ACLU warns Tenn. hospital over transgender treatment policy
Thu, December 1, 2022
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Civil rights advocates say a Memphis hospital is no longer providing gender-affirming surgeries, a move they argue is illegal and discriminatory.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, Memphis-based Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare alerted their client, Chris Evans, on Nov. 21 that all gender-affirming surgeries were canceled due to a newly adopted policy. Evans, who the ACLU says suffers from gender dysphoria, had been scheduled for a surgery at MLH less than a week later.
The ACLU claims that MLH's new policy discriminates on the basis of sex, which would violate the nondiscrimination provision the hospital agreed to follow as a Medicaid provider. MLH is also accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act because the ALCU argues they're denying a person with a disability the benefits of a program.
The ACLU demanded in a letter on Wednesday that the hospital “promptly rectify its unlawful actions, and reschedule our client’s surgery, including any other necessary support services, to be performed no later than December 31."
MLH is one of Tennessee's largest providers of Tennessee's Medicaid and uninsured patients. Their website claims they serve more than 128,000 adult Medicaid patients each year.
The ACLU says if the hospital does not respond by Friday, it will file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights.
A spokesperson for the hospital did not immediately return an email requesting comment. It is unknown how many gender-affirming surgeries the hospital was previously providing or when the new policy went into place.
The ACLU's letter comes as gender-affirming health care and transgender rights are facing increased scrutiny, particularly in Republican-led states. However, most of the attacks have focused on banning gender-affirming care for minors — rather than calling for hospitals to halt all procedures, even for adults.
Earlier this year, Vanderbilt University Medical Center announced it would pause all gender-affirming care for minors amid outrage about leaked videos showing a doctor touting that gender-affirming surgeries are “huge money makers.” Another video showed a staffer saying anyone with a religious objection should quit.
Tennessee lawmakers have since vowed to ban gender-affirming care for minors during the upcoming 2023 legislative session.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt recently signed off on a law that prohibited the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from using more than $108 million in federal funds for medical treatments for transgender youth.
Kimberlee Kruesi, The Associated Press
Friday, December 02, 2022
Bulgarians protest reinstatement of paper election ballots
Thu, December 1, 2022
SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Hundreds of people attended a street protest in Bulgaria's capital Thursday to oppose a revision of the Election Code that reinstates paper ballots, which the previous reformist government had replaced with voting machines.
The We Continue the Change party and the Democratic Bulgaria political alliance called the protest in Sofia, describing the switch as an attempt by the parties of the “old establishment” to allow the corruption of the election process.
Police cordoned off the Parliament building to prevent the angry demonstrators from storming it, but the protest remained peaceful.
The leader of the We Continue the Change party, Kiril Petkov, called on Bulgarians to stand up for their rights and join the protest.
“Today is the day when the democratic vote of every Bulgarian citizen will be substituted, the day when we open the door to 15% invalid ballots, when the distortion of the vote makes the whole system work corruptly,” he said ahead of the event.
The Election Code amendments were approved last week during an all-night sitting of the National Assembly's legal affairs committee, with support from the center-right GERB party of three-time Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, the Socialist Party and a party representing Bulgaria’s ethnic Turkish citizens.
The rushed move comes as a political stalemate in the European Union’s poorest member country has added to the economic woes of many Bulgarians at a time of galloping inflation and rising energy costs.
Bulgaria currently is governed by a caretaker Cabinet with limited powers following its fourth general election in less than two years.
The October election produced another fragmented parliament, where so far fruitless efforts to form a viable governing coalition are likely to result in another election early next year.
The Associated Press
Thu, December 1, 2022
SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Hundreds of people attended a street protest in Bulgaria's capital Thursday to oppose a revision of the Election Code that reinstates paper ballots, which the previous reformist government had replaced with voting machines.
The We Continue the Change party and the Democratic Bulgaria political alliance called the protest in Sofia, describing the switch as an attempt by the parties of the “old establishment” to allow the corruption of the election process.
Police cordoned off the Parliament building to prevent the angry demonstrators from storming it, but the protest remained peaceful.
The leader of the We Continue the Change party, Kiril Petkov, called on Bulgarians to stand up for their rights and join the protest.
“Today is the day when the democratic vote of every Bulgarian citizen will be substituted, the day when we open the door to 15% invalid ballots, when the distortion of the vote makes the whole system work corruptly,” he said ahead of the event.
The Election Code amendments were approved last week during an all-night sitting of the National Assembly's legal affairs committee, with support from the center-right GERB party of three-time Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, the Socialist Party and a party representing Bulgaria’s ethnic Turkish citizens.
The rushed move comes as a political stalemate in the European Union’s poorest member country has added to the economic woes of many Bulgarians at a time of galloping inflation and rising energy costs.
Bulgaria currently is governed by a caretaker Cabinet with limited powers following its fourth general election in less than two years.
The October election produced another fragmented parliament, where so far fruitless efforts to form a viable governing coalition are likely to result in another election early next year.
The Associated Press
UK
Train strikes: RMT union hopeful of offer to end rail dispute
Fri, December 2, 2022
Mick Lynch
RMT union boss Mick Lynch has said he is hopeful that the government will make an offer that could end the planned rail strikes.
On his way into a meeting with Rail Minister Huw Merriman on Friday morning he said the government would "hopefully… put an offer on the table".
He said he expected the offer to be "modest" but said the dispute was "definitely moving".
"It's definitely different to the last six months," Mr Lynch said.
However, he suggested that the more positive overtures from the government might simply be "window dressing".
On Thursday, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said he was trying to "encourage" a deal between employers and trade unions on reforming the rail industry and bringing an end to the strikes.
He said an agreement to "hammer out a deal on reform of the industry" would benefit rail users and train staff.
A number of unions have announced strikes and other forms of industrial action across the rail network in December, which could cause crippling periods of disruption to the network in the run-up to Christmas.
When are the next train strikes?
The RMT union is planning industrial action across four 48-hour periods on 13-14 and 16-17 December, and 3-4 and 6-7 January, which will hit Network Rail and 14 train operators. RMT members will also operate an overtime ban between 18 December to 2 January.
TSSA workers at Avanti West Coast will also strike on 13-14 and 16-17 December.
On Friday, the Unite union said its members employed by Network Rail in electric control rooms would join the strikes, adding that the workers had not received a pay increase for three years.
"It is totally unforgivable that the government thinks it is acceptable to implement a three-year pay freeze on our members who play a critical role in keeping the rail network operating," said Unite general secretary Sharon Graham.
Strikes graphic
Road users also face disruption over the Christmas period after workers at the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union announced 12 days of strike action.
The National Highways employees, who plan, design, build, operate and maintain the country's roads, will take part in a series of staggered strikes from 16 December to 7 January.
The PCS said the action came after 124 government departments and other public bodies voted for strike action in a row over pay and conditions.
"We know our members' action could inconvenience travellers who plan to visit their relatives over the festive period, but our members have been placed in this situation by a government that won't listen to its own workforce," said PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.
The union said it would announce strikes in other departments, including the Home Office, in the next few weeks.
Train strikes: RMT union hopeful of offer to end rail dispute
Fri, December 2, 2022
Mick Lynch
RMT union boss Mick Lynch has said he is hopeful that the government will make an offer that could end the planned rail strikes.
On his way into a meeting with Rail Minister Huw Merriman on Friday morning he said the government would "hopefully… put an offer on the table".
He said he expected the offer to be "modest" but said the dispute was "definitely moving".
"It's definitely different to the last six months," Mr Lynch said.
However, he suggested that the more positive overtures from the government might simply be "window dressing".
On Thursday, Transport Secretary Mark Harper said he was trying to "encourage" a deal between employers and trade unions on reforming the rail industry and bringing an end to the strikes.
He said an agreement to "hammer out a deal on reform of the industry" would benefit rail users and train staff.
A number of unions have announced strikes and other forms of industrial action across the rail network in December, which could cause crippling periods of disruption to the network in the run-up to Christmas.
When are the next train strikes?
The RMT union is planning industrial action across four 48-hour periods on 13-14 and 16-17 December, and 3-4 and 6-7 January, which will hit Network Rail and 14 train operators. RMT members will also operate an overtime ban between 18 December to 2 January.
TSSA workers at Avanti West Coast will also strike on 13-14 and 16-17 December.
On Friday, the Unite union said its members employed by Network Rail in electric control rooms would join the strikes, adding that the workers had not received a pay increase for three years.
"It is totally unforgivable that the government thinks it is acceptable to implement a three-year pay freeze on our members who play a critical role in keeping the rail network operating," said Unite general secretary Sharon Graham.
Strikes graphic
Road users also face disruption over the Christmas period after workers at the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union announced 12 days of strike action.
The National Highways employees, who plan, design, build, operate and maintain the country's roads, will take part in a series of staggered strikes from 16 December to 7 January.
The PCS said the action came after 124 government departments and other public bodies voted for strike action in a row over pay and conditions.
"We know our members' action could inconvenience travellers who plan to visit their relatives over the festive period, but our members have been placed in this situation by a government that won't listen to its own workforce," said PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.
The union said it would announce strikes in other departments, including the Home Office, in the next few weeks.
KASHMIR IS INDIA'S GAZA
NDP wants boycott of G20 events inIndia's Kashmir region, citing human-rights issues
Thu, December 1, 2022
OTTAWA — The federal NDP is calling on the Liberal government to ban certain Indian officials from travelling to Canada and to boycott G20 events in India's Kashmir region, citing the country's treatment of minorities.
India started its term Thursday in the rotating presidency of the G20, a forum for the world's largest economies.
The hosting role involves convening meetings throughout the year, which will culminate in a leaders' summit planned for next September in New Delhi.
The NDP said in a press release that it wanted a boycott of India's presidency of the G20, but later narrowed it down to a request that Canada avoid meetings that occur in the region of Kashmir, the site of a protracted conflict with Pakistan.
"The growing number of anti-Muslim and Islamophobic hate crimes, and those toward minorities including Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, LGBTQ+ community, women and Indigenous peoples is appalling," NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson told reporters.
"New Democrats are calling on the government to strongly condemn India's discriminatory anti-minority laws, its threats of ethnic cleansing, the persecution of minorities and the arrests of journalists and human-right activists," she said.
The High Commission of India in Ottawa and the office of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This month, Human Rights Watch reported "a serious regression in human rights and constitutional protections" under Modi, particularly for Muslims.
The group reports that Modi's government is "using draconian sedition, counterterrorism and national security laws to prosecute and harass human rights activists, journalists, students, government critics and peaceful protesters."
In March, India's highest court upheld a ban on Muslim girls wearing headscarves inside schools in the state of Karnataka.
And the human-rights organization says the government has banned foreign funding for thousands of local civil-society groups.
McPherson was joined at a news conference by representatives of the World Sikh Organization and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, who said the government of Narendra Modi is espousing Hindu nationalism that puts others at risk.
Jaspreet Kaur Bal, the Ontario vice president of the Sikh group, called India a fascist state.
"Sikhs in Canada have repeatedly shared concerns of a lack of safety. We have watched as, through foreign interference, the Indian state has brought its far-right ideology and threats into the lives of Canadians," she said.
McPherson said members of Modi's political party "have called for racist and genocidal violence against Muslims and other minorities in India" and said Ottawa should ban such officials from entering Canada.
The NDP referred to a July report by the Canadian Muslims' council that listed 14 senior party members the group accuses of hateful rhetoric and decisions that have displaced Muslims or left them subjected to violence.
Last month, the Trudeau government unveiled plans to form closer ties with India as a key component of its Indo-Pacific Strategy.
"We believe that Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that states with which we engage, and with which we hope to further develop relationships with, have similar human-rights values," McPherson said.
Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma has been critical of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh for attending rallies run by people who support a separatist movement in an area the Sikhs call Khalistan.
Singh's office has said he supports self-determination and hasn't taken a side in that debate. McPherson would not say Thursday whether the NDP supports a united India.
"With regards to how you want to label it, what I want to see is human rights protected around the world," she responded.
"I want that lens to be applied equally to different countries. I don't think right now we do that. We pick and choose, based on our trade relationships, and I don't think that's the way human rights work."
Bloc Québécois critic Stéphane Bergeron suggested that concerns about human rights don't justify boycotting "the most populous democracy on the planet" when other G20 countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have even worse records.
"I'm just trying understand the logic behind this position taken by the NDP without minimizing, underestimating or denying the existence of discrimination in India," he said in French.
The NDP also called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia when it hosted the G20 in 2020.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 1, 2022.
Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press
NDP wants boycott of G20 events in
Thu, December 1, 2022
OTTAWA — The federal NDP is calling on the Liberal government to ban certain Indian officials from travelling to Canada and to boycott G20 events in India's Kashmir region, citing the country's treatment of minorities.
India started its term Thursday in the rotating presidency of the G20, a forum for the world's largest economies.
The hosting role involves convening meetings throughout the year, which will culminate in a leaders' summit planned for next September in New Delhi.
The NDP said in a press release that it wanted a boycott of India's presidency of the G20, but later narrowed it down to a request that Canada avoid meetings that occur in the region of Kashmir, the site of a protracted conflict with Pakistan.
"The growing number of anti-Muslim and Islamophobic hate crimes, and those toward minorities including Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, LGBTQ+ community, women and Indigenous peoples is appalling," NDP foreign affairs critic Heather McPherson told reporters.
"New Democrats are calling on the government to strongly condemn India's discriminatory anti-minority laws, its threats of ethnic cleansing, the persecution of minorities and the arrests of journalists and human-right activists," she said.
The High Commission of India in Ottawa and the office of Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This month, Human Rights Watch reported "a serious regression in human rights and constitutional protections" under Modi, particularly for Muslims.
The group reports that Modi's government is "using draconian sedition, counterterrorism and national security laws to prosecute and harass human rights activists, journalists, students, government critics and peaceful protesters."
In March, India's highest court upheld a ban on Muslim girls wearing headscarves inside schools in the state of Karnataka.
And the human-rights organization says the government has banned foreign funding for thousands of local civil-society groups.
McPherson was joined at a news conference by representatives of the World Sikh Organization and the National Council of Canadian Muslims, who said the government of Narendra Modi is espousing Hindu nationalism that puts others at risk.
Jaspreet Kaur Bal, the Ontario vice president of the Sikh group, called India a fascist state.
"Sikhs in Canada have repeatedly shared concerns of a lack of safety. We have watched as, through foreign interference, the Indian state has brought its far-right ideology and threats into the lives of Canadians," she said.
McPherson said members of Modi's political party "have called for racist and genocidal violence against Muslims and other minorities in India" and said Ottawa should ban such officials from entering Canada.
The NDP referred to a July report by the Canadian Muslims' council that listed 14 senior party members the group accuses of hateful rhetoric and decisions that have displaced Muslims or left them subjected to violence.
Last month, the Trudeau government unveiled plans to form closer ties with India as a key component of its Indo-Pacific Strategy.
"We believe that Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that states with which we engage, and with which we hope to further develop relationships with, have similar human-rights values," McPherson said.
Indian High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma has been critical of NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh for attending rallies run by people who support a separatist movement in an area the Sikhs call Khalistan.
Singh's office has said he supports self-determination and hasn't taken a side in that debate. McPherson would not say Thursday whether the NDP supports a united India.
"With regards to how you want to label it, what I want to see is human rights protected around the world," she responded.
"I want that lens to be applied equally to different countries. I don't think right now we do that. We pick and choose, based on our trade relationships, and I don't think that's the way human rights work."
Bloc Québécois critic Stéphane Bergeron suggested that concerns about human rights don't justify boycotting "the most populous democracy on the planet" when other G20 countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have even worse records.
"I'm just trying understand the logic behind this position taken by the NDP without minimizing, underestimating or denying the existence of discrimination in India," he said in French.
The NDP also called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia when it hosted the G20 in 2020.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 1, 2022.
Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press
Florida pulls $2 billion in retirement funds from BlackRock in anti-ESG stance
Thu, December 1, 2022 at 2:59 p.m.
Yahoo Finance political columnist Rick Newman explains how Florida yanked $2 billion from BlackRock as part of Governor Ron DeSantis's anti-ESG stance.
Video Transcript
DAVE BRIGGS: The war against woke capitalism continues to rage. The latest battle between Florida Governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. The prize, a $2 billion investment. Senior columnist Rick Newman here with how this fight has ended for now. Hey, Rick. What's the latest from DeSantis?
RICK NEWMAN: Well, Florida says it's going to pull $2 billion in assets. And this is money that's in retirement funds. And they have to find somebody to invest that money. So that money is at BlackRock, the giant investing firm. And they said they're going to take that out because they don't agree with BlackRock's ESG focus, the environmental, social, and governmental guidance that BlackRock operates by. But it's unclear what they're going to do with that money.
I mean, are they going to look around for some other finance firm, or investing firm, that has a invest in the sin industry or something like that? You're only going to invest in oil companies, gun manufacturers, and booze, and cigarette companies? I'm not sure I get where this is going. And Florida is not, by any means, pulling all of its money out. That $2 billion is a small part of all the funds that Florida has in its retirement savings account. And it's not a huge hit for BlackRock either.
I did the math on this. BlackRock has $10 trillion in assets under management. And Florida is taking out two billion. So that adds up to about 0.2% of BlackRock assets that they're going to lose on this. But we're going to hear a lot more about this. But because Republican thinks-- Republicans think they can gain political leverage by going after big companies that are a little too socially correct for them.
DAVE BRIGGS: And Larry Fink had some headlines. At the DealBook "New York Times", somebody yesterday actually believed we're going to need hydrocarbons for 70 years. He also said, quote, "I believe stakeholder capitalism is not political, not woke. It is capitalism." We'll see how that resonates. Rick, do you think other states, Republican led obviously, will follow here?
RICK NEWMAN: Yeah, there are a couple of others that have already done this. I think Louisiana has done it. I think you'll find some other states that have done this. But I think it's just going to add up to small potatoes because I don't really see what alternatives anybody who has this kind of money to invest really has. And BlackRock says, look. You can't say you want to take your money away from us because our returns are poor.
Our returns are excellent. And there is a case to be made that applying a certain amount of ESG focus actually improves returns. Now there's a lot of debate on that. And it's going to go on. But there was an effort to capitalize on this. There was a bank in Texas that tried to set up and carve out some space here and say, we are the anti-woke lender. You can bank with us if you don't like the way big banks operate. And they went bust about three or four weeks ago. So I'm not sure how solid that market is.
DAVE BRIGGS: Yeah, this is right up Governor Abbott's ally indeed. Senior columnist Rick Newman here with that. Good stuff, my friend. Thank you.
Thu, December 1, 2022 at 2:59 p.m.
Yahoo Finance political columnist Rick Newman explains how Florida yanked $2 billion from BlackRock as part of Governor Ron DeSantis's anti-ESG stance.
Video Transcript
DAVE BRIGGS: The war against woke capitalism continues to rage. The latest battle between Florida Governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. The prize, a $2 billion investment. Senior columnist Rick Newman here with how this fight has ended for now. Hey, Rick. What's the latest from DeSantis?
RICK NEWMAN: Well, Florida says it's going to pull $2 billion in assets. And this is money that's in retirement funds. And they have to find somebody to invest that money. So that money is at BlackRock, the giant investing firm. And they said they're going to take that out because they don't agree with BlackRock's ESG focus, the environmental, social, and governmental guidance that BlackRock operates by. But it's unclear what they're going to do with that money.
I mean, are they going to look around for some other finance firm, or investing firm, that has a invest in the sin industry or something like that? You're only going to invest in oil companies, gun manufacturers, and booze, and cigarette companies? I'm not sure I get where this is going. And Florida is not, by any means, pulling all of its money out. That $2 billion is a small part of all the funds that Florida has in its retirement savings account. And it's not a huge hit for BlackRock either.
I did the math on this. BlackRock has $10 trillion in assets under management. And Florida is taking out two billion. So that adds up to about 0.2% of BlackRock assets that they're going to lose on this. But we're going to hear a lot more about this. But because Republican thinks-- Republicans think they can gain political leverage by going after big companies that are a little too socially correct for them.
DAVE BRIGGS: And Larry Fink had some headlines. At the DealBook "New York Times", somebody yesterday actually believed we're going to need hydrocarbons for 70 years. He also said, quote, "I believe stakeholder capitalism is not political, not woke. It is capitalism." We'll see how that resonates. Rick, do you think other states, Republican led obviously, will follow here?
RICK NEWMAN: Yeah, there are a couple of others that have already done this. I think Louisiana has done it. I think you'll find some other states that have done this. But I think it's just going to add up to small potatoes because I don't really see what alternatives anybody who has this kind of money to invest really has. And BlackRock says, look. You can't say you want to take your money away from us because our returns are poor.
Our returns are excellent. And there is a case to be made that applying a certain amount of ESG focus actually improves returns. Now there's a lot of debate on that. And it's going to go on. But there was an effort to capitalize on this. There was a bank in Texas that tried to set up and carve out some space here and say, we are the anti-woke lender. You can bank with us if you don't like the way big banks operate. And they went bust about three or four weeks ago. So I'm not sure how solid that market is.
DAVE BRIGGS: Yeah, this is right up Governor Abbott's ally indeed. Senior columnist Rick Newman here with that. Good stuff, my friend. Thank you.
Mortgage costs now eat 67% of income in Canada: National Bank
Michelle Zadikian
·Senior Reporter
Thu, December 1, 2022
Any meaningful improvements in housing affordability from falling prices has been offset by climbing mortgage rates.
The last time mortgage costs took this big of a bite out of Canadians’ incomes, Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 was topping the Billboard 100 chart.
A new report from National Bank Financial Markets said the cost to own a representative home in Canada required 67.3 per cent of income to service the debt, the most since 1981. A representative home is essentially a benchmark property price determined for each market using Teranet-National Bank Home Price Index data.
By National’s calculations, the five-year benchmark mortgage rate used to determine its affordability metrics rose 75 basis points in the third quarter, heaping an extra $300 onto the monthly mortgage payment for a representative home.
"While this surge was less significant than the one observed in the previous quarter, it propelled the benchmark mortgage rate to its highest level since 2010," Kyle Dahms and Alexandra Ducharme, economists and report authors, said on Wednesday.
While home prices have fallen this year in reaction to higher borrowing rates, mortgage rates have simultaneously risen, offsetting any meaningful improvements in affordability.
The report said the average Canadian would need an annual income of $188,776 in order to afford a home, though that number ranges depending on the region.
In fact, Canada is currently in its longest stretch of deteriorating affordability since the real estate bubble of the late eighties, National said. Affordability fell for 11 consecutive quarters back then. Currently, Canadian housing affordability has declined for a seventh straight quarter.
Affordability deteriorated in all ten markets it tracks, but was worst in Vancouver, Victoria and Calgary. Ottawa-Gatineau, Hamilton, Ont. and Winnipeg had the least deterioration.
However, National Bank sees some improvement on the horizon.
“With our affordability indexes at extreme levels in most markets, we see further declines in housing prices. The slowdown in real estate activity in several markets is expected to result in a cumulative 15% decline in home prices in 2023 from the peak (-7.7% to date),” the report authors said.
“This, combined with a stabilization of the benchmark 5-year mortgage rate, should improve affordability in the coming quarters.”
Michelle Zadikian is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow her on Twitter @m_zadikian.
Michelle Zadikian
·Senior Reporter
Thu, December 1, 2022
Any meaningful improvements in housing affordability from falling prices has been offset by climbing mortgage rates.
The last time mortgage costs took this big of a bite out of Canadians’ incomes, Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5 was topping the Billboard 100 chart.
A new report from National Bank Financial Markets said the cost to own a representative home in Canada required 67.3 per cent of income to service the debt, the most since 1981. A representative home is essentially a benchmark property price determined for each market using Teranet-National Bank Home Price Index data.
By National’s calculations, the five-year benchmark mortgage rate used to determine its affordability metrics rose 75 basis points in the third quarter, heaping an extra $300 onto the monthly mortgage payment for a representative home.
"While this surge was less significant than the one observed in the previous quarter, it propelled the benchmark mortgage rate to its highest level since 2010," Kyle Dahms and Alexandra Ducharme, economists and report authors, said on Wednesday.
While home prices have fallen this year in reaction to higher borrowing rates, mortgage rates have simultaneously risen, offsetting any meaningful improvements in affordability.
The report said the average Canadian would need an annual income of $188,776 in order to afford a home, though that number ranges depending on the region.
In fact, Canada is currently in its longest stretch of deteriorating affordability since the real estate bubble of the late eighties, National said. Affordability fell for 11 consecutive quarters back then. Currently, Canadian housing affordability has declined for a seventh straight quarter.
Affordability deteriorated in all ten markets it tracks, but was worst in Vancouver, Victoria and Calgary. Ottawa-Gatineau, Hamilton, Ont. and Winnipeg had the least deterioration.
However, National Bank sees some improvement on the horizon.
“With our affordability indexes at extreme levels in most markets, we see further declines in housing prices. The slowdown in real estate activity in several markets is expected to result in a cumulative 15% decline in home prices in 2023 from the peak (-7.7% to date),” the report authors said.
“This, combined with a stabilization of the benchmark 5-year mortgage rate, should improve affordability in the coming quarters.”
Michelle Zadikian is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow her on Twitter @m_zadikian.
UNDER THE BUS
Defense blames Trump Organization employee’s ‘greed’ in tax fraud trial
Lawyer argues chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg committed crimes to enrich himself and company’s benefit a byproduct
Lawyer argues chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg committed crimes to enrich himself and company’s benefit a byproduct
Allen Weisselberg enters the courtroom in New York City in August 2022.
Photograph: Getty Images
Reuters in New YorkThu 1 Dec 2022 20.40 GMT
As the end of a criminal tax fraud trial of Donald Trump’s real estate company neared on Thursday, a defense lawyer argued that the former president knew nothing about a former senior executive’s years-long scheme.
Democrats get Trump tax returns as Republican House takeover looms
Susan Necheles, representing one unit of the Trump Organization, pointed the finger at Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer, in her closing argument to the 12-member jury in New York state court in Manhattan.
“We are here today because of one reason and one reason only – the greed of Allen Weisselberg,” Necheles said. “The purpose of Mr Weisselberg’s crimes was to benefit Mr Weisselberg.”
Necheles also pinned blame on Donald Bender, an accountant with Mazars USA, for turning a blind eye to Weisselberg’s wrongdoing.
“President Trump relied on Mazars, he relied on Donald Bender to be the watchdog,” Necheles said. “Bender failed.”
Prosecutors were expected to deliver their closing argument on Thursday afternoon and Friday, with jury deliberations beginning on Monday.
The Trump Organization was charged in July 2021 with paying personal expenses for executives without reporting the income, and compensating them as if they were independent contractors, in a 15-year scheme to cheat tax authorities.
If convicted on all nine counts, the company faces up to $1.6m in fines. Trump, who is seeking the presidency in 2024, is not charged.
Weisselberg pleaded guilty to tax fraud and other charges under an agreement with prosecutors and is expected to serve five months in jail.
The trial began on 24 October, before Justice Juan Merchan. To prove guilt, prosecutors must show Weisselberg and other executives acted as “high managerial agents” when they carried out tax fraud and that they intended to benefit the company in some way.
Weisselberg has worked for the Trump family for about five decades and is now on paid leave. He testified that he improperly received bonus payments as non-employee compensation and hid from tax authorities payments for rent, car leases and other personal expenses.
Weisselberg’s testimony may have helped the defense. He told jurors his greed motivated him to cheat on taxes, and described the company’s modest payroll tax savings as a “byproduct”. At one point, he choked up while describing his embarrassment at violating the Trump family’s trust.
Necheles told jurors: “The issue here is not whether as a byproduct the company saved some money … You see what he said. His intent was to benefit himself, not the company.”
Bender, who was granted immunity, was the main defense witness. He testified that he trusted Weisselberg to give him accurate information for company tax returns and had no obligation to investigate further. Mazars cut ties with the Trump Organization in February.
Trump has called the charges politically motivated. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is Democratic, as is his predecessor, Cyrus Vance, who brought the charges last year.
The criminal case is separate from a $250m civil lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general against Trump, three of his adult children and his company in September, accusing them of overstating asset values and his net worth to get favorable bank loans and insurance.
Trump faces federal investigations into his removal of government documents from the White House after leaving office and efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, and a Georgia state investigation over attempts to undo his election defeat there.
Reuters in New YorkThu 1 Dec 2022 20.40 GMT
As the end of a criminal tax fraud trial of Donald Trump’s real estate company neared on Thursday, a defense lawyer argued that the former president knew nothing about a former senior executive’s years-long scheme.
Democrats get Trump tax returns as Republican House takeover looms
Susan Necheles, representing one unit of the Trump Organization, pointed the finger at Allen Weisselberg, the longtime chief financial officer, in her closing argument to the 12-member jury in New York state court in Manhattan.
“We are here today because of one reason and one reason only – the greed of Allen Weisselberg,” Necheles said. “The purpose of Mr Weisselberg’s crimes was to benefit Mr Weisselberg.”
Necheles also pinned blame on Donald Bender, an accountant with Mazars USA, for turning a blind eye to Weisselberg’s wrongdoing.
“President Trump relied on Mazars, he relied on Donald Bender to be the watchdog,” Necheles said. “Bender failed.”
Prosecutors were expected to deliver their closing argument on Thursday afternoon and Friday, with jury deliberations beginning on Monday.
The Trump Organization was charged in July 2021 with paying personal expenses for executives without reporting the income, and compensating them as if they were independent contractors, in a 15-year scheme to cheat tax authorities.
If convicted on all nine counts, the company faces up to $1.6m in fines. Trump, who is seeking the presidency in 2024, is not charged.
Weisselberg pleaded guilty to tax fraud and other charges under an agreement with prosecutors and is expected to serve five months in jail.
The trial began on 24 October, before Justice Juan Merchan. To prove guilt, prosecutors must show Weisselberg and other executives acted as “high managerial agents” when they carried out tax fraud and that they intended to benefit the company in some way.
Weisselberg has worked for the Trump family for about five decades and is now on paid leave. He testified that he improperly received bonus payments as non-employee compensation and hid from tax authorities payments for rent, car leases and other personal expenses.
Weisselberg’s testimony may have helped the defense. He told jurors his greed motivated him to cheat on taxes, and described the company’s modest payroll tax savings as a “byproduct”. At one point, he choked up while describing his embarrassment at violating the Trump family’s trust.
Necheles told jurors: “The issue here is not whether as a byproduct the company saved some money … You see what he said. His intent was to benefit himself, not the company.”
Bender, who was granted immunity, was the main defense witness. He testified that he trusted Weisselberg to give him accurate information for company tax returns and had no obligation to investigate further. Mazars cut ties with the Trump Organization in February.
Trump has called the charges politically motivated. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is Democratic, as is his predecessor, Cyrus Vance, who brought the charges last year.
The criminal case is separate from a $250m civil lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general against Trump, three of his adult children and his company in September, accusing them of overstating asset values and his net worth to get favorable bank loans and insurance.
Trump faces federal investigations into his removal of government documents from the White House after leaving office and efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, and a Georgia state investigation over attempts to undo his election defeat there.
LeBron James calls out reporters for asking about Kyrie Irving controversy but not Jerry Jones
2022/12/01
LITTLE ROCK ARK 1957 THE BOY IN FRONT IS NOT JERRY JONES
The 80-year-old Jones described himself as a “curious kid” who didn’t realize the magnitude of the event that day, telling reporters last week, “I’m sure glad that we’re a long way from that.”
James, who played with Irving on the Cleveland Cavaliers, was asked Nov. 5 about Irving sharing a antisemitic documentary on social media.
“Me personally, I don’t condone any hate to any kind, to any race,” James said. “To Jewish communities to Black communities to Asian communities, you guys know where I stand.”
The Brooklyn Nets suspended Irving amid the controversy. Irving, who initially denied promoting antisemitism with his post, has since apologized.
James tweeted he believed Irving should be able to play after apologizing. Irving sat out eight games before returning to the Nets’ lineup on Nov. 20.
2022/12/01
The Los Angeles Lakers' LeBron James celebrates after making a 3- point shot against the Portland Trail Blazers in the first half at Crypto.com Arena on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2022, in Los Angeles.
- Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times/TNS
LeBron James expressed disappointment he wasn’t asked about a race-related Jerry Jones controversy after reporters questioned him about Kyrie Irving’s antisemitism scandal.
Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, appears in a resurfaced 1957 image showing a group of white students blocking Black students from entering an Arkansas high school.
“That Jerry Jones photo is one of those moments that our people, Black people, have been through in America,” James said Wednesday after his Los Angeles Lakers’ game against the Portland Trail Blazers.
“I feel like as a Black man, as a Black athlete, as someone with power and a platform, when we do something wrong or something that people don’t agree with, it’s on every single tabloid, every single news coverage, it’s on the bottom ticker, it’s asked about every single day.”
Jones was 14 when the photo, which The Washington Post published last week, was taken during the integration of North Little Rock High School.
“It seems like, to me, the whole Jerry Jones situation, photo — and I know it was years and years ago, and we all make mistakes ... it’s just been buried under, ‘Oh, it happened. OK, we just move on,’ ” James said Wednesday.
LeBron James expressed disappointment he wasn’t asked about a race-related Jerry Jones controversy after reporters questioned him about Kyrie Irving’s antisemitism scandal.
Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, appears in a resurfaced 1957 image showing a group of white students blocking Black students from entering an Arkansas high school.
“That Jerry Jones photo is one of those moments that our people, Black people, have been through in America,” James said Wednesday after his Los Angeles Lakers’ game against the Portland Trail Blazers.
“I feel like as a Black man, as a Black athlete, as someone with power and a platform, when we do something wrong or something that people don’t agree with, it’s on every single tabloid, every single news coverage, it’s on the bottom ticker, it’s asked about every single day.”
Jones was 14 when the photo, which The Washington Post published last week, was taken during the integration of North Little Rock High School.
“It seems like, to me, the whole Jerry Jones situation, photo — and I know it was years and years ago, and we all make mistakes ... it’s just been buried under, ‘Oh, it happened. OK, we just move on,’ ” James said Wednesday.
LITTLE ROCK ARK 1957 THE BOY IN FRONT IS NOT JERRY JONES
The 80-year-old Jones described himself as a “curious kid” who didn’t realize the magnitude of the event that day, telling reporters last week, “I’m sure glad that we’re a long way from that.”
James, who played with Irving on the Cleveland Cavaliers, was asked Nov. 5 about Irving sharing a antisemitic documentary on social media.
“Me personally, I don’t condone any hate to any kind, to any race,” James said. “To Jewish communities to Black communities to Asian communities, you guys know where I stand.”
The Brooklyn Nets suspended Irving amid the controversy. Irving, who initially denied promoting antisemitism with his post, has since apologized.
James tweeted he believed Irving should be able to play after apologizing. Irving sat out eight games before returning to the Nets’ lineup on Nov. 20.
Pope: migrant deaths 'unacceptable and almost always avoidable'
2022/12/02
ROME (Reuters) - Migrant deaths in the Mediterranean are "unacceptable and almost always avoidable," Pope Francis said on Friday, renewing a call for policymakers across the region to address the issue in a manner "beneficial to all."
The 85-year-old pontiff, son of Italian immigrants to Argentina, often speaks up for the rights of migrants, and has repeatedly denounced how the Mediterranean has turned into a "vast cemetery."
"The inability to find common solutions [on migration] continues to lead to an unacceptable and almost always avoidable loss of lives, especially in the Mediterranean," Francis said in a message to Rome Med 2022, a foreign policy conference.
Insisting that migration towards Europe "cannot be stopped", he urged all parties involved to find a solution that can be "beneficial to all, guaranteeing both human dignity and shared prosperity."
Migration has for years been a political hot potato in Europe, with governments resorting to increasingly hard-line policies to try to stem the inflow of migrants and asylum-seekers from North Africa and the Middle East.
In Italy, one of the first acts of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's right-wing government was the refusal to take in a charity migrant rescue boat, forcing it to go to all the way France and causing a furious spat with Paris.
According to data from the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR, around 136,500 migrants have reached Europe via Mediterranean sea crossings this year, and more than 1,800 have died or gone missing.
(Reporting by Alvise Armellini; Editing by Keith Weir)
2022/12/02
ROME (Reuters) - Migrant deaths in the Mediterranean are "unacceptable and almost always avoidable," Pope Francis said on Friday, renewing a call for policymakers across the region to address the issue in a manner "beneficial to all."
The 85-year-old pontiff, son of Italian immigrants to Argentina, often speaks up for the rights of migrants, and has repeatedly denounced how the Mediterranean has turned into a "vast cemetery."
"The inability to find common solutions [on migration] continues to lead to an unacceptable and almost always avoidable loss of lives, especially in the Mediterranean," Francis said in a message to Rome Med 2022, a foreign policy conference.
Insisting that migration towards Europe "cannot be stopped", he urged all parties involved to find a solution that can be "beneficial to all, guaranteeing both human dignity and shared prosperity."
Migration has for years been a political hot potato in Europe, with governments resorting to increasingly hard-line policies to try to stem the inflow of migrants and asylum-seekers from North Africa and the Middle East.
In Italy, one of the first acts of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's right-wing government was the refusal to take in a charity migrant rescue boat, forcing it to go to all the way France and causing a furious spat with Paris.
According to data from the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR, around 136,500 migrants have reached Europe via Mediterranean sea crossings this year, and more than 1,800 have died or gone missing.
(Reporting by Alvise Armellini; Editing by Keith Weir)
DOJ tried to hide report warning that private border wall in Texas could collapse
Pro Publica
December 02, 2022
DOJ photo of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr in the Oval Office.
A private border wall built along the Rio Grande in South Texas could collapse during extreme flooding, according to a federally commissioned inspection report that the government sought to keep secret for more than a year.
The 404-page report, produced by the global engineering firm Arcadis, confirms previous reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. It also shows for the first time that the federal government independently found structural problems with the border fencing before reaching a settlement agreement with the builder, Fisher Industries, in May.
Under the agreement, which ended a nearly three-year legal battle between the International Boundary and Water Commission and Fisher Industries, the company must inspect the fence quarterly, remove bollards and maintain a gate that would allow for the release of floodwaters. It must also keep a $3 million bond, a type of insurance, to cover any expenses in case the structure fails.
Engineering and hydrology experts told the news organizations the bond is inadequate to cover the kind of catastrophic failure described by Arcadis and raised concerns that the federal government’s decision to settle the case cuts against the report’s findings.
The company modeled different scenarios using the extreme weather conditions caused by Hurricane Beulah, a 1967 storm that dumped about 30 inches of rain in some areas of the border region and caused the banks of the Rio Grande to overflow. The modeling showed that the fence “would effectively slide and/or overturn” during major flooding, and that it starts to become unstable during much smaller and more frequent floods.
According to the report, the fencing doesn’t meet basic international building code and industry standards and has a foundation far shallower than border barriers built by the federal government.
“Every single conclusion in the report points to it not needing to be there and shows it is actually negatively affecting the area,” said Adriana E. Martinez, a professor and geomorphologist at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. (She was not involved with the report.)
Martinez, who studies the impact of border barriers in South Texas, questioned how much more evidence the state and federal governments need to take down the fencing and prevent future construction along the Rio Grande.
Arcadis referred questions about its assessment to the Department of Justice, which represented the IBWC in the lawsuit, arguing the fence violated a treaty with Mexico that requires both countries to approve any development that can affect the international boundary. A DOJ spokesperson declined to answer specific questions about the settlement or about why the government fought the release of the report.
The news organizations obtained the report on Nov. 15 after multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and 15 months of back-and-forth with the federal government, which initially denied the request. The DOJ reversed course and released the report after ProPublica attorneys threatened legal action.
As part of the settlement, federal officials ordered that Fisher Industries and its subsidiaries destroy all copies of the Arcadis report, alleging that it contained “proprietary information.”
“Reading this and seeing the settlement that came out of this, it’s as though they completely disregarded the Arcadis report,” said Amy Patrick, a Houston forensic structural and civil engineer and court-recognized expert on wall construction. “I can see why they were dragging their heels so much on letting it get out because (the report) basically completely dismantled this idea that the fence will be OK.”
Mark Courtois, an attorney for Fisher Industries, said that the construction company “strongly disagreed with the opinions in the Arcadis report and refuted those opinions to the satisfaction of the IBWC.” He said the company worked with the IBWC, which is charged with oversight of the international treaty, to “reach a mutually agreeable resolution of all matters pertaining to the fence, including any issues raised by the Arcadis report.”
“Construction of the fence was completed nearly three years ago, and we continue to be confident in its design and construction,” Courtois said.
Sally Spener, a spokesperson for the IBWC, denied that Fisher was able to counter the conclusions in the Arcadis report to the agency’s satisfaction.
In an email to the news organizations, Spener said that the agency accepted the report’s findings, which showed a far greater impact on the flow of the Rio Grande than the builder had claimed. Despite that, she added, the settlement agreement’s requirements address the agency’s concerns that the barrier would violate the treaty.
But the settlement agreement won’t address the report’s findings that the fence was built on a flawed design and featured construction shortcomings that could contribute to its collapse, said Alex Mayer, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at El Paso.
“It just shows the shoddiness of the whole effort. It worries me even more,” Mayer said.
Tommy Fisher, president of Fisher Industries, started to construct the fence in 2019 with financial support from the online fundraising campaign We Build the Wall. The nonprofit was set up to help former President Donald Trump build his “big, beautiful wall” along the length of the border. In the end, four of the nonprofit’s top leaders, including Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon, were arrested on fraud and other charges connected to the fundraising scheme.
Trump pardoned Bannon in January 2021. But in September, Bannon was indicted on state charges in New York. Bannon called the charges “nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”
The three other men, including Brian Kolfage, an Air Force veteran who led the organization, face sentencing on Jan. 31 in federal court on various fraud and tax-related charges. Kolfage and another man pleaded guilty in April. The third man was convicted in October.
Soon after construction of the fence began, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to halt the work, claiming that Fisher Industries was violating the treaty with Mexico. A state district judge in Hidalgo County granted the government a temporary restraining order to stop construction, but a federal judge later reversed it.
During a January 2020 court hearing, Fisher claimed that his bollard wall design would bring security to the actual border by addressing the flooding and erosion concerns that previously prevented the federal government from building near the river’s edge.
The 3-mile project was completed in February 2020, making it the first border fence built directly on the riverbank in South Texas. We Build the Wall contributed about $1.5 million of the $42 million total cost, with the rest coming from Fisher, according to court testimony.
The areas around the private border fence soon started to show signs of erosion. Six hydrologists and engineers told ProPublica and the Tribune in July 2020 that the foundation of the fence was too shallow and that a series of gashes and gullies where rainwater runoff had scoured the sandy loam beneath the foundation raised stability concerns.
Following the organization’s news articles, Trump tried to distance himself from the project, saying on Twitter that it had been constructed to make him look bad.
Fisher called the news organizations’ reporting on engineering concerns “absolute nonsense” during a 2020 podcast interview hosted by Bannon.
“I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gonna fall over, I’ll meet ’em there next week. … If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you probably shouldn’t start talking,” he said. “It’s working unbelievably well. There’s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.”
As climate change contributes to more extreme weather, better understanding the erosion that is occurring is critical, Martinez said.
“We know that there are more extreme hurricane seasons that are occurring due to climate change, so we know that it’s more likely that the fence is going to get flooded out in the Rio Grande,” Martinez said. “It’s just a matter of time before something happens.”
The fence outside Mission is one of two private border barriers built using private funds, but it may not be the last.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has embarked on an effort to build fencing along the state’s 1,200-mile border using a mixture of state funds and crowdsourced private dollars. And Trump said he would continue border wall construction while announcing last month that he would again run for the country’s highest office.
Ryan Patrick, a former U.S. attorney whose office first filed the lawsuit against Fisher, said that by settling the case and requiring a bond, the government limits the risk of losing at trial. Patrick left office before the settlement was negotiated. He continues to believe that the judge should not have allowed Fisher to build the fence.
The settlement doesn’t prevent someone from constructing on the floodplain in the future, he said, but it shows that the government will not give unrestricted authority to potential builders. “You are going to have long-term care and custody of that thing,” he said.
Amy Patrick, who is not related to Ryan Patrick, offered a different perspective.
The structural engineer said that the government’s handling of the legal case, and what she sees as an apparent indifference to its own engineering report, could set “a precedent that credible engineering will be disregarded in similar projects in the future.”
December 02, 2022
DOJ photo of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr in the Oval Office.
A private border wall built along the Rio Grande in South Texas could collapse during extreme flooding, according to a federally commissioned inspection report that the government sought to keep secret for more than a year.
The 404-page report, produced by the global engineering firm Arcadis, confirms previous reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. It also shows for the first time that the federal government independently found structural problems with the border fencing before reaching a settlement agreement with the builder, Fisher Industries, in May.
Under the agreement, which ended a nearly three-year legal battle between the International Boundary and Water Commission and Fisher Industries, the company must inspect the fence quarterly, remove bollards and maintain a gate that would allow for the release of floodwaters. It must also keep a $3 million bond, a type of insurance, to cover any expenses in case the structure fails.
Engineering and hydrology experts told the news organizations the bond is inadequate to cover the kind of catastrophic failure described by Arcadis and raised concerns that the federal government’s decision to settle the case cuts against the report’s findings.
The company modeled different scenarios using the extreme weather conditions caused by Hurricane Beulah, a 1967 storm that dumped about 30 inches of rain in some areas of the border region and caused the banks of the Rio Grande to overflow. The modeling showed that the fence “would effectively slide and/or overturn” during major flooding, and that it starts to become unstable during much smaller and more frequent floods.
According to the report, the fencing doesn’t meet basic international building code and industry standards and has a foundation far shallower than border barriers built by the federal government.
“Every single conclusion in the report points to it not needing to be there and shows it is actually negatively affecting the area,” said Adriana E. Martinez, a professor and geomorphologist at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. (She was not involved with the report.)
Martinez, who studies the impact of border barriers in South Texas, questioned how much more evidence the state and federal governments need to take down the fencing and prevent future construction along the Rio Grande.
Arcadis referred questions about its assessment to the Department of Justice, which represented the IBWC in the lawsuit, arguing the fence violated a treaty with Mexico that requires both countries to approve any development that can affect the international boundary. A DOJ spokesperson declined to answer specific questions about the settlement or about why the government fought the release of the report.
The news organizations obtained the report on Nov. 15 after multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and 15 months of back-and-forth with the federal government, which initially denied the request. The DOJ reversed course and released the report after ProPublica attorneys threatened legal action.
As part of the settlement, federal officials ordered that Fisher Industries and its subsidiaries destroy all copies of the Arcadis report, alleging that it contained “proprietary information.”
“Reading this and seeing the settlement that came out of this, it’s as though they completely disregarded the Arcadis report,” said Amy Patrick, a Houston forensic structural and civil engineer and court-recognized expert on wall construction. “I can see why they were dragging their heels so much on letting it get out because (the report) basically completely dismantled this idea that the fence will be OK.”
Mark Courtois, an attorney for Fisher Industries, said that the construction company “strongly disagreed with the opinions in the Arcadis report and refuted those opinions to the satisfaction of the IBWC.” He said the company worked with the IBWC, which is charged with oversight of the international treaty, to “reach a mutually agreeable resolution of all matters pertaining to the fence, including any issues raised by the Arcadis report.”
“Construction of the fence was completed nearly three years ago, and we continue to be confident in its design and construction,” Courtois said.
Sally Spener, a spokesperson for the IBWC, denied that Fisher was able to counter the conclusions in the Arcadis report to the agency’s satisfaction.
In an email to the news organizations, Spener said that the agency accepted the report’s findings, which showed a far greater impact on the flow of the Rio Grande than the builder had claimed. Despite that, she added, the settlement agreement’s requirements address the agency’s concerns that the barrier would violate the treaty.
But the settlement agreement won’t address the report’s findings that the fence was built on a flawed design and featured construction shortcomings that could contribute to its collapse, said Alex Mayer, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at El Paso.
“It just shows the shoddiness of the whole effort. It worries me even more,” Mayer said.
Tommy Fisher, president of Fisher Industries, started to construct the fence in 2019 with financial support from the online fundraising campaign We Build the Wall. The nonprofit was set up to help former President Donald Trump build his “big, beautiful wall” along the length of the border. In the end, four of the nonprofit’s top leaders, including Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon, were arrested on fraud and other charges connected to the fundraising scheme.
Trump pardoned Bannon in January 2021. But in September, Bannon was indicted on state charges in New York. Bannon called the charges “nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”
The three other men, including Brian Kolfage, an Air Force veteran who led the organization, face sentencing on Jan. 31 in federal court on various fraud and tax-related charges. Kolfage and another man pleaded guilty in April. The third man was convicted in October.
Soon after construction of the fence began, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to halt the work, claiming that Fisher Industries was violating the treaty with Mexico. A state district judge in Hidalgo County granted the government a temporary restraining order to stop construction, but a federal judge later reversed it.
During a January 2020 court hearing, Fisher claimed that his bollard wall design would bring security to the actual border by addressing the flooding and erosion concerns that previously prevented the federal government from building near the river’s edge.
The 3-mile project was completed in February 2020, making it the first border fence built directly on the riverbank in South Texas. We Build the Wall contributed about $1.5 million of the $42 million total cost, with the rest coming from Fisher, according to court testimony.
The areas around the private border fence soon started to show signs of erosion. Six hydrologists and engineers told ProPublica and the Tribune in July 2020 that the foundation of the fence was too shallow and that a series of gashes and gullies where rainwater runoff had scoured the sandy loam beneath the foundation raised stability concerns.
Following the organization’s news articles, Trump tried to distance himself from the project, saying on Twitter that it had been constructed to make him look bad.
Fisher called the news organizations’ reporting on engineering concerns “absolute nonsense” during a 2020 podcast interview hosted by Bannon.
“I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gonna fall over, I’ll meet ’em there next week. … If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you probably shouldn’t start talking,” he said. “It’s working unbelievably well. There’s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.”
As climate change contributes to more extreme weather, better understanding the erosion that is occurring is critical, Martinez said.
“We know that there are more extreme hurricane seasons that are occurring due to climate change, so we know that it’s more likely that the fence is going to get flooded out in the Rio Grande,” Martinez said. “It’s just a matter of time before something happens.”
The fence outside Mission is one of two private border barriers built using private funds, but it may not be the last.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has embarked on an effort to build fencing along the state’s 1,200-mile border using a mixture of state funds and crowdsourced private dollars. And Trump said he would continue border wall construction while announcing last month that he would again run for the country’s highest office.
Ryan Patrick, a former U.S. attorney whose office first filed the lawsuit against Fisher, said that by settling the case and requiring a bond, the government limits the risk of losing at trial. Patrick left office before the settlement was negotiated. He continues to believe that the judge should not have allowed Fisher to build the fence.
The settlement doesn’t prevent someone from constructing on the floodplain in the future, he said, but it shows that the government will not give unrestricted authority to potential builders. “You are going to have long-term care and custody of that thing,” he said.
Amy Patrick, who is not related to Ryan Patrick, offered a different perspective.
The structural engineer said that the government’s handling of the legal case, and what she sees as an apparent indifference to its own engineering report, could set “a precedent that credible engineering will be disregarded in similar projects in the future.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)