ReportWire

Tag: Fee

  • Stranded by winter weather? Here’s what airlines owe you

    Winter weather can upend even the best-laid travel plans, but one less thing to worry about is losing money if your flight is canceled: U.S. airlines are required to provide refunds.A major, dayslong winter storm is threatening to bring snow, sleet, ice and extensive power outages to about half the U.S. population. Thousands of weekend flights already have been canceled, and forecasters warn that catastrophic damage, especially in areas pounded by ice, could rival that of a hurricane.Here’s a guide for travelers as flight disruptions start stacking up: When airlines expect bad weather to create problems for flights, they often give travelers a chance to postpone their trips by a few days without having to pay a fee. Search online for your airline’s name and “travel alerts” or similar phrases to look for possible rescheduling offers.American Airlines, for example, said it is waiving change fees for passengers impacted by the storm, which brought freezing rain to parts of Texas on Friday. The Texas-based airline has canceled more than 1,200 flights scheduled to depart Saturday, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium.American also added extra flights to and from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport through at least Sunday — totaling more than 3,200 additional seats. Use the airline’s app to make sure your flight is still on before heading to the airport. Cancellations can happen hours or even days before departure time. If you’re already at the airport, get in line to speak to a customer service representative. If you’re still at home or at your hotel, call or go online to connect to your airline’s reservations staff. Either way, it helps to also research alternate flights while you wait to talk to an agent.Most airlines will rebook you on a later flight for no additional charge, but it depends on the availability of open seats. You can, but airlines aren’t required to put you on another carrier’s flight. Some airlines, including most of the biggest carriers, say they can put you on a partner airline, but even then, it can be a hit or miss. If your flight was canceled and you no longer want to take the trip, or you’ve found another way to get to your destination, the airline is legally required to refund your money — even if you bought a non-refundable ticket. It doesn’t matter why the flight was canceled.The airline might offer you a travel credit, but you are entitled to a full refund. You are also entitled to a refund of any bag fees, seat upgrades or other extras that you didn’t get to use. If you paid with a credit card, a refund is due within seven business days after you decline an offer from the airline for another flight or a voucher, and within 20 calendar days if you paid for the ticket with a check or cash, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. U.S. airlines aren’t required by the Transportation Department to compensate passengers for meals or lodging when an airline cancels or significantly delays a flight during an “uncontrollable” event like bad weather.Each airline, however, does have its own policies for assisting passengers who are stranded by a so-called “controllable” flight cancellation or long delay. These include disruptions caused by maintenance issues, crew shortages or computer outages that halt operations. The Transportation Department can hold airlines accountable for these commitments and maintains a website that lets travelers see what each airline promises if a major disruption is their fault. If the weather forecast is troubling, Kyle Potter, executive editor of Thrifty Traveler, suggests looking into booking a backup flight. Some airlines stand out as potential backups, Potter says, because they let customers get a full refund as long as they cancel within 24 hours of booking.The customer service phone lines will be slammed if flight cancellations and delays start stacking up during a bad storm. If you’re traveling with someone who has a higher frequent-flyer status, call the airline using their priority number. Another trick: Look up the airline’s international support number. Those agents can often rebook you just the same.

    Winter weather can upend even the best-laid travel plans, but one less thing to worry about is losing money if your flight is canceled: U.S. airlines are required to provide refunds.

    A major, dayslong winter storm is threatening to bring snow, sleet, ice and extensive power outages to about half the U.S. population. Thousands of weekend flights already have been canceled, and forecasters warn that catastrophic damage, especially in areas pounded by ice, could rival that of a hurricane.

    Here’s a guide for travelers as flight disruptions start stacking up:

    When airlines expect bad weather to create problems for flights, they often give travelers a chance to postpone their trips by a few days without having to pay a fee. Search online for your airline’s name and “travel alerts” or similar phrases to look for possible rescheduling offers.

    American Airlines, for example, said it is waiving change fees for passengers impacted by the storm, which brought freezing rain to parts of Texas on Friday. The Texas-based airline has canceled more than 1,200 flights scheduled to depart Saturday, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium.

    American also added extra flights to and from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport through at least Sunday — totaling more than 3,200 additional seats.

    Use the airline’s app to make sure your flight is still on before heading to the airport. Cancellations can happen hours or even days before departure time.

    If you’re already at the airport, get in line to speak to a customer service representative. If you’re still at home or at your hotel, call or go online to connect to your airline’s reservations staff. Either way, it helps to also research alternate flights while you wait to talk to an agent.

    Most airlines will rebook you on a later flight for no additional charge, but it depends on the availability of open seats.

    You can, but airlines aren’t required to put you on another carrier’s flight. Some airlines, including most of the biggest carriers, say they can put you on a partner airline, but even then, it can be a hit or miss.

    If your flight was canceled and you no longer want to take the trip, or you’ve found another way to get to your destination, the airline is legally required to refund your money — even if you bought a non-refundable ticket. It doesn’t matter why the flight was canceled.

    The airline might offer you a travel credit, but you are entitled to a full refund. You are also entitled to a refund of any bag fees, seat upgrades or other extras that you didn’t get to use.

    If you paid with a credit card, a refund is due within seven business days after you decline an offer from the airline for another flight or a voucher, and within 20 calendar days if you paid for the ticket with a check or cash, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    U.S. airlines aren’t required by the Transportation Department to compensate passengers for meals or lodging when an airline cancels or significantly delays a flight during an “uncontrollable” event like bad weather.

    Each airline, however, does have its own policies for assisting passengers who are stranded by a so-called “controllable” flight cancellation or long delay. These include disruptions caused by maintenance issues, crew shortages or computer outages that halt operations. The Transportation Department can hold airlines accountable for these commitments and maintains a website that lets travelers see what each airline promises if a major disruption is their fault.

    If the weather forecast is troubling, Kyle Potter, executive editor of Thrifty Traveler, suggests looking into booking a backup flight. Some airlines stand out as potential backups, Potter says, because they let customers get a full refund as long as they cancel within 24 hours of booking.

    The customer service phone lines will be slammed if flight cancellations and delays start stacking up during a bad storm. If you’re traveling with someone who has a higher frequent-flyer status, call the airline using their priority number. Another trick: Look up the airline’s international support number. Those agents can often rebook you just the same.

    Source link

  • The TSA fee for travelers without REAL ID starts soon. What to know

    A new fee for travelers without REAL ID starts soon. Here’s what to know about the changes ahead and what to do if you don’t have a REAL ID. In December, the Transportation Security Administration announced that passengers who do not present an acceptable form of ID and still want to fly will have an option to pay a $45 fee.When will the TSA start charging the $45 fee?According to the TSA, the use of TSA Confirm.ID and a $45 fee to use this identity verification will begin on Feb. 1. The fee only applies to travelers without an acceptable form of ID.Why is the TSA charging this fee, and what does it cover? According to TSA officials, the fee “ensures that non-compliant travelers, not taxpayers, cover the cost of processing travelers without acceptable IDs.” The $45 fee allows passengers without accepted ID to use TSA Confirm.ID for a 10-day travel period.What is TSA Confirm.ID and do I have to use it?TSA ConfirmID is an identity verification system that will establish passengers’ identities at security checkpoints.While using TSA ConfirmID is voluntary, TSA officials say that if you choose not to use it and don’t have an acceptable ID, you may not be allowed through security and could miss your flight.Can I pay the fee online before I travel?Yes. The TSA has a step-by-step guide to pay the $45 fee online here.If I don’t have a REAL ID or don’t pay the $45 fee ahead of time, how long will it take to get through security?According to a recent news release from the TSA, travelers without REAL IDs that use TSA ConfirmID at the airport “will be subject to additional ID verification, screening measures and potential delays.””Travelers who appear at the TSA checkpoint without a REAL ID or other acceptable form of ID and have not already paid the TSA ConfirmID fee will be subject to additional delays which may result in a missed flight,” the TSA release says. “It is important that airline travelers plan ahead to ensure they have an acceptable form of ID to avoid these additional delays as the process can take up to 30 minutes.” TSA officials urge any traveler without REAL ID or acceptable identification to pay the fee online before traveling. For passengers arriving at the airport without paying the fee in advance, there will be information about how to pay at marked locations at or near the security checkpoint in most airports. What are the acceptable uses of ID?Acceptable forms of ID include:REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)State-issued Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) or Enhanced ID (EID)U.S. passportU.S. passport cardDHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)U.S. Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependentsPermanent resident cardBorder crossing cardAn acceptable photo ID issued by a federally recognized Tribal Nation/Indian Tribe, including Enhanced Tribal Cards (ETCs)HSPD-12 PIV cardForeign government-issued passportCanadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada cardTransportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766)U.S. Merchant Mariner CredentialVeteran Health Identification Card (VHIC)How do I get a REAL ID?Each state handles the REAL ID process differently. You should visit your state’s driver’s licensing agency website to find out exactly what documentation is required, but at a minimum, you’ll need to provide documentation showing your full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, two proofs of address of principal residence and lawful status.Some states may have additional requirements, so check with your state’s driver’s licensing agency website before visiting them in person for additional guidance and assistance.

    A new fee for travelers without REAL ID starts soon. Here’s what to know about the changes ahead and what to do if you don’t have a REAL ID.

    In December, the Transportation Security Administration announced that passengers who do not present an acceptable form of ID and still want to fly will have an option to pay a $45 fee.

    When will the TSA start charging the $45 fee?

    According to the TSA, the use of TSA Confirm.ID and a $45 fee to use this identity verification will begin on Feb. 1. The fee only applies to travelers without an acceptable form of ID.

    Why is the TSA charging this fee, and what does it cover?

    According to TSA officials, the fee “ensures that non-compliant travelers, not taxpayers, cover the cost of processing travelers without acceptable IDs.”

    The $45 fee allows passengers without accepted ID to use TSA Confirm.ID for a 10-day travel period.

    What is TSA Confirm.ID and do I have to use it?

    TSA ConfirmID is an identity verification system that will establish passengers’ identities at security checkpoints.

    While using TSA ConfirmID is voluntary, TSA officials say that if you choose not to use it and don’t have an acceptable ID, you may not be allowed through security and could miss your flight.

    Can I pay the fee online before I travel?

    Yes. The TSA has a step-by-step guide to pay the $45 fee online here.

    If I don’t have a REAL ID or don’t pay the $45 fee ahead of time, how long will it take to get through security?

    According to a recent news release from the TSA, travelers without REAL IDs that use TSA ConfirmID at the airport “will be subject to additional ID verification, screening measures and potential delays.”

    “Travelers who appear at the TSA checkpoint without a REAL ID or other acceptable form of ID and have not already paid the TSA ConfirmID fee will be subject to additional delays which may result in a missed flight,” the TSA release says. “It is important that airline travelers plan ahead to ensure they have an acceptable form of ID to avoid these additional delays as the process can take up to 30 minutes.”

    TSA officials urge any traveler without REAL ID or acceptable identification to pay the fee online before traveling. For passengers arriving at the airport without paying the fee in advance, there will be information about how to pay at marked locations at or near the security checkpoint in most airports.

    What are the acceptable uses of ID?

    Acceptable forms of ID include:

    • REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses or other state photo identity cards issued by Department of Motor Vehicles (or equivalent)
    • State-issued Enhanced Driver’s License (EDL) or Enhanced ID (EID)
    • U.S. passport
    • U.S. passport card
    • DHS trusted traveler cards (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, FAST)
    • U.S. Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependents
    • Permanent resident card
    • Border crossing card
    • An acceptable photo ID issued by a federally recognized Tribal Nation/Indian Tribe, including Enhanced Tribal Cards (ETCs)
    • HSPD-12 PIV card
    • Foreign government-issued passport
    • Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
    • Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
    • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766)
    • U.S. Merchant Mariner Credential
    • Veteran Health Identification Card (VHIC)

    How do I get a REAL ID?

    Each state handles the REAL ID process differently. You should visit your state’s driver’s licensing agency website to find out exactly what documentation is required, but at a minimum, you’ll need to provide documentation showing your full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, two proofs of address of principal residence and lawful status.

    Some states may have additional requirements, so check with your state’s driver’s licensing agency website before visiting them in person for additional guidance and assistance.

    Source link

  • National park staff are asking about citizenship status. Here’s why

    If you’re planning to visit one of the 11 most popular national parks in the U.S. — two of which are in California — staff might ask a question that could be disquieting: Are you an American citizen?

    A spokesperson for the Department of the Interior said that the question is being posed only to confirm whether the visitor will have to pay a nonresident fee — which is hefty.

    The updates to visitor verification and fees was announced in November by the Trump administration, which said that beginning Jan. 1 it would implement “America-first” entry fee policies.

    “U.S. residents will continue to enjoy affordable pricing, while nonresidents will pay a higher rate to help support the care and maintenance of America’s parks,” according to the announcement.

    When you present your pass, or if you purchase one at a park entrance, staff must ask for your identification and determine your citizenship status.

    According to an internal National Park Service directive obtained by the Washington Post, staffers are instructed to ask visiting groups, “How many people visiting are not U.S. citizens or residents?” The document also stated that “the fee collector does not need to check the identification of every visitor.”

    The Times reached out to staff at Yosemite and Sequoia & Kings Canyon national parks for comment; both parks referred questions to the National Park Service.

    When is Park Service staff checking a visitor’s citizenship status?

    You will only be asked your citizenship status, by way of ID verification, when buying or using an annual pass, officials say.

    “National Park Service staff are not checking immigration status, citizenship, or residency beyond what is necessary to confirm eligibility for a specific entrance fee or pass,” said Elizabeth Peace, spokesperson for the office of the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

    Peace told The Times in an email that the Park Service had “long required staff to confirm that the name on the interagency pass or fee-based credential matches a valid photo ID.”

    The agency’s updated policy is that all digital-pass holders must show a photo identification matching the name on the pass. Acceptable forms of ID include:

    • U.S. passport
    • U.S. state or territory-issued driver’s license
    • state ID
    • permanent residency card

    You can only use a U.S. birth certificate to validate your identity for an Access Pass, which is for residents who have a permanent disability.

    Visitors who do not have a U.S. government-issued ID will be asked to purchase a nonresident annual pass, Peace said. Those passes are much more costly.

    How much do the passes cost?

    The cost of an annual pass, which covers entrance to thousands of recreation areas but not other amenities including camping and parking is:

    • $80 for U.S. residents
    • $250 for nonresidents

    If a non-U.S. resident is looking to purchase a day-of entrance, it will cost an additional $100 on top of the regular admittance fee, which is $20 to $35.

    The increased fees have sparked controversy. The National Parks Conservation Assn. said it backs efforts to increase funding that will support parks but doesn’t want fees to become a barrier “that keeps people from experiencing America’s most iconic places.”

    “Charging international visitors more is not uncommon globally,” said Theresa Pierno, president of the association, in a letter to the Department of the Interior, “but any such policy must be designed thoughtfully to ensure it doesn’t cause barriers or even longer lines at entrances.”

    In its report, the Post noted that the fees had resulted in longer lines at parks.

    Another concern Pierno voiced was how the verification process would affect an already understaffed workforce.

    The National Park Service staff has been reduced by 24% since January of last year, which means fewer fee collectors and IT specialists who she said are needed as the new fees are implemented.

    Which parks are affected?

    The 11 parks that are subject to additional fees for those who are non-U.S. citizens include:

    1. Acadia
    2. Bryce Canyon
    3. Everglades
    4. Glacier
    5. Grand Canyon
    6. Grand Teton
    7. Rocky Mountain
    8. Sequoia & Kings Canyon
    9. Yellowstone
    10. Yosemite
    11. Zion

    Karen Garcia

    Source link

  • Commentary: Trump can be hard to take. But his tariffs keep this fisherman afloat

    HOUMA, La. — For nearly 50 years, James Blanchard has made his living in the Gulf of Mexico, pulling shrimp from the sea.

    It’s all he ever wanted to do, since he was around 12 years old and accompanied his father, a mailman and part-time shrimper, as he spent weekends trawling the marshy waters off Louisiana. Blanchard loved the adventure and splendid isolation.

    He made a good living, even as the industry collapsed around him. He and his wife, Cheri, bought a comfortable home in a tidy subdivision here in the heart of Bayou Country. They helped put three kids through college.

    But eventually Blanchard began to contemplate his forced retirement, selling his 63-foot boat and hanging up his wall of big green fishing nets once he turns 65 in February.

    “The amount of shrimp was not a problem,” said Blanchard, a fourth-generation shrimper who routinely hauls in north of 30,000 flash-frozen pounds on a two-week trip. “It’s making a profit, because the prices were so low.”

    Then came President Trump, his tariffs and famously itchy trigger finger.

    Blanchard is a lifelong Republican, but wasn’t initially a big Trump fan.

    In April, Trump slapped a 10% fee on shrimp imports, which grew to 50% for India, America’s largest overseas source of shrimp. Further levies were imposed on Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia, which are other major U.S. suppliers.

    logo reading "Trump's America" with red hat in center

    Views of the 47th president, from the ground up

    Tariffs may slow economic growth, discombobulate markets and boost inflation. Trump’s single-handed approach to tax-and-trade policy has landed him before the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on a major test case of presidential power.

    A hand holding a bag of dried shrimp.

    Blanchard snacks on a bag of dried shrimp.

    But for Blanchard, those tariffs have been a lifeline. He’s seen a significant uptick in prices, from as low as 87 cents a pound for wild-caught shrimp to $1.50 or more. That’s nowhere near the $4.50 a pound, adjusted for inflation, that U.S shrimpers earned back in the roaring 1980s, when shrimp was less common in home kitchens and something of a luxury item.

    It’s enough, however, for Blanchard to shelve his retirement plans and for that — and Trump — he’s appreciative.

    “Writing all the bills in the world is great,” he said of efforts by congressional lawmakers to prop up the country’s dwindling shrimp fishermen. “But it don’t get nothing done.”

    Trump, Blanchard said, has delivered.

    ::

    Shrimp is America’s most popular seafood, but that hasn’t buoyed the U.S. shrimp industry.

    Wild-caught domestic shrimp make up less than 10% of the market. It’s not a matter of quality, or overfishing. A flood of imports — farmed on a mass scale, lightly regulated by developing countries and thus cheaper to produce — has decimated the market for American shrimpers.

    In the Gulf and South Atlantic, warm water shrimp landings — the term the industry uses — had an average annual value of more than $460 million between 1975 and 2022, according to the Southern Shrimp Alliance, a trade group. (Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.)

    A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

    A boat moves up a canal in Chauvin, La.

    Over the last two years, the value of the commercial shrimp fishery has fallen to $269 million in 2023 and $256 million in 2024.

    As the country’s leading shrimp producer, Louisiana has been particularly hard hit. “It’s getting to the point that we are on our knees,” Acy Cooper, president of the Louisiana Shrimp Assn., recently told New Orleans television station WVUE.

    In the 1980s, there were more than 6,000 licensed shrimpers working in Louisiana. Today, there are fewer than 1,500.

    Blanchard can see the ripple effects in Houma — in the shuttered businesses, the depleted job market and the high incidence of drug overdoses.

    Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

    Latrevien Moultrie, 14, fishes in Houma, La.

    “It’s affected everybody,” he said. “It’s not only the boats, the infrastructure, the packing plants. It’s the hardware stores. The fuel docks. The grocery stores.”

    Two of the Blanchards’ three children have moved away, seeking opportunity elsewhere. One daughter is a university law professor. Their son works in logistics for a trucking company in Georgia. Their other daughter, who lives near the couple, applies her advanced degree in school psychology as a stay-at-home mother of five.

    (Cheri Blanchard, 64 and retired from the state labor department, keeps the books for her husband.)

    It turns out the federal government is at least partly responsible for the shrinking of the domestic shrimp industry. In recent years, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized overseas shrimp farming to the tune of at least $195 million in development aid.

    Seated at their dining room table, near a Christmas tree and other remnants of the holidays, Blanchard read from a set of scribbled notes — a Bible close at hand — as he and his wife decried the lax safety standards, labor abuses and environmental degradation associated with overseas shrimp farming.

    James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump's policies. His personality is another thing.

    James Blanchard and his wife, Cheri, like Trump’s policies. His personality is another thing.

    The fact their taxes help support those practices is particularly galling.

    “A slap in the face,” Blanchard called it.

    ::

    Donald Trump grew slowly on the Blanchards.

    The two are lifelong Republicans, but they voted for Trump in 2016 only because they considered him less bad than Hillary Clinton.

    Once he took office, they were pleasantly surprised.

    They had more money in their pockets. Inflation wasn’t an issue. Washington seemed less heavy-handed and intrusive. By the time Trump ran for reelection, the couple were fully on board and they happily voted for him again in 2024.

    Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard's kitchen.

    Republican National Committee reading material sits on the counter of James Blanchard’s kitchen.

    Still, there are things that irk Blanchard. He doesn’t much care for Trump’s brash persona and can’t stand all the childish name-calling. For a long time, he couldn’t bear listening to Trump’s speeches.

    “You didn’t ever really listen to many of Obama’s speeches,” Cheri interjected, and James allowed as how that was true.

    “I liked his personality,” Blanchard said of the former Democratic president. “I liked his character. But I didn’t like his policies.”

    It’s the opposite with Trump.

    Unlike most politicians, Blanchard said, when Trump says he’ll do something he generally follows through.

    Such as tightening border security.

    “I have no issue at all with immigrants,” he said, as his wife nodded alongside. “I have an issue with illegal immigrants.” (She echoed Trump in blaming Renee Good for her death last week at the hands of an ICE agent.)

    “I have sympathy for them as families,” Blanchard went on, but crossing the border doesn’t make someone a U.S. citizen. “If I go down the highway 70 miles an hour in that 30-mile-an-hour zone, guess what? I’m getting a ticket. … Or if I get in that car and I’m drinking, guess what? They’re bringing me to jail. So what’s the difference?”

    Between the two there isn’t much — apart from Trump’s “trolling,” as Cheri called it — they find fault with.

    Blanchard hailed the lightning-strike capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as another example of Trump doing and meaning exactly what he says.

    “When Biden was in office, they had a $25-million bounty on [Maduro’s] head,” Blanchard said. “But apparently it was done knowing that it was never going to be enforced.”

    More empty talk, he suggested.

    Just like all those years of unfulfilled promises from politicians vowing to rein in foreign competition and revive America’s suffering shrimping industry.

    James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

    James Blanchard aboard his boat, which he docks in Bayou Little Caillou.

    Trump and his tariffs have given Blanchard back his livelihood and for that alone he’s grateful.

    There’s maintenance and repair work to be done on his boat — named Waymaker, to honor the Lord — before Blanchard musters his two-man crew and sets out from Bayou Little Caillou.

    He can hardly wait.

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Manchester museum hosting holiday events

    MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA — With the spirit of Christmas-by-the-Sea on its way, the Manchester-by-the-Sea Museum, 10 Union St., is hosting several holiday events this weekend and beyond.

    First up is an Open House and Children’s Art Workshop, both free, on Friday, Dec. 5, 3-8 p.m., during the town’s Holiday Stroll event. The museum will be decorated for for the season and children may enjoy an ornament crafting and art workshop with instructor Martha Chapman. Refreshments provided.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96? @? $2EFC52J[ s64] e[ E96 >FD6F> :?G:E6D 2== E@ A2CE2<6 😕 2 E@FC @7 D6G6? 9:DE@C:42= 9@>6D 86?6C@FD=J @A6?65 3J E96:C @H?6CD] %96 E@FC CF?D ?@@? E@ c A]>][ 7@==@H65 3J 2 C646AE:@? 7C@> ce A]>] %96 E@FC 😀 Sc_ 7@C >6>36CD[ Sd_ 7@C ?@?>6>36CD]k^Am

    kAm~? $F?52J[ s64] f[ E96 >FD6F> @A6?D $62D:56 }@] ` 7@C 2 7C66 w@=:52J ~A6? w@FD6 7C@> a E@ c A]>]k^Am

    kAm~? %9FCD52J[ s64] “[ E96 >FD6F> H:== 9@DE 2 7C66 w@=:52J %62 2?5 w@=:52J !2CEJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 E62[ 7C@> `b A]>][ H:== 762EFC6 =:G6 >FD:4 2?5 42C@= D:?8:?8] #68:DEC2E:@? 😀 C6BF6DE65 2D DA246 😀 =:>:E65]k^Am

    kAmpE E96 w@=:52J !2CEJ[ eg A]>][ E96C6’== 36 C67C6D9>6?ED[ >FD:4[ 2?5 8@@5 4966C]k^Am

    kAmu2== 2?5 9@=:52J 6G6?ED 2C6 86?6C@FD=J DFAA@CE65 3J E96 |2DD249FD6EED rF=EFC2= r@F?4:=]k^Am

    kAmu@C >@C6 :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE E96D6 6G6?ED[ @C E@ C68:DE6C G:D:E E96 >FD6F>UCDBF@jD H63D:E6[ k2 9C67lQ9EEAi^^>3ED>FD6F>]@C8Qm>3ED>FD6F>]@C8k^2m[ @C 42== hfgdaefab_]k^Am

    kAm%96 |2?496DE6C3JE96$62 |FD6F> 😀 565:42E65 E@ E96 42FD6 @7 9:DE@CJ[ 2CE[ 2?5 4@>>F?:EJ] |6>36CD9:A 2?5 5@?2E:@?D 2C6 2=H2JD 2AAC64:2E65]k^Am

    By Times Staff

    Source link

  • Peabody to ban Bitcoin ATMs after residents scammed

    PEABODY — An ordinance before the City Council would ban Bitcoin machines in the city after Peabody residents have lost well over $100,000 in scams involving these machines.

    Councilors voted unanimously Thursday night to draft and advertise the ordinance change banning all machines that sell virtual currency including but not limited to Bitcoin.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96J 2C6 6IA64E65 E@ 25@AE E96 @C5:?2?46 😕 2 =2E6C 7:?2= G@E6]k^Am

    kAm!623@5J H@F=5 364@>6 E96 E9:C5 4:EJ 😕 E96 DE2E6 E@ :>A=6>6?E E9:D 32?] v=@F46DE6C 2?5 (2=E92> 3@E9 2AAC@G65 D:>:=2C 32?D =2DE >@?E9 E9C@F89 @C5:?2?46D !623@5J FD65 E@ >@56= :ED @H?]k^Am

    kAm“(92E H6VG6 D66? 😀 E96 >@DE GF=?6C23=6 7@=2<6 DFC6 E96JVC6 7@==@H:?8 CF=6D[” tDD6I r@F?EJ s:DEC:4E pEE@C?6J !2F= %F4<6C D2:5 2E E96 4@F?4:=’D {682= p772:CD DF34@>>:EE66 >66E:?8 %9FCD52J ?:89E]k^Am

    kAm$42>>6CD @7E6? A@D6 2D 7656C2= 286?ED H:E9 E96 uqx @C w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ] $@>6E:>6D E96J 4C62E6 72<6 C@>2?46D H:E9 G:4E:>D @G6C H66@?E9D[ @C :?DE2== G:CFD6D @? E96:C 4@>AFE6CD E92E =625 E@ 2 G:4E:> DA62<:?8 H:E9 2 D42>>6C AC6E6?5:?8 E@ 36 2 E649 DFAA@CE 286?E]k^Am

    kAmx? 2? :?4:56?E C646?E=J :?G6DE:82E65 3J E96 tDD6I r@F?EJ sp’D @77:46[ 2 D42>>6C 4@?G:?465 2 G:4E:> E92E E96J H@F=5 36 6?D?2C65 😕 2 A65@A9:=:2 C:?8 :7 E96J 5:5?’E D6?5 >@?6J E9C@F89 q:E4@:? >249:?6D[ %F4<6C D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 A6CA6EC2E@CD 4@?G:?46 G:4E:>D E@ 8@ E@ E96:C 32?D @7 42D9[ @7E6? DE2J:?8 @? E96 A9@?6 E@ 4@249 E96> @? H92E E@ D2J H96? 32?< E6==6CD BF6DE:@? H9J E96J 2C6 E2<:?8 @FE D@ >F49 >@?6J]k^Am

    kAm’:4E:>D E96? 8@ E@ 56A@D:E E96 42D9 :?E@ E96D6 G:CEF2= 4FCC6?4J >249:?6D[ H9:49 C6D6>3=6 4@:? >249:?6D 2?5 p%|D] %96J 56A@D:E E96:C >@?6J :?E@ E96> E@ EJA:42==J 3FJ q:E4@:?[ 2 G:CEF2= 4FCC6?4J E92E 92D 82:?65 A@AF=2C:EJ @G6C E96 =2DE 564256[ 2?5 D6?5 :E E@ E96 D42>>6CD]k^Am

    kAmqFE >@DE @7 E96 E:>6 E96D6 >249:?6D 2C6 36:?8 FD65[ :EVD 3J G:4E:>D H9@ 92G6 366? 4@?G:?465 E@ D6?5 q:E4@:? E@ D42>>6CD[ !623@5J !@=:46 s6E64E:G6 s2G:5 q6EE6?4@FCE E@=5 E96 r:EJ r@F?4:= @? %9FCD52J]k^Am

    kAm“&DF2==J[ E96 @?=J >@?6J 😕 E96D6 >249:?6D 2C6 E96 G:4E:>D’ 7F?5D[” q6EE6?4@FCE D2:5] “x7 2?J @7 FD 2C6 8@??2 3FJ q:E4@:?[ H6VC6 8@??2 42== 2 32?< 2?5 3FJ q:E4@:?] (6VC6 ?@E 8@??2 H2=< :?E@ ft=6G6? 2?5 AFE >@?6J :?E@ 2 >249:?6]”k^Am

    kAm~?46 E92E >@?6J 😀 😕 E96 >249:?6[ G:4E:>D 2=>@DE ?6G6C 86E E92E >@?6J 324< — 6G6? 27E6C E96 A@=:46 2C6 :?G@=G65[ 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm|@C6 E92? S“ >:==:@? 92D 366? C6A@CE65 DE@=6? 😕 tDD6I r@F?EJ E9C@F89 E96D6 D42>D E9:D J62C 2=@?6] %92E’D AC@323=J @?=J 2 E9:C5 @7 H92E 92D 24EF2==J 366? DE@=6? D:?46 y2?F2CJ[ %F4<6C D2:5]k^Am

    By Caroline Enos | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Asylum seekers face deportation over failure to pay new fees — before being notified

    WASHINGTON — Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

    Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

    But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

    She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

    “I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

    That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

    Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

    But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

    Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

    The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

    Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

    For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

    “The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

    Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

    Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

    The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

    USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

    “The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

    The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

    The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

    In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

    Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

    A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

    By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

    The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

    But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

    Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

    In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

    An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

    The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

    The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

    Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

    “There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

    Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

    Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Opinion | ‘Does India Even Have Any Cards?’

    Sadanand Dhume writes a biweekly column on India and South Asia for WSJ.com. He focuses on the region’s politics, economics and foreign policy.

    Mr. Dhume is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Previously he worked as the New Delhi bureau chief of the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), and as Indonesia correspondent for FEER and The Wall Street Journal Asia.

    Mr. Dhume is the author of “My Friend the Fanatic: Travels with a Radical Islamist,” (Skyhorse Publishing, 2009), which charts the rise of the radical Islamist movement in Indonesia. His next book will look at India’s transformation since the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014.

    Mr. Dhume holds a bachelor’s degree in sociology from the University of Delhi, a master’s degree in international relations from Princeton University and a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University. He lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, and travels frequently to India.

    Sadanand Dhume

    Source link

  • Venetian Las Vegas Sues Company for $2M Event Cancellation Fee – Casino.org

    Posted on: August 29, 2025, 03:19h. 

    Last updated on: August 29, 2025, 03:19h.

    The Venetian Resort has filed a nearly $2 million lawsuit against QTLST Management and Shawn Copeland, claiming the media management company and its CEO breached a contract for a corporate event that the Las Vegas casino resort had to cancel earlier this summer.

    The Venetian
    An aerial view of The Venetian Resort Las Vegas. The venue is teaming up with Hyatt on a new loyalty-sharing program. (Image: The Venetian)

    QTLST is an LA-based media production company that employs 2-10 people, according to its LinkedIn page, which lists a website (qtlst.com) that was never set up.

    According to court documents filed Aug. 27 in Clark County District Court, QTLST entered into an agreement in May 2024 to host “QTLST World Media Week” at the resort from July 26 to August 2, 2025. The contract included extensive room reservations — over 1,500 per night for four nights — as well as dozens of luxury suites, meeting spaces, and a $500,000 minimum commitment for food and beverage services.

    The payment schedule required an initial deposit of $229,200 by June 10, 2024, followed by two additional installments. Faire to meet these deadlines, as stipulated by the contract, would trigger a cancellation fee of $1,946,000.

    According to the lawsuit, QTLST Management failed to make any of the required payments.

    After missing the first deposit deadline, the Venetian issued a formal warning in late October 2024. When no payment was received, the resort terminated the agreement on November 2, 2024. Additional invoices and demand letters sent in November and December went unanswered, the filing states.

    The casino resort’s claim alleges three counts of breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Venetian seeks the full cancellation fee, plus 18% interest on the unpaid balance, reimbursement for legal costs, and any other damages deemed appropriate by the court.

    “QTLST reserved 1,535 hotel rooms per night for four consecutive nights (from July 28, 2025, through and including July 31, 2025), as well as twenty-five (25) suites for July 26, 2025, thirty (30) suites for July 27, 2025, and twenty-five (25) suites for August 1, 2025,” the lawsuit reads.

    Industry observers note that disputes like this underscore the financial risks tied to large-scale corporate events on the Las Vegas Strip, where contracts often involve thousands of expensive room nights and substantial food and beverage guarantees.

    The case is currently awaiting adjudication in Clark County District Court. If the court rules in favor of The Venetian, Copeland and QTLST could face a significantly larger financial burden once interest and legal fees are factored in.

    Corey Levitan

    Source link

  • Which L.A. neighborhoods have paid the most ‘mansion tax’?

    Which L.A. neighborhoods have paid the most ‘mansion tax’?

    Los Angeles is roughly a year and a half into its so-called “mansion tax,” levying charges on high-end property sales to raise money for affordable housing and homelessness initiatives.

    Measure ULA charges a 4% fee on all property sales above $5.1 million and a 5.5% fee on all sales above $10.3 million. Now, thanks to a new dashboard, Angelenos can see exactly where and how that money is being raised.

    Named the ULA Revenue Dashboard, the interactive data hub was released by the Housing Department in late August. It breaks down numbers based on which types of properties have sold and where.

    So far, 670 sales have been subject to the tax, raising just over $439 million as of Oct. 31.

    It’s a large sum, but still far short of original projections, which promised $600 million to $1.1 billion per year. But monthly data show that the mansion-tax market is heating up.

    August was the biggest month so far for Measure ULA, raising $39.6 million. October was the second-biggest month, raising $35.9 million.

    The data also show that the majority of properties subjected to the mansion tax have, indeed, been mansions. Of the 670 total sales, 388 were single-family homes, accounting for roughly 58% of the total and raising $178.3 million.

    Commercial properties — office buildings, retail buildings, warehouses, etc. — accounted for 135 sales, making up 20% of the total and raising $117.4 million.

    Multifamily residential buildings made up the third-largest share, with 72 sales accounting for 11%, followed by uncategorized properties at 8%, vacant properties at 3% and mixed-use properties at 0.3%.

    Westside neighborhoods accounted for nearly half of all “mansion tax” sales. Unsurprisingly, the 5th City Council District — which holds neighborhoods such as Bel-Air and Beverly Crest — raised the most at $83.3 million across 138 sales.

    District 11 — which includes Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Marina del Rey — raised the second most at $73.9 million across 174 sales.

    District 4 — home to the Hollywood Hills as well as San Fernando Valley neighborhoods such as Encino and Sherman Oaks — raised the third most at $59.4 million across 127 sales.

    “We believe in transparency and accountability, and it’s important for folks to know how ULA is manifesting and performing,” said Greg Good, director of strategic engagement and policy for the Housing Department.

    Good said the ordinance, which took effect in April 2023, includes rigorous provisions for data collection, and the Housing Department has beefed up its data team to make sure the funding is transparent.

    “The reality is, it’s a lot of money. People made the choice to approve this measure, so it’s important to daylight the impacts,” Good said. “That way, we see how things are working and evolve the program to ensure we achieve the goals of ULA.”

    It’s the second dashboard that the Housing Department has launched related to Measure ULA. Earlier this year, the department released data on the ULA Emergency Renters Assistance Program, which funnels money to low-income renters at risk of homelessness.

    According to that dashboard, the program has received 31,380 applications and paid out a total of $30.4 million to 4,302 households.

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • A Year Later, Unity Cancels Controversial Runtime Fees Completely

    A Year Later, Unity Cancels Controversial Runtime Fees Completely

    Unity is canceling its controversial Runtime Fee and returning to a more traditional subscription model for its popular video game engine used by small and big developers worldwide. However, the price of some subscription plans will increase next year.

    The Boys Star Karen Fukuhara On Kimiko’s Character Arc, Karate, And More

    A year ago, in September 2023, Unity announced a seismic change to how it charged developers to use its engine. Once a game was downloaded a certain number of times and had made a specific amount of money, Unity would start charging developers a Runtime Fee every single time someone installed any game developed using Unity, like Pokémon GO or Cuphead. Many smaller devs and creators criticized the decision and claimed it would lead to developers abandoning the engine to avoid paying thousands of dollars in install fees. This could have led to game delays and there was even fear that some devs might remove older games from sale, preventing players from re-installing them in order to avoid the Runtime Fees.

    All of this was a giant mess that eventually led to Unity partially walking back some of these decisions a week later. It also led to Unity’s CEO retiring and another exec resigning. And now, after all that, the company is fully ditching the install fees completely.

    On Thursday, in a blog post on Unity’s website, CEO Matthew Bromberg announced the news that “effective immediately” the company was removing all Runtime Fees from the engine.

    “I’ve been able to connect with many of you over the last three months, and I’ve heard time and time again that you want a strong Unity, and understand that price increases are a necessary part of what enables us to invest in moving gaming forward. But those increases needn’t come in a novel and controversial new form,” said Bromberg.

    Unity reveals price increases for some plans

    So Runtime Fees are gone and Unity will return to a subscription model. Bromberg confirmed that Unity Personal licenses will remain free until a game brings in over $200,00 in revenue or funding. Meanwhile, starting in January 2025, Unity Pro subscriptions will increase by 8% and cost $2,200 a year. Unity Enterprise will also see a price increase of 25%.

    Unity Personal will remain free, with the revenue and funding ceiling increased from $100,000 to $200,000, giving developers more flexibility before being subjected to Unity’s fees. The Made with Unity splash screen will be optional for games developed with Unity 6, set to launch later this year.

    Starting January 1, 2025, Unity Pro will see an 8% price increase, raising the annual subscription fee to $2,200 per seat. Unity Enterprise will experience a 25% increase, with new minimum subscription requirements for customers generating over $25 million in annual revenue. These changes will apply to all new and existing subscriptions from that date. (Because these licenses involve major companies, the prices can vary based on different packages.)

    Bromberg stressed in his blog post that Unity will continue to increase prices as it needs to, but will only do so annually via subscription fees going up. It won’t try to squeeze pennies out of every developer using the engine based on how many times people install your game.

    “Canceling the Runtime Fee for games and instituting these pricing changes will allow us to continue investing to improve game development for everyone while also being better partners,” said Bromberg.

    “Thank you all for your trust and continued support. We look forward to many more years of making great games together.”

    .

    Zack Zwiezen

    Source link

  • City proposes bump in fees for construction waste disposal

    City proposes bump in fees for construction waste disposal

    METHUEN — The city is looking to charge more for the disposal of construction materials.

    The City Council took up an amendment to the charter which would increase fees for individuals dropping off debris by $2 per 100 pounds during a meeting on June 1. A public hearing on the fees will be held at 6:45 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 5, at City Hall, 41 Pleasant St. The council will later take a vote on the matter.

    Under the change, residents would pay $12 per 100 pounds while the commercial rate would be set at $12.50 per 100 pounds. As outlined in the city’s municipal code, the current rate is $10 per 100 pounds for residents and $12 per 100 pounds, with a $50 minimum for commercial customers.

    “There are additional costs to the city for accepting construction and demolition debris as these add to the total waste tonnage that the city must pay to dispose of,” reads the ordinance.

    The city accepts construction and demolition waste at the Methuen Transfer Station, 50 Huntington Ave.

    The fees will be introduced as soon as the ordinance is approved.

    Department of Public Works Director Patrick Bower said contractors need to provide evidence they are working in Methuen when they dispose of materials at the transfer station.

    Bower said the city has gone from using one dumpster to six in recent years for construction and demolition waste.

    “We are charging more to the commercial user so if we have a contractor or something that is doing work in town we are going to charge them a little bit extra because they are technically making money,” Bower said. “The residential rate is just someone doing work at their house.”

    The charter levies fees for anything from air conditioners to CPUs.

    A copy of the proposed amendment can be found here methuen.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3126/TO245.

    By Teddy Tauscher | ttauscher@eagletribune.com

    Source link

  • Bridging the gap: Newburyport, West Newbury negotiate repair project

    Bridging the gap: Newburyport, West Newbury negotiate repair project

    West Newbury Town Manager Angus Jennings doesn’t mince words when he talks about the Plummer Spring Road/Middle Street bridge repair project.

    “We don’t have time to waste,” Jennings said. “It’s now or never.”

    The bridge, an important link between West Newbury and Newburyport, was closed in August 2019 after a failure in the spandrel wall.

    The bridge sits on the border between the two communities, and each shares a legal obligation to maintain and repair the structure.

    Efforts to secure funding to rebuild the bridge have been underway for six years, according to Jennings.

    On June 11, town and city officials, including Jennings, Newburyport Mayor Sean Reardon and Newburyport City Council President Ed Cameron met with Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester, the District 4 engineer and a representative from the state Department of Transportation to work out an intermunicipal agreement, or IMA, between the communities.

    After what Jennings termed a “good and frank discussion” at the meeting, a draft agreement is now in the hands of Newburyport’s mayor and City Council.

    At a City Council meeting Monday, Cameron sponsored a motion to send the draft to Newburyport’s Public Works & Safety Committee.

    Cameron spoke briefly, indicating that the bridge has been in decline since 2017.

    “We’ve got to decide what our role will be in finalizing the IMA, which we need to do whether we decide to share in funding or not,” he said.

    Cameron acknowledged that the project comes with “a fair amount of urgency” but said the council and committee members will gain a better understanding of the bridge project’s specifics “over the next couple of committee meetings.”

    The council agreed unanimously to send the motion to the committee.

    After a review, the city will decide if it will share costs with West Newbury and what amount, if any, Newburyport would allocate for the project.

    Newburyport received two MassDOT Small Bridge Program grants in 2018 totaling $293,952, according to the draft agreement. These grants are due to expire Sunday without an extension from the state.

    Earlier this year, Newburyport was awarded a third Small Bridge grant of $750,000. West Newbury was awarded a $1 million MassWorks grant of $1 million in late 2023 and a $750,000 Small Bridge grant in early 2024.

    A construction cost estimate for the necessary bridge work comes in at about $3,605,000, with an added 25% construction contingency fee of $901,250.

    A resident engineer fee of $200,000 and a construction engineering services charge of $100,000 brings the total remaining project costs to roughly $4,806,250.

    These numbers do not include previous design/permitting costs of approximately $500,000 (the project has been fully permitted since May 2023). The amount of remaining net local costs totals $2,012,298.

    With a 50% cost share, each municipality would be responsible for $1,006,149 beyond what has been already apportioned.

    West Newbury’s town manager expressed a sense of urgency in the project because of safety concerns related to the bridge’s infrastructure and the possible loss of grant funding if a cost-sharing resolution is not reached quickly.

    Jennings believes the bridge repair would prevent further erosion and possible liability should the hole in the spandrel wall not be fixed.

    In the future, Jennings said, “emergency funding would be needed for cleanup” if the bridge is further compromised.

    “There’s a cost to doing nothing,” he said.

    Jennings’ concerns about a loss of funding stem from the American Rescue Plan Act requirement that the project needs to be under contract by the end of this calendar year; grants awarded must be spent by the end of 2026.

    Once the funding is received and the two municipalities have agreed on a cost share plan, the project can go out to bid.

    Contracts are typically awarded 30 to 60 days after the requests for bids go out. To stay within the timeframes for funding, Jennings and West Newbury would like the contract to be awarded this summer, with construction to start next spring.

    West Newbury officials are continuing to move forward optimistically. They are fine-tuning procurement documents in preparation for sending out the request for proposals.

    They plan to update the town website with a public post informing residents of the project’s status.

    Jennings reported “a tremendous amount of support” for the project in West Newbury, with many resident writing letters to endorse the project.

    In spite of what appears to be an “overpass impasse,” Jennings said he is hopeful that a final agreement can be reached between the two communities in the interest of the shared public good.

    “If we’re aligned in our intent to go forward, we can get this done,” he said.

    By Lisa Rinaldi | Correspondent

    Source link

  • Builders may fight ‘impact fees’ that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

    Builders may fight ‘impact fees’ that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules

    WASHINGTON — 

    The Supreme Court ruled Friday that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements.

    The justices said these “impact fees” may be unconstitutional if builders and developers are forced to pay an unfair share of the cost of public projects.

    Developers have contended that limiting California’s high fees would lead to the construction of more affordable new housing.

    California state courts had blocked claims arising from “a development impact fee imposed pursuant to a legislatively authorized fee program” for new development in a city or county.

    But the 9-0 Supreme Court decision opened the door for such challenges. The justices revived a constitutional claim brought by an El Dorado County man who put a manufactured home on a small lot and was told he would have to pay a “traffic mitigation fee” of $23,420.

    The decision could have wide impact in California, since local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees rather than property taxes to pay for new projects.

    But the justices did not spell out when such fees become unfair and unconstitutional.

    Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they joined the majority opinion in Sheetz vs. El Dorado County because it merely allows such challenges.

    In a separate opinion, conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he saw merit to the “common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new development through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.”

    State and county attorneys had made just that argument. They said it was fairer to impose a development fee on all the lots in an area.

    But the justices nonetheless ruled that homeowners and developers may sue to challenge these fees as an unconstitutional taking of their private property. The case will now go back to the California courts.

    The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento hailed the ruling as a significant victory for property rights.

    “Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion,” said attorney Paul Beard, who represented the El Dorado County homeowner. “We are thrilled that the court agreed and put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the 5th Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”

    Beard said El Dorado County “failed to show — and cannot show — that the fee is sufficiently related and proportionate to the traffic impacts” of his client’s “modest home.”

    The debate over development fees is especially relevant in California, where local governments have increasingly relied on the charges to finance parks, streets, schools and other infrastructure and services since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 limited property tax revenues.

    The fees have come under scrutiny in other cases as developers and others have blamed them for driving up the cost of housing and for a wide disparity in cities’ fees.

    A 2018 study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that, depending on the city, fees for new single-family homes could range from $21,000 to $157,000, and could account for 6% to 18% of the median home price.

    For decades, the Supreme Court has cast a skeptical eye at California’s regulation of private property. In a pair of decisions, it limited the power of government officials to demand concessions from a property owner in exchange for a building permit.

    In 1987, justices ruled for the owner of a beach bungalow in Ventura who was told he could not obtain a permit to expand his home unless he agreed to allow the public access to the beachfront. The conservative majority at the time described this demand as akin to “extortion” and said it violated the 5th Amendment’s clause that forbids the taking of “private property … for public use without just compensation.”

    In a follow-up decision involving a store owner who was forced to allow a bike path on her property, the court said the government may not impose such special conditions on property owners unless it can show an owner’s new development would cause direct harm to the community.

    But since then, it has been unclear whether this property right applies to development fees or in situations where fees are set by legislation rather than imposed on a single owner seeking a permit.

    Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

    The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit. Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.

    Sheetz paid the fee and obtained his permit, then sued to challenge the fee as unconstitutional. He argued that the taxpayers of the county, not the new owner of a small home, should be required to pay for road building.

    The justices agreed to hear his appeal after he lost in the California courts.

    State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has supported legislation to rein in developer fees, said he didn’t expect Friday’s decision by itself to have a significant effect on the debate in Sacramento because it only called out one extreme situation.

    “Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”

    Wiener said he sympathizes with local governments that turn to the fees because it’s easier than raising revenue through broad-based taxes — but he said some cities use sky-high fees to block housing development.

    “There is something a little odd about effectively taxing new housing to pay for societal needs that should be paid generally by taxpayers — by the entire community,” he said.

    Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties, said in a statement Friday that the organization was still reviewing the ruling to understand its implications.

    But he said that “limiting the ability to legislatively enact fees will negatively impact the ability of our 58 counties to protect the health and welfare of their communities and drastically limit the building of vital local infrastructure.”

    “In many cases,” Knaus said, “these fees are the only tool available to pay for new infrastructure around certain development projects.”

    Times staff writer Liam Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Opinion: This Supreme Court case from California could ease housing shortages everywhere

    Opinion: This Supreme Court case from California could ease housing shortages everywhere

    On Jan. 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Californian George Sheetz, who applied for a permit to put a manufactured house on his land in El Dorado County and got hit with a $23,420 traffic mitigation fee. Objecting to the lack of any connection between the dollar amount and his family’s actual impact on traffic in the area, Sheetz paid the fee but turned to the legal system. Sheetz vs. County of El Dorado, California, addresses just a small piece of the state’s housing crisis. Nonetheless, it will matter for millions of people unable to find affordable homes here and in many other states.

    When “impact fees” are unmoored from the increased costs a city or county will incur because of a new house or development, the fees can do more than present someone with an unfair bill — they can also reduce housing construction. In a country where a shortage of homes has led to sky-high prices, this matters more than you might think.

    Developers should pay their fair share, of course. If construction fees fail to cover the costs of the increased public services required by new development, elected officials and voters turn to other means to cover or avoid those costs. They may impose growth restrictions or other exclusionary zoning policies to block the building of new homes rather than accept projects that lead to higher taxes or degraded services.

    We see pervasive evidence of this happening when localities adopt rules such as single-family zoning, minimum lot-size requirements and aesthetic requirements that ensure that only expensive housing, which generates higher property taxes, can be built.

    Properly set impact fees offer a way for development to pay its way, and they reduce political pressure against necessary growth. Local studies have found that appropriately set fees are associated with increased construction in suburban areas.

    But when fees are set at arbitrarily high levels, they disincentivize new home building and add to the country’s housing affordability challenges, causing strain for renters and new home buyers.

    In 2013, the Supreme Court held that all permit fees must have an essential connection to the actual impact of a development on city or county services, and a roughly proportional price tag. This sensibly reduces the risk that fees will choke off development.

    In some states, such as Florida, jurisprudence goes even further, requiring that fees fund only infrastructure that serves the specific developments they were levied on. Not coincidentally, Florida has seen its population grow more than twice as fast as the country as a whole, reflecting its openness to new homes and relatively fair prices compared with much of the rest of the country.

    But in other states, including California, Maryland, Washington and Arizona, courts have carved out an exception to the Supreme Court’s proportionality principle, allowing higher fees if they are set by legislation. Sheetz’s case will test whether that exception is constitutional.

    Part of the rationale for the carve-out is that voters have a remedy against excessive assessments at the ballot box. In theory, they can vote out the lawmakers who are responsible.

    However, any claim that voters can and will actually do this is dubious. Housing developers are a small share of any electorate. Future home buyers or renters — those who need municipalities to incentivize, not discourage, home building — may not even vote or live in the jurisdiction when the fees are determined. On the other hand, the people who do vote are likely to be those who already own homes nearby, and they tend to resist growth: Their property increases in value if high fees keep the housing supply low.

    The housing affordability crisis is real. Californians in particular should understand the simple calculus of supply and demand that is exacerbating homelessness and causing seven cities (or metro areas) in the state to rank among the 10 most expensive in the nation, according to U.S. News and World Report. When and where state courts allow local politicians to cater to their wealthiest constituents, charge exorbitant impact fees and otherwise keep out new homes, the situation won’t improve.

    The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the El Dorado County fees in the first half of 2024. The legal case that all impact fees, no matter who sets them, should be subject to the same conditions is strong. And during a nationwide housing crisis, the economic case against state and local practices that worsen housing affordability and impede needed housing production is even stronger.

    Charles Gardner is an attorney and research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Emily Hamilton is a director of Mercatus’ Urbanity Project.

    Charles Gardner and Emily Hamilton

    Source link

  • Unknown holder paid $3.14m in BTC transfer fees, the highest ever recorded

    Unknown holder paid $3.14m in BTC transfer fees, the highest ever recorded

    On Nov. 23 an unknown Bitcoin owner sent 139.4 BTC to AntPool, triggering over $3 million in fees.

    According to journalist Colin Wu, the transaction fee was 83.65 BTC.

    Data from analytics platform Whale Alert shows that the user paid $3.14 million to send the funds. This is one of the largest commissions in the history of the crypto industry. The source claims that the AntPool mining pool received the reward for this transfer.

    Source: Whale Alert

    At the time of publication, AntPool representatives did not comment on the transaction. It is also unknown what exactly caused the high transaction fees. As the load on the network increases, transaction fees can also increase.

    This is not the first case of abnormally high fees on the Bitcoin network. In September, an unknown counterparty paid more than $510,000 to transfer 0.074 BTC. It later turned out that this mistake was made by the Paxos company.

    Later, Wang Chong, co-founder of the F2Pool mining pool, reported that 20 BTC that were accidentally sent as a commission were returned back to Paxos.


    Follow Us on Google News

    Anna Kharton

    Source link

  • Amazon Is Now Charging a Fee to Make Some Returns at UPS | Entrepreneur

    Amazon Is Now Charging a Fee to Make Some Returns at UPS | Entrepreneur

    Amazon built its business on customer service, believing everything would fall into place if the company made shopping easy and convenient. Case in point: Their return policy allows customers to return millions of items they don’t want free of charge.

    But that return policy is also wildly expensive. In 2021, a record $761 billion of merchandise was returned to retailers, according to the National Retail Federation.

    Now Amazon wants its customers to think twice before sending products back. The e-commerce giant has quietly implemented a new policy, charging customers a $1 fee if they return items to a UPS store instead of a Whole Foods, Amazon Fresh, or Kohl’s closer to their address, according to a report in The Information.

    Amazon owns Whole Foods and Amazon Fresh, and Kohl’s partners with the company.

    Amazon is also warning consumers about “frequently returned” items sold on their site. They recently introduced a badge that tells shoppers to check the product details and customer reviews on items with higher return rates in their product category.

    Related: San Francisco Whole Foods Closes To ‘Ensure Safety’ of Employees

    Amazon cutting costs

    The new return fee is the latest in a series of cost-cutting measures implemented by Amazon. Last month, the company announced it would be laying off 9,000 workers, following an earlier round of layoffs last year that saw pink slips handed out to more than 18,000 employees.

    While Amazon’s return fees are surprising, they’re not unprecedented. Other retail chains have recently done away with their free online return policy, including Abercrombie & Fitch (which charges $7), American Eagle, Foot Locker, Urban Outfitters, and Zara.

    If there is any good news to come out of these new return policies, it’s that they have a positive impact on the environment. Returns cause 16 million metric tons of carbon emissions and up to 5.8 billion pounds of landfill waste in the U.S. each year, according to Optoro.

    Less returns mean less waste — even if it may cost you a buck.

    Jonathan Small

    Source link

  • Ticketmaster To Require Purchase Of Round-Trip Concert Tickets For Exiting Venue After Show

    Ticketmaster To Require Purchase Of Round-Trip Concert Tickets For Exiting Venue After Show

    WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA—Updating the company’s terms of service, live-entertainment giant Ticketmaster announced Wednesday that it would soon be requiring customers to purchase round-trip tickets to cover the cost of both entering and exiting a concert venue. “Round-trip tickets will only be required in cases where the attendee wishes not only to be admitted to a show, but also to be permitted to leave once the show is over,” said Ticketmaster spokesperson Brenna Winfield, adding that there would be a limited number of tickets available for any given departure time, so customers who wanted to be among the first to leave a concert should expect to pay a higher fee. “Ticketmaster customers worried about the additional costs associated with exiting a venue should know that rates drop significantly on slower days, so if they attend an event on, say, a busy Saturday night, they can typically save up to 15% by extending their stay in the completely dark, empty arena until Tuesday or Wednesday. Another option is to leave the show before it ends, but please be aware we charge a $200 ticket-change fee for concertgoers who decide they want to go home early because the band sucks.” At press time, several hundred Taylor Swift fans had reportedly been trampled to death in Arizona after Ticketmaster’s demand-based pricing system pushed the cost of exiting State Farm Stadium to more than $10,000.

    Source link