. 'I think we still have a couple thousand names on there that we will work through.' Nevadans wait an average of 38 months, more than three years, to receive housing vouchers, according to 2021 data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In addition to housing choice vouchers, communities across the country, including those in Nevada, also began receiving funding for emergency housing vouchers through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 signed by President Joe Biden. Funding for that is expected to be depleted by the end of 2026. Willis from the National Low Income Housing Coalition said Trump's current budget request doesn't provide additional funding for these emergency vouchers and could 'put more than 60,000 households at risk of losing their assistance and being pushed into homelessness.' The rural authority received $455,616 for Emergency Housing Vouchers, which support 36 people. Washoe County previously told the Current 137 people rely on emergency housing vouchers in the county. In a 'normal year,' Brewer said the rural authority would just roll people relying on emergency housing voucher holders 'onto a regular Section 8 voucher.' He doesn't know if that would be possible if the proposed cuts are passed. 'If our voucher program overall is cut, we won't have any room to bring those people on to the (housing choice) vouchers,' he said. 'They'll simply lose their support.'
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Democracy at gunpoint: Why Nevada needs Assembly Bill 105
(Photo: Ronda Churchill/Nevada Current) Imagine this: a scorching sun baking the dusty air as armed militia stand guard outside a polling station, rifles at the ready. Families lingering at the edges, wary of being turned away – or worse. The heat only intensifies the tension that crackles in the breeze, while the sight of people with guns near the voting booths imparts an unsettling sense of danger. Here's the thing: you don't have to rely on your imagination here. This scene isn't unfolding in a distant war-torn landscape; this was Phoenix, Arizona, during the 2022 midterm election, where armed Americans in tactical gear stood next to a ballot drop box. A similar scene unfolded in Las Vegas, Nevada, where two armed men paced outside of a ballot tabulation center. The presence of firearms in close proximity to voters has become a troubling reality here at home, a reality we often think only happens far from American soil. Such intimidation tactics can sow fear and deter citizens from exercising their most fundamental democratic right: the right to vote. Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui is addressing this problem in Nevada by introducing Assembly Bill 105. This legislation aims to ensure that Nevadans can cast their ballots without fear of violence or harassment. Specifically, this bill would: Prohibit the possession or presence of firearms within 100 yards of election sites, which include any polling place or central counting place. Create exceptions for law enforcement officers carrying out official duties, security personnel, firearms stored in cars, and people whose homes or businesses are within 100 yards of election sites. Establish a gross misdemeanor for individuals who violate this prohibition. Upgrade to a felony any knowing violation of the prohibition when it is done with the specific intent to disrupt, interfere with, or monitor the administration of the election, the counting of votes, or any person who is voting or attempting to vote. In 2023, Jauregui introduced similar legislation (AB 354), which passed along party lines and was subsequently sent to Gov. Joe Lombardo, who vetoed it as part of a trio of other common-sense gun laws. Assembly Bill 105 recognizes the simple truth: voting is safer when firearms are not present. In fact, many states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington – already regulate the carrying of firearms at polling places. Additionally, firearms are prohibited in courthouses and other sensitive government buildings, reinforcing the principle that certain environments necessitate stricter standards for public safety. By keeping polling places free from the intimidation factor that firearms can present, Nevadans will be able to vote with confidence, free from the looming threat of violence. After all, polling places are where Americans exercise their most powerful democratic privilege: the freedom to cast a ballot and have their voice heard. AB 105 is a measured, necessary step toward safeguarding that right for everyone.
