Category: News

They extended the pause and called it a model policy. I know the sentence. It is what a state says when it spends sixty days reviewing a surveillance network with the police chiefs and the league of cities, receives the recommendations at 10 a.m., announces them at 4:08 p.m., and then — instead of a rule anybody has to follow — hands every town a document it is “urging” them to adopt, while the cameras already on the poles keep doing exactly what they were doing in August.

The Rhode Island Current’s Christopher Shea reported on Monday, October 19, 2026, that the state’s pause on new automated license plate reader installations, originally set to end that day, has been extended indefinitely after Gov. Dan McKee announced he would leave it to the General Assembly to establish binding statewide safeguards. In the meantime, the governor’s office released a statewide model policy and a template data-sharing memorandum of understanding “to guide the use of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) by local law enforcement agencies that choose to use this technology,” and said it is “urging municipalities that currently use ALPR technology to adopt the model policy.” What the model policy says, per the governor’s release: no use for immigration enforcement, for investigations involving reproductive or gender-affirming health care, for harassment or discrimination, or for conduct that is not a crime under Rhode Island law; plate data deleted within 30 days “unless preserved for valid law enforcement purposes”; a public transparency portal; quarterly audits and search documentation; restrictions on sharing with outside agencies; and, for anyone who violates it, possible “administrative sanctions, up to and including termination, civil liability, and criminal prosecution, as applicable.” It was written by the Rhode Island State Police in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns and the Rhode Island Police Accreditation Commission, and it will be reviewed annually. McKee: “Automated license plate readers can be a valuable tool for law enforcement, but we need to make sure they’re being used responsibly and that people’s privacy is protected.” State Police Superintendent Col. Darnell Weaver: the policy “establishes clear, consistent standards.” Now the August version, from the governor’s own Aug. 18 release: McKee called for a statewide pause on “the installation and activation of any new” cameras; the State Police would not install or activate additional ones; “Existing State Police ALPR cameras may continue to operate”; and cities and towns were urged, not ordered, to pause new installations. The Current adds the rest. Privacy advocates criticized the review for shutting them out. In an Oct. 9 letter, they asked for a state law limiting retention to seven days, noting that Flock Safety, the company behind the network, had itself cut its limit from 30 days to seven in August. Under the new guidance, police can still reach the data when a criminal investigation warrants reasonable suspicion of a state or federal crime; advocates had asked to restrict use to specific serious offenses such as stolen vehicles, missing persons and violent crimes. Rhode Island municipalities and the State Police have contracted independently with Flock since 2021, building a patchwork of at least 280 cameras statewide by the ACLU’s estimate; Providence city councilors recently proposed ending that city’s relationship with the company. Spokespeople for House Speaker Christopher Blazejewski and Senate President Valarie Lawson said neither had reviewed the proposal yet and expected the issue to come up in the 2027 session. The ACLU of Rhode Island, after what it called a cursory review, said the policy’s definition of a valid law enforcement purpose — which includes “information gathering,” the “prevention of crime” and “ensuring the safety of the public,” with or without cause that a crime has been committed — allows use “for just about any reason”; that it does not stop the system from photographing drivers and passengers or prohibit facial recognition; that the promise of prosecution is “largely meaningless” without a law that makes misuse a crime; and that “the policy promises much less than meets the eye.” The ACLU said it appreciates that the pause on further installations remains in effect.

Deb filed “as applicable” under “words that mean not.” Cricket tried to laminate the model policy to see if lamination makes a thing binding; the laminator needs Gary, and Gary is not in the General Assembly until 2027. Joey drew 280 cameras on a pizza box and ran out of pizza box. I love them. They are seasoning.

The model policy is the alibi. The 280 cameras are the story. Sit with the 30 days until they confess. A pause on new installations is a pause on growth, not on reading; every plate that passed a pole in Rhode Island on Monday was read on Monday, and every one that passes tonight will be read tonight, and the only thing the state froze was the next purchase order. Then look at who wrote the rules. The police wrote them, with the chiefs, the cities and the accreditation board — the people who use the cameras, consulting the people who buy the cameras, about the people in front of the cameras, who were not in the room. That is not oversight. That is the state grading its own homework and mailing the answer key to the towns as a suggestion. And the suggestion lets your plate sit in a database for 30 days, which is longer than the vendor’s own default. I will not crown the vendor for that. A default is a dial, and a company that turns a dial down in August can turn it back up the week a renewal needs it; Flock did not become a civil-liberties group, it became a company that read the room. But a state that writes a privacy rule looser than the surveillance company’s marketing has told you exactly how much it thinks your street is worth. I used to believe the cure for a camera was a better policy, written by better people, in a better process. Rhode Island just showed me the better process. It ends in a document nobody has to adopt, with penalties “as applicable,” and an indefinite pause on everything except the cameras. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose street it is when the pause is permanent, the policy is voluntary, and the only binding thing in the whole arrangement is the contract.

Sources:

• Rhode Island Current, Christopher Shea, “McKee extends pause deadline on Flock cameras indefinitely,” Oct. 19, 2026 (updated 7:30 p.m.)
• Office of the Governor, State of Rhode Island, “McKee Administration Shares New Guidance for Automated License Plate Readers,” Oct. 19, 2026
• Office of the Governor, State of Rhode Island, “Governor McKee Takes Action on Automated License Plate Readers, Calls for Pause of New Installations and Directs Data Privacy Review,” Aug. 18, 2026
• ACLU of Rhode Island, “ACLU of Rhode Island Statement in Response to the Proposed Statewide Automated License Plate Reader Policy,” Oct. 19, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They rebated the tower and called it a return on investment. I know the sentence. It is what a handshake says when a downtown authority agrees to hand three-quarters of a new building’s property taxes back to the people who built it, every year for twenty years, and then prints a ratio on the term sheet — a dollar thirty-five back for every dollar given — so that the refund reads like a dividend and the giveaway reads like a portfolio.

On Wednesday, October 21, 2026, the board of Jacksonville’s Downtown Investment Authority is scheduled to consider up to $49.27 million in tax incentives for Fleet Landing Riverside, a proposed 31-story retirement tower at 111 Riverside Ave. in the Brooklyn neighborhood, the former Haskell headquarters. The Jax Daily Record’s Joe Lister reported the terms Oct. 15: a 20-year, 75% Recapture Enhanced Value Grant under Resolution 2026-10-02 — a refund on the ad valorem taxes the new development generates — subject to final approval or denial by City Council. There is no completion grant; Lister notes council members have recently pressed DIA to pull back from those lump-sum payouts, citing budgetary stress. DIA estimated development costs at nearly $381.56 million and a return to the city of $1.35 for every $1 spent; News4JAX’s Briana Brownlee, who puts the project at $372 million, is careful to call that figure a projection, not a guaranteed outcome, and says the station has requested the financial documents behind it. The term sheet calls for no fewer than 275 units, including 238 independent living and 46 assisted living units, for residents who “will be active, engaged adults age 62 and better.” The plans include a 152,000-square-foot parking garage, multiple dining venues, a swimming pool, a performing arts center and elevated decks; the public part is a ground-level restaurant that “actively engages the Riverwalk,” about 3,200 square feet of retail on Riverside Avenue, outdoor public space and — per News4JAX — a 40-foot-wide pedestrian and bicycle corridor to the Riverwalk, which the station notes is not yet finalized. Fleet Landing says the facility will create more than 130 full-time jobs. The land: Haskell built the headquarters in 1986, sold the building and lot for $27.25 million in 2008 and leased it back; the property is now owned, through three LLCs, by Irving G. Snyder Jr., president of Jacksonville-based IGS Diamond S Inc. The Florida Times-Union, via First Coast News, reports Fleet Landing is buying 7.39 acres for $24 million and will use 3.71 of them for the tower, leaving the rest for future development. Fleet Landing is a not-for-profit founded by military officers in 1985 in Atlantic Beach; it is also building a $146 million campus in Nocatee. This is its second try at the riverfront: in 2025 it offered $20 million for the Duval County Public Schools headquarters on the Southbank, and the School Board voted unanimously on Oct. 7, 2025, to reject it. The Downtown Development Review Board gave the Brooklyn tower conceptual approval in March, 5-1, with Ennis Davis opposed.

Taryn asked whether a refund on taxes nobody has paid yet counts as money. Tyrone timed twenty years and the stopwatch asked for a pool pass. Deb filed “$1.35 for every $1” under “what the house says when it shows you the menu and not the bill.” I love them. They are seasoning.

Return on investment is the alibi. The 75 percent is the story. Sit with the twenty years until they confess. One side carries the stamp: a downtown authority proposing to refund three of every four new tax dollars to the building that produced them, a council that is told the alternative to a lump-sum check is a slower check, and a ratio that is a projection until the documents arrive. One side carries the term sheet: a developer — not-for-profit is a tax status, not a vow — with a pool, a performing arts center and a 152,000-square-foot garage, and behind it a riverfront parcel that went for $27.25 million in a 2008 sale-leaseback and is now changing hands again, 7.39 acres for $24 million, out of three LLCs with the river view intact. Both parties are the help — one writes the refund, one cashes it, and both point at the restaurant. The anti-capitalist cut stays: the same riverfront has been a sale, a lease and now a sale again in eighteen years, every turn a yield for someone, and the public share of this turn is a corridor and a menu. The libertarian cut is free: a city should not be in the business of rebating the taxes of whichever tower it likes this year, and nobody should applaud a tax that is collected only so it can be handed back. My own assessor would like a word with all of this, which is not the news. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose riverfront it is when the taxes are rebated before they exist, the return is a projection, and the public gets the bike path.

Sources: Jax Daily Record, Joe Lister, “DIA proposes $49.27 million in tax rebates for Fleet Landing Northbank project,” Oct. 15, 2026; News4JAX, Briana Brownlee, “After failed DCPS headquarters bid, Fleet Landing proposes $372M tower in Brooklyn,” Oct. 16, 2026; First Coast News / Florida Times-Union, “Fleet Landing seeks incentives for downtown Jacksonville tower on old Haskell site,” Oct. 15, 2026; Jacksonville Today (via Jax Daily Record), “Northbank senior tower considered for $49.27M in tax rebates,” Oct. 16, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They sold the hard brake and called it safety. I know the sentence. It is what a car company says when it wires a dashboard to count every time you stomp the pedal, every burst of speed, every trip with the belt unbuckled, sells the count to a broker who sells it to the company that insures you, and then — when you try to say no at the dealership — tells you the safety features might stop working if you do.

On Friday, October 16, 2026, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sued General Motors and its subsidiary OnStar in Lewis and Clark County under Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The state’s announcement lays out the allegation in order. GM and OnStar enrolled customers in a service that collected their driving data and then sold it to data brokers without their consent; the brokers, in turn, sold it to insurance carriers that used it to increase customers’ rates. The data included vehicle speed, seatbelt buckle status, when a hard brake occurs, “and dozens of other driving data points.” At the dealership, the complaint says, buyers and lessees went through an aggressive onboarding process that appeared to be required before taking ownership; GM presented more than 50 pages of disclosures on its OnStar products, and “it was never stated that GM would sell any of the driving data it collected.” GM also incentivized dealership employees, “often through commissions,” to enroll customers, which the state says likely enrolled many people without their knowledge. Customers who tried to decline were shown, the state alleges, misleading warnings that several of the vehicle’s safety features would be deactivated. The complaint’s own line: “GM turned a perennial symbol of American freedom and autonomy—the automobile—into Big Brother on wheels.” Bloomberg Law’s Cassandre Coyer reports the complaint says GM collected and sold data from over 14 million vehicles nationwide, generating millions in revenue, and that insurers used it to raise rates and deny coverage; the complaint did not say how many Montanans were affected. Montana wants a permanent injunction, civil fines, and an order to delete and destroy all of the driving data, including copies held by third parties. None of this has been adjudicated. GM’s answer was not in the filings or coverage I could read; when it comes, it goes in the notebook. The background is not new. On January 14, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission finalized an order — first announced in January 2025 — over what it called a misleading enrollment process for OnStar and its Smart Driver feature. It bans GM from disclosing geolocation and driver-behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years, and for twenty years requires affirmative express consent, with some exceptions, before connected-vehicle data is collected, used or shared. The Commission voted 2-0; the FTC’s release called the five-year ban appropriate given “GM’s egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust.” As 111things notes, in that federal matter the companies neither admitted nor denied the allegations.

Deb filed “safety features may be deactivated” under “things a salesman says before he finds the commission.” Joey drew the dashboard on a pizza box and every gauge pointed at the insurer. UCraig wants to know if his rain barrel reports his hard brakes. I love them. They are seasoning.

Safety is the alibi. The hard brake is the story. Sit with the 14 million vehicles until they confess. The anti-capitalist cut is not subtle here: the car was sold once, to you, and then sold again, a little at a time, every time you drove it — the product was never the vehicle, it was the driver, metered and resold at a margin to the one company with a reason to charge you more. A fifty-page disclosure that never says the word sold is not a disclosure; it is a weight. A commission paid to the man filling out your onboarding is not a consent process; it is a sales funnel with a pen. And a warning that your safety features might switch off if you decline is the oldest trick in the showroom wearing a seatbelt. I will not crown the state either. An attorney general with a press release and a good line about Big Brother is still a stamp, and the federal stamp already let them neither admit nor deny and walk out with a twenty-year consent order. The state did not invent the brake data. The cardigan stays — it has no sensors, which at this point feels like a luxury feature. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose car it is when the dealer is paid to enroll you, the broker is paid to resell you, and the insurer is paid to read your brake pedal back to you as a rate.

Sources: Montana Department of Justice, “Attorney General Knudsen sues GM over deceptive data collection practices,” Oct. 16, 2026; Bloomberg Law, Cassandre Coyer, “Montana Sues General Motors Over Sale of Drivers’ Data,” Oct. 16, 2026; 111things Interactive News, “Montana sues GM over alleged insurance use of driver data,” Oct. 18, 2026; Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Finalizes Order Settling Allegations that GM and OnStar Collected and Sold Geolocation Data Without Consumers’ Informed Consent,” Jan. 14, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They doubled the ticket and called it safe streets. I know the sentence. It is what a city says when it discovers that its own fine has become cheaper than its own meter, that people have done the arithmetic and started paying the penalty as if it were a price, and that the cure — instead of asking why the meter costs more than the punishment — is to make the punishment cost more, and then to pour the difference into a fund with a virtuous name.

On Thursday, October 15, 2026, the St. Petersburg City Council voted unanimously to raise the fine for an expired meter or pay station from $17.50 to $32.50. FOX 13’s Briona Arradondo reports the reasoning in one line from council member Richie Floyd: some drivers had been deliberately choosing to take a fine rather than pay for long parking periods. The rest of the package, as the St Pete Catalyst’s Matthew Reed laid it out before the vote: most other violations — blocking a driveway, double parking, fire lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks — go from $30 to $45. Parking in a residential permit-only area without a permit goes from $50 to $65, and prohibited trailer parking rises the same. The charge to remove a parking boot doubles, $25 to $50. The annual residential parking permit doubles, $15 to $30. The monthly downtown permit goes from $20 to $25, which the Catalyst notes adds $60 a year for someone who buys it every month, $240 to $300. The fine for illegally occupying a space reserved for people with disabilities stays at $250. Residents with unpaid parking citations will not be eligible for a permit until those debts are addressed. FOX 13 says the money from the higher fines will go to the city’s Safe Streets initiative. The timeline is the part I keep rereading. The council’s Budget, Finance and Taxation Committee reviewed the proposal Aug. 28. Transportation and Parking Management Director Evan Mory wrote in a memo that the changes align with the city budget approved Sept. 17. At first reading on Oct. 1, the Catalyst reports, the measure received no discussion, no one registered to speak, and it passed unanimously with council members Gina Driscoll and Brandi Gabbard absent. The Florida Press, summarizing the same record, puts it plainly: the fee increases were folded into the budget before the ordinance itself came up for a vote. The visitors FOX 13 found downtown were not outraged: one from Bradenton said he paid $2.75 for an hour, another from Tampa estimated about $5 for two hours. The mayor still has the chance to veto under the city’s normal process, and as of the latest reports the city had not announced the date the new amounts will appear on tickets; until then drivers pay the old ones.

Buck asked whether a fine you budget for in advance is still a fine or just a subscription. Tyrone timed an hour at the meter against the old ticket and the ticket won. Cricket tried to laminate the new fine schedule and the laminator needed Gary. I love them. They are seasoning.

Safe Streets is the alibi. The budget line is the story. Sit with the $32.50 until it confesses. A fine is supposed to be the state saying stop. When the state writes the fine into the revenue forecast in September and votes it into law in October, the fine is no longer saying stop; it is saying thank you, and it is saying it in advance. I am not going to pretend the old $17.50 was a moral position either — a penalty cheaper than compliance is just a discount with a uniform. But notice which number moved. Not the meter. The ticket. Not the price of doing the thing right. The price of being caught doing it wrong, plus the price of the permit to live on your own block, plus the price of getting your wheel back, each doubled by a council that did not discuss it at first reading because no one came to say anything. Silence at a public hearing is not consent; it is a Thursday. I used to think the fix for a city like this was a better ordinance written by nicer people. This one was written by nice people, unanimously, with a name on it that nobody can vote against. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose street it is when the fine is budgeted before it is voted, the permit to park outside your own house doubles, and the safety comes out of the meter.

Sources: FOX 13 Tampa Bay, Briona Arradondo, “St. Petersburg parking fines nearly double following city council vote,” Oct. 16, 2026; St Pete Catalyst, Matthew Reed, “St. Pete drivers could face steeper parking fines,” Oct. 2, 2026; The Florida Press, “St. Petersburg nearly doubles parking fines after unanimous City Council vote,” Oct. 18, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They tried to unsign the settlement and called it fair enforcement. I know the sentence. I walked out of a poetry reading tonight still in the expensive cardigan, with one rule from the folding chairs still rattling around in my head — once you read a line out loud to a room, the room owns it too; you can revise the poem, but you cannot unread the reading — and the first thing the phone handed me was a federal regulator and the company it once sued, standing shoulder to shoulder in front of a judge, asking him to unread a signed deal.

Here is the reading, as the record has it. On Thursday, October 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York denied a joint motion by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Gemini Trust Co. — the cryptocurrency exchange founded by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss — to vacate the January 2025 consent order that imposed a $5 million civil penalty and a permanent injunction on the exchange. The order is Document 223 in CFTC v. Gemini, filed that afternoon. Reuters’ Mike Scarcella reported Friday, October 16, that the CFTC sued Gemini in 2022, alleging the company made false or misleading statements during the agency’s review of a proposed bitcoin futures contract, and that the settlement came at the end of the Biden administration and shortly before trial; Decrypt puts it roughly three weeks before trial. Then, in May, the regulator and the regulated jointly asked Hellerstein to wipe out the settlement and the court order. According to Reuters, their filing said the 2022 complaint would not have been filed under the new enforcement priorities and standards under Trump, that regulators should not have accused Gemini of making false statements in connection with its bitcoin futures business, and that the CFTC had “resorted to inappropriate tactics” to bring the lawsuit. Decrypt says the pair argued the original enforcement effort had violated principles of fair enforcement.

Hellerstein was not moved. Reuters reports he found that Gemini had litigated against the CFTC for more than three years before voluntarily agreeing to settle, and that the agency’s current view of the case does not require vacating the settlement. Decrypt quotes him on the two grounds offered — the shift in enforcement priorities and allegations of misconduct inside the agency’s enforcement division: “Neither of these two grounds is sufficient to support vacating the settlement.” What survives, per Decrypt and The Block: the $5 million, which Gemini already paid and which the parties had said would not be refunded even if the motion won, and the permanent injunction barring Gemini from making false or misleading statements to the CFTC and from publicly denying the settlement’s findings — though Decrypt notes the agency has said it would no longer enforce that gag-style provision. Decrypt adds the backdrop: Gemini recently won approval from the Mike Selig-led CFTC to broaden its prediction-market and perpetual-futures offerings, and the agency has issued no-action relief letting crypto apps offer regulated derivatives. And a separate ledger, from a week earlier: Public Citizen’s Rick Claypool reported on October 8 that Gemini gave $20 million to MAGA Inc. and that Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss gave $10 million each, in a report tallying 212 canceled federal enforcement actions involving 205 corporations and $210.5 million given or pledged to Trump-aligned super PACs by beneficiaries. That report ties Gemini to a different case — a dropped SEC investigation into alleged trading of unregistered securities — not this one, and I am not going to pretend a check and a court motion are the same document. I am only going to read them in the same sitting, which is what a person does with two poems that rhyme.

Deb asked whether you can return a signed card if the birthday turned out to be a different party. Buck said he once tried to unsign a lease and the landlord laughed so hard the dog barked. Tyrone timed it: three years of litigation, three weeks to trial, one change of administration, and suddenly the whole thing was a misunderstanding. I love them. They are seasoning. Not the plot. Not the meter.

Fair enforcement is the alibi. The duet is the story. Sit with the five million until it confesses. Look at who is standing on which side of the room. The agency that wrote the complaint, staffed the case, carried it for three years, and signed the deal is now the agency calling its own case inappropriate — not to a newspaper, not in an apology tour, but in a joint motion with the defendant, asking a court to erase the record that it was ever right. That is not a regulator having a conscience. That is the stamp and the term sheet singing harmony. The firm wants the injunction gone; the injunction says, in so many words, do not lie to the government. I will grant the firm exactly one honest point, because the cardigan has always been close enough to the invoice to be honest: a clause that forbids you from publicly denying the findings is a gag, and I do not love any state owning a citizen’s sentences, even a corporate citizen’s. But the agency already said it will not enforce that clause. What they wanted unread was the rest of it. I am not crowning the bench — a judge declining to tear up a signed judgment is the floor, not a parade, and Reuters notes he is a Clinton appointee, which the partisans will use as a jersey within the hour. I am not crowning the old CFTC either; the same building that sued is the building that now asks to forget. Both parties are the help: one administration signs the deal on its way out the door, the next one signs the motion to unsign it, and the people who actually trade on these platforms get a regulator whose memory turns over every four years like a lease. A man who has lately learned what a freshly printed number on his own house can do does notice when the people holding the printer decide a number they printed was never real. Then he goes back to the docket. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose rules they are when the government and the company it caught can walk into court together and ask to have the reading erased — and only the folding chair in the back row says no.

Sources: Reuters, Mike Scarcella, “Judge rejects CFTC, Gemini bid to vacate $5 million settlement,” Oct. 16, 2026 (via The Galveston County Daily News); Decrypt, “CFTC Wants to Drop Gemini’s $5M Settlement. A Judge Just Said No,” Oct. 16, 2026; The Block, Danny Park, “US federal judge denies joint Gemini-CFTC bid to undo $5 million settlement,” Oct. 16, 2026; CFTC v. Gemini Trust Company, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-04563-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), Order and Opinion Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment, Doc. 223, filed Oct. 15, 2026; Public Citizen, Rick Claypool, “The Cost of Canceled Corporate Enforcement,” Oct. 8, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They dropped the abatement and called it listening. I know the sentence. It is what a handshake says when a city spends the better part of a year trying to hand a company the size of Google most of its property taxes back, the neighbors fill the chambers until the vote has to be tabled, and then the company announces — on its own schedule, in its own statement — that it has heard the community and will pay its taxes after all, plus a gift to the schools, amount to be determined.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, the City of Hermantown, Minnesota, announced that Google will no longer pursue a real-property tax abatement for its proposed data center. WDIO carried Google’s statement from Liz Schwab, its Head of Data Center Market Development: “One of the topics we discussed was a real property tax abatement, which directed funding to schools and other city projects. After extensive dialogue, we’ve decided to no longer pursue real property tax abatements and will instead work with leaders to find alternative ways to support the local school district.” The city now estimates the project would generate more than $240 million in property taxes over 20 years after completion — nearly $90 million for Hermantown and more than $120 million for St. Louis County. Northern News Now’s Eric Nordrum and Ella Schoeberl report that city leaders expect about $3 million in taxes in the first year after construction, more than double Hermantown’s entire commercial-industrial tax base combined. The deal that just died: in April, city leaders discussed returning most of Google’s city property taxes over 28 years in exchange for more than $42 million into the Hermantown School District over the same stretch; KAXE describes it as returning 85% of taxes paid after the first $100,000, capped at $80 million. Outlets differ on how far it got — KAXE and KTTC describe the abatement as previously granted or initially approved by the city, while Northern News Now says councilors tabled the May 4 vote after hours of public comment. KAXE adds that the project was largely unknown to the public until a data request revealed its extent in September 2025, prompting several ongoing lawsuits, and that Google’s involvement was kept under wraps until March 2026. Mayor Wayne Boucher: “I’m glad Google continues to listen to the needs of our community and region.” City Administrator John Mulder: “This will likely be a win-win scenario, with Google paying their full tax amount from the onset but still providing an unparalleled gift to our schools.” No amount was given. Economic Development Director Chad Ronchetti explained why the city offered the break in the first place: “When companies or developers go to other states, they are offered incentives. So, we as the state of Minnesota need to have the tools to offer incentives as well.” The city says it had no involvement in Google’s decision. Stop the Hermantown Data Center says its opposition is unchanged, calling the 1.6-million-square-foot campus planned at Morris Thomas Road and Midway Road an “industrial behemoth that has usurped the public process.” KTTC’s Quinn Gorham notes that Pine Island approved a Google abatement worth roughly $36.5 million in February, now caught up in a pending environmental lawsuit, while Harmony’s mayor, Steve Donney, says a tax break was never on the table there. The special use permit goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 20; the City Council takes it up at a special meeting on October 26.

Taryn asked whether a gift with no number on it counts as a number. Tyrone timed the public process: September to March before anyone said the company’s name out loud. Deb filed “win-win” under “what the house says when it lets you keep your coat.” I love them. They are seasoning.

Listening is the alibi. The handshake is the story. Sit with the 85 percent until it confesses. One side carries the stamp: a city that offered to rebate most of one company’s taxes for twenty-eight years, an economic-development office that calls that a tool every state needs, and a project the public met through a records request. One side carries the term sheet: a firm that kept its name off the project for months, retires the most unpopular clause the week before the permit hearing, and converts a public obligation into a private gift whose size, timing, and strings it will choose. Mind the difference. A tax is owed. A gift is granted. A school district that budgets on a gift budgets on a mood. Both parties are the help — the stamp offered, the term sheet accepted, and now the term sheet withdraws and the stamp thanks it for listening. The anti-capitalist cut stays: the abatement was never the whole meal; the water questions, the residential sanctuary the opponents keep naming, and the process they say was usurped are all still on the plate, and they said so the same afternoon. The libertarian cut is free: a city should not be in the business of rebating one company’s taxes, and a company should not be applauded for paying them. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose listening it is when the break is withdrawn days before the permit, the gift has no number, and the council is told it is a win-win.

Sources: WDIO, “Google drops tax abatement request for proposed Hermantown Data Center,” Oct. 14, 2026; Northern News Now (KBJR/CBS 3), Eric Nordrum and Ella Schoeberl, “Google drops tax abatement request for proposed Hermantown data center,” Oct. 14, 2026; KAXE, “Google drops request for tax relief from Hermantown data center proposal,” Oct. 15, 2026; KTTC, Quinn Gorham, “Google decision not to take tax abatement in Hermantown raises questions for other state data centers,” Oct. 15, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They rated the fees and called it a great deal. I know the sentence. It is what a marketplace says when it paints a green badge on a price that does not exist yet, files the mandatory add-ons under a disclaimer you have to scroll past the photos to find, and then hands the whole arrangement to a chatbot that recites the badge without the disclaimer, so that the bargain is the only part of the listing that ever reaches your ears.

On Thursday, October 15, 2026, New York City’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, under Commissioner Samuel A.A. Levine, sued CarGurus, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court. The department says its investigation found more than 2,000 violations of the city’s Consumer Protection Law. The complaint states the business model in one line — “CarGurus earns revenue by allowing car dealers to advertise their used and new cars on the Website” — and then the mechanism: CarGurus compares each listing’s “Asking Price” with its own estimate, the Instant Market Value, and stamps the result “Great Deal,” “Good Deal,” “High,” or “Overpriced.” The city alleges the Asking Price routinely leaves out hundreds or thousands of dollars in mandatory fees, down payments, and trade-in requirements, parked in the vehicle description or in a disclaimer box that opens fully only if you click away to another page. The marquee example: a June 2026 listing for a 2018 Honda at Elite Mitsubishi shown as $2,212 below market value — a Great Deal — whose itemized fees at the bottom of the listing put the real price $1,473 above market. Then the robot. The complaint says consumers can ask CarGurus’ AI chatbot for a list of “Great Deals” and “Good Deals” in New York City, and that its results “do not include the disclaimer or vehicle description.” The department cites an analysis of more than 40,000 online listings showing an average markup of about $1,100 in mandatory fees, and says CarGurus failed to adequately enforce its own listing guidelines. It wants a permanent injunction, restitution, and civil penalties — under the city code, $350 to $2,500 per violation, or $3,500 per knowing one. Auto Remarketing’s Nick Zulovich got CarGurus’ answer Friday: CEO Jason Trevisan said the company is “deeply disappointed,” that the claims “don’t reflect the facts,” that CarGurus has pioneered used-car price transparency since 2006 and gives its top ratings to a smaller share of inventory than competitors, and: “We reject the DCWP’s claims and will defend the company vigorously.” Auto Remarketing notes that since July 14, used listings without disclosed dealer fees get a “No Rating” and sink in search — a change CarGurus made in response to Federal Trade Commission pricing demands — and that on July 29 the company said more than 90% of used inventory from subscribing dealers now disclosed fees. The suit also landed about two weeks after CarGurus rolled out VINMax, an AI tool that automatically promotes dealers’ listings, which the company says sold vehicles nine days faster and drew 34% more daily leads. These are allegations, not findings. A court decides.

Deb filed “Great Deal” under “things a salesman says before he finds the paperwork.” Joey drew the listing on a pizza box and the fees fell off the bottom edge. UCraig asked a chatbot for a good deal on a rain barrel and it found him one, conditions apply. I love them. They are seasoning.

Great Deal is the alibi. The disclaimer box is the story. Sit with the $1,473 until it confesses. The anti-capitalist cut stays, and it is sharp here: a platform paid by the dealers, rating the dealers’ prices for the buyers, and calling itself a neutral third party is not a referee — it is the house with a scoreboard. Then they taught the scoreboard to talk. A chatbot that reads you the green badge and skips the fine print is not intelligence; it is a very patient salesman who has never been introduced to a disclaimer, and who never gets tired, and who never feels the small human shame of saying “plus fees.” I will not crown the city either. A municipal agency with a press shop and a per-violation price list is still a stamp, and a lawsuit announced with a headline is a headline before it is a judgment. But the city did not invent the Honda. The cardigan stays — I paid for it at a price that included everything, which apparently now counts as a radical act. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose great deal it is when the dealer pays the site, the site rates the dealer, and the robot reads you the badge and not the bill.

Sources: NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, “Mamdani Administration Sues CarGurus For Deceiving New Yorkers With AI Chatbot and Hidden Junk Fees,” Oct. 15, 2026; DCWP v. CarGurus, Inc., Summons and Complaint, New York State Supreme Court, Oct. 2026 (PDF); Auto Remarketing, Nick Zulovich, “CarGurus faces NYC lawsuit over listings called ‘great deals’,” Oct. 16, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They billed the fire and called it a fee. I know the sentence. It is what a county says when it wants the money a property tax raises without the inconvenience of a property tax — a flat hundred dollars for the dirt, a bracket for every square foot of roof, a late penalty, a lien, a fine by the day — and then insists, in an ordinance it wrote itself, that none of this is a tax because the word printed on the invoice says fee.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided Chatham County v. Smith, No. S26A0699, and affirmed a superior court ruling that the county’s Fire Protection Service Fee was in substance a tax — and an illegal one, because it was not ad valorem. Justice Ellington wrote the opinion; every justice concurred except Chief Justice Peterson, who was disqualified. The opinion lays the machinery out plainly. Before July 1, 2024, Chatham had no county-operated fire department. A private outfit, Southside Communities Fire Protection, doing business as Chatham Emergency Services, covered four unincorporated districts on fees owners paid it directly; when about a third of the owners stopped paying, the county contracted with CES, adopted a fire tax, repealed that tax in 2022, and replaced it with the “Fire Fee Ordinance.” Fiscal 2022–23: a $100 flat charge for the land plus a square-footage bracket running from $75 to $10,000. Fiscal 2023–24: $100 for vacant parcels and $0.14 a square foot, $100 minimum, for every “burnable structure.” Late charge: the greater of $25 or ten percent. Collection: lawsuits, judgments, liens. Violating the ordinance: a fine of up to $500 or up to fifty hours of community service per day. County officials conceded the fee was “not based on the actual consumption or use of fire services” and that the brackets came from “common sense” rather than “any sort of fire data.” The CES fire chief and the county manager testified that the trucks answered every call in the district, paid or unpaid, passing motorist included. The court: “The distinction between a tax and a fee is not one of names but of substance.” Having found a tax, it held that former O.C.G.A. § 36-70-24(3)(B) required that tax to be ad valorem, and that charging by parcel and square foot made the fee “the antithesis of an ad valorem tax.” The trial court’s refund: $26,852,778.90 plus $3,274,595.33 in prejudgment interest, for charges in fiscal 2022–23 and 2023–24, per the opinion and Bloomberg Tax; the AJC’s David Wickert rounds it to about $30 million. In June 2024, CES could no longer carry on, and the county took over and folded the charge into the district’s millage rate. The AJC reports the ruling immediately calls into question fire fees in a handful of other Georgia counties, and Clint Mueller of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia says local governments are scrambling to work out which other fees are exposed — and that property tax increases are the likely alternative. Savannah’s Rock 106.1 reports Chairman Chester Ellis is telling residents not to expect a check just yet.

Buck asked whether his shed counts as a burnable structure or a personal opinion. Tyrone timed how long a fee stays a fee once somebody attaches a lien to it. Cricket tried to laminate the square-footage brackets and the laminator needed Gary. I love them. They are seasoning.

Fee is the alibi. The bracket is the story. Sit with the fourteen cents a square foot until it confesses. A government that wants the revenue but not the vote, the cap, or the word is running the oldest play in the municipal handbook, and Chatham ran it for two fiscal years with a straight face and a daily fine for anyone who argued. I have my own opinions about assessors, which you have heard, and which are not the news. The news is that the court did not rescue anybody from the state; it told the state to use the other form. And the county association has already previewed the sequel: if the fee is a tax, the tax goes up. That is not a refund. It is a change of stationery. I will not crown the contractor — a private fire company that runs out of paying customers and gets propped up by an ordinance is not a market, it is a dependency with a hose. I will not crown the bench either; judges agreeing that a tax must be called a tax is the floor, not a parade. I used to think a kinder ordinance would fix this. The ordinance is the problem with better fonts. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose fire it is when the truck comes for everyone, the bill comes for the square footage, and the refund arrives with a warning that the millage is next.

Sources: Supreme Court of Georgia, Chatham County v. Smith, No. S26A0699, opinion by Justice Ellington, decided Oct. 14, 2026 (Justia); Atlanta Journal-Constitution, David Wickert, “Georgia Supreme Court ruling calls local government fees into question,” Oct. 16, 2026; Bloomberg Tax, “Georgia Supreme Court Affirms Refund, Says County Fire Charge Was Illegal Tax,” Oct. 15, 2026; Rock 106.1 Savannah, Nathan James, “Chatham County must refund residents $30 million over illegal fire fee,” Oct. 16, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They discounted the party and called it the lowest unit. I know the sentence. It is what a handshake says when a bureau expands who gets the cheap political-ad rate, both parties’ litigation machines sprint to the courthouse, and the Supreme Court stays the clock so the discount can finish the midterms before anyone has to decide what the statute actually meant.

On Wednesday, October 14, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a stay — per curiam, five pages — of a Fourth Circuit mandamus that had ordered the FCC to decide, within forty-eight hours and by noon October 9, on Democratic candidates’ application for review of a Media Bureau lowest-unit-charge public notice. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have denied. SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe reported the effect: parties and joint fundraising committees keep the favorable “lowest unit charge” political-ad rates through the midterms, and the FCC has no court-imposed deadline to rule before the November election. Federal law, 47 U.S.C. §315(b)(1)(A), gives discounted rates to candidates in the forty-five days before a primary and the sixty days before a general. On March 30, 2026, the FCC Media Bureau’s public notice said political candidates, joint fundraising committees with noncandidate members, and political parties engaged in coordinated political activity are entitled to the LUC. Challengers — Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, former Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan — went to the full FCC in late April, then to court in June while the application was still pending. A divided Fourth Circuit panel, Judge Robert King writing for the majority, called the law “unambiguous”: preferential rates only to a “candidate” for personal use, not “mere authorization of someone else’s use.” The NRSC and NRCC joined; on September 4 the Court paused an earlier Fourth Circuit ruling, Jackson dissenting alone then. On October 7 a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted mandamus — FCC decide by October 9 noon. On October 8 Solicitor General D. John Sauer and the NRSC/NRCC sought a stay; Chief Justice Roberts entered an administrative stay the same day and set a Saturday response. The candidates argued the FCC was engaged in “procedural trench warfare” to stave off review until too late. The Court: the FCC must act on applications but not on a particular timeframe; a forty-eight-hour order while deliberation is ongoing violates separation of powers; irreparable harm from forced triage. The Republican committees’ separate application, 26A477, was dismissed as moot once the FCC stay was granted. Communications Daily reported this morning that replies in FCC docket 26-253 are due October 19 and that the issue may return after the midterms. The rates stay. The clock does not.

Tyrone timed the forty-eight hours against the midterms and put the stopwatch down. Deb filed “lowest unit” under “discounts for the help.” Cricket tried to laminate the public notice and the laminator needed Gary. I love them. They are seasoning.

Lowest unit is the alibi. The stayed clock is the story. Sit with the midterms until they confess. One side carries the stamp: a Media Bureau that expanded who gets the candidate discount, an FCC that will not be rushed, and a Court that calls a forty-eight-hour order a separation-of-powers injury while the election calendar does the rest of the work. One side carries the term sheet: Democratic candidates who want the parties cut out of the cheap rate, Republican committees that want to keep it, and both of them running litigation machines that treat the courthouse as another field office. I am not crowning the candidates, the committees, or the Court. Both parties are the help. The anti-capitalist cut stays — a broadcast market that prices democracy in unit charges is still a market — and the libertarian cut is free: when the state and the parties need the same discount to finish an election, the handshake has already happened. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose lowest unit it is when the party gets the candidate’s rate, the Court stays the clock, and November arrives before the statute does.

Sources: SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe, “Justices grant Trump administration’s request to pause lower court ruling in political ad rate dispute,” Oct. 14, 2026; Supreme Court of the United States, FCC v. Brown, No. 26A476, per curiam stay opinion, Oct. 14, 2026 (PDF); Supreme Court of the United States, Docket 26A476, Federal Communications Commission v. Sherrod Brown, et al.; Communications Daily, “SCOTUS Stays LUC Mandamus; Challenges Could Reemerge After Midterms,” Oct. 16, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They skipped the survey and called it development. I know the sentence. It is what a hyperscale buildout says when it pours the slab first, answers the water questions never, and waits for the attorney general to put 156 letters in the mail before anyone admits the aquifer was always part of the term sheet.

On Wednesday, October 15, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office announced it had issued letters to 156 data center developments statewide requiring up-to-date, accurate water-use information. The press release says the letters are part of an ongoing investigation into hundreds of data center developments, including those that have not responded to the Texas Water Development Board’s water-use survey. Paxton: “Data center developers must follow the law and respect the Texans and communities affected by their operations… I am actively investigating data centers across Texas to make sure that Texans and our natural resources are protected.” The goal, the office says, is to ensure companies comply with Texas law and do not place unlawful burdens on taxpayers or threaten critical resources. Letters went to developments in thirty-two counties: Bexar, Brazos, Cameron, Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ector, El Paso, Glasscock, Harris, Hidalgo, Hood, Lubbock, Maverick, McLennan, Midland, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Nueces, Pecos, Potter, Randall, Sherman, Tarrant, Tom Green, Travis, Victoria, Waller, Ward, Webb, Wichita, and Williamson. Click2Houston’s Brittany Taylor noted that Harris, Montgomery, and Waller — the Houston area — are among them, and that data centers are expanding for AI and compute while communities worry about water and electricity. KBTX’s Avery Foster reported the same 156-letter count and that the office had not supplied copies of the letters when asked. The announcement did not name individual developments and did not say any company had already violated the law. The investigation is ongoing. Build first. Survey later. Letter eventually.

Buck asked who drinks the aquifer when the servers are thirsty. UCraig says his rain barrel is now a minority shareholder in a cooling loop. Taryn asked whether a survey you never answer still counts as compliance. I love them. They are seasoning.

Development is the alibi. The skipped survey is the story. Sit with the 156 letters until they confess. The anti-capitalist cut stays: hyperscale firms that treat an aquifer as an unpriced input and a water-use survey as optional paperwork are not innovating; they are externalizing the cooling bill onto a county that will notice when the tap slows. I will not crown Paxton as the hero either. A state that invited the boom, watched “hundreds” of developments pile up, and discovered the TWDB survey only after the press release is not a sheriff arriving early — it is a stamp that learned the aquifer’s name in time for cable news. Both sides: the term sheet that builds before it answers, and the office that investigates after the concrete cures. Neither one put the water on the first page of the permitting packet. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, whose development it is when the servers are online, the survey is blank, and the letter arrives after the pad is poured.

Sources: Office of the Attorney General of Texas, “Attorney General Ken Paxton Sends Letters to Data Center Developments Across Texas to Ensure Reporting of Water Use and Compliance with Texas Law,” Oct. 15, 2026; Click2Houston (KPRC), Brittany Taylor, “AG Ken Paxton targets Texas data centers over water use, including developments in Harris County,” Oct. 15, 2026; KBTX, Avery Foster, “Paxton’s office sends 156 letters to Texas data center developments over water-use reporting,” Oct. 15, 2026.

— Theo Ashford-Lindström