Blog

They put the tower on the city’s tab and called it for the entire city. I know the sentence. It is what the handshake says when a private building needs public money, and somebody has to explain why one block of downtown is everybody’s business on the day the check is written and nobody’s business on the day the rent is collected.

Here is the record. News4JAX reported Oct. 22, 2026, that Jacksonville City Council members Matt Carlucci and Jimmy Peluso joined Gateway Jax CEO Bryon Moll at a public meeting at City Hall to urge support for a $49.65 million incentive package tied to a $140 million development on West Beaver Street — a full-service Publix grocery, 259 apartments and retail, on a site the station calls Block N7, part of Gateway’s more than $1 billion Pearl Square neighborhood near City Hall. The package has two parts. One, per News4JAX’s Oct. 8 report, is a $28.25 million cash completion grant, money that comes directly from city reserves and is paid after construction is finished. The other is a $21.412 million REV Grant, a 75 percent property-tax refund over 17 years. The building is a 14-story, $140.15 million high-rise; Gateway is demolishing the former First Baptist Church auditorium at 119 W. Beaver St. to make room for it; Publix would lease the 37,000-square-foot ground floor. And the detail that matters most, from the same report: “If approved by Council, the money would go to Gateway to subsidize the building’s construction. Publix would lease the space and would not receive any of the city dollars.” A council committee advanced the bill 5-2 on Oct. 5. The next day the Finance Committee deferred it, Citizen Portal reports, for two cycles, with members worried about adding to the city’s unbudgeted cash completion-grant commitments. The reason is on the Nov. 3 ballot: Amendment 3, a statewide homestead property-tax exemption, which the City Council Auditor’s Office estimates would cost Jacksonville $200 million in revenue in fiscal 2027-28 and $300 million by 2028-29. The next major vote on the project is set for Nov. 4, the day after.

Now the defense, in their own words. “This is not just a request we’re making for one block in Downtown but it’s for the entire city,” Moll said. “And the project would not be possible without the investment.” Carlucci said he is not taking a position on Amendment 3 but wants the deal done regardless: “The downtown area is such a fertile tax base — eventually, that project will return such a large return on the investment that it winds up being good for the entire city,” and, “I believe it’s important that we pass this ordinance and we honor this incentive because this project is so key.” Peluso said the developer’s track record is the difference: “We’ve seen a lot of renderings in the past and a lot of things have never been built. The fact that we have a real developer with serious capital behind them real private money actually developing stuff it signals to me that we have a serious developer,” and a grocer on the ground floor, he said, would “set up all the other retailers to want to come here.” On the other side, Council President Nick Howland said in early October that approving the deal before knowing the shortfall would be “just irresponsible.” And yes, a downtown with no full-service grocery is a real problem for the people who live there.

Deb says she has shopped at the same grocery store for thirty years and the store has never once asked her to pay for the building. Buck asked whether a 17-year refund comes with a cart. I love them. They are seasoning.

“For the entire city” is the alibi. The completion grant is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. I did the division, and it is mine: $49.65 million is about 35 percent of a $140.15 million building, or roughly $191,700 for each of the 259 apartments. Watch the shape. The developer says the building is impossible without public money, and the council members say the developer is serious because it has real private money. Both cannot be the selling point at once. The grocery is the face on the brochure, but the grocery gets nothing; the tower gets the cash, from reserves, at the end, when nobody can stop it anymore. And the brakes, when they came, were not a principle. The deferral is a wait for a revenue forecast — a council agreeing to price the handshake after it knows how much the homeowners are worth this year. I have my own feelings about homestead and assessments this autumn, and I am leaving them in the drawer. Both parties are the help. One carries the ordinance. One carries the rendering. I do not need a braver council to say yes or a stingier one to say not yet; I need someone to explain why a city that might lose $300 million a year is still being told its reserves are the only thing standing between downtown and a loaf of bread. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, how big a building gets to be before the entire city has to pay for it.

Sources:

• News4JAX, Ashley French, “Jacksonville council members, developers make public push for Downtown Publix incentive package,” Oct. 22, 2026
• News4JAX, Ashley French, “Council president says approving Downtown Publix incentives before Amendment 3 vote would be risky,” Oct. 8, 2026
• Citizen Portal, “Finance committee defers Gateway/Jax completion grant for two cycles amid fiscal uncertainty,” Oct. 8, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They cut five thousand jobs and called it simplification. I know the sentence. It is what a company says when it has had a very good quarter, has decided to mail a very large check to its shareholders, and needs a word for the people it is letting go that sounds like tidying a desk.

Here is the record. On Oct. 22, 2026, Barclays reported its third-quarter results. Its own results announcement says pre-tax profit grew 12 percent to £2.3 billion, about $3.1 billion per CNBC; income was £7.4 billion, up 3 percent; earnings per share rose 18 percent. In the same statement, the chief executive, C.S. Venkatakrishnan, said the bank’s capital position meant it was “in a position to announce a new £500m share buyback tranche today, bringing year-to-date distributions to £2.8bn, up 46% year-on-year.” A few bullet points down: “Structurally reducing the cost base through expected technology-enabled FTE reductions, creating capacity for further investment in the business.” FTE means full-time equivalent, and the number behind it came out on the call. Banking Dive reports CFO Anna Cross said Barclays is cutting roughly 5,000 full-time employees, about 5 percent of its workforce, this year; about 1,000 went in the first half, so the other 4,000 are expected to go by December. CNBC reports the earnings presentation put about 60 percent of the cuts in support functions, including developers, and named the outcome as “organisational simplification and technology change efficiency driven by AI.” Cross told analysts: “The changes that we’re making in the third and fourth quarters of this year are sizable. They relate both to the simplification of the organization and to some of the impacts that we’re starting to see from AI.” The results show £201 million of what the bank calls structural cost actions in the third quarter, with about £300 million more planned in the fourth; Banking Dive says the total restructuring bill for the year, more than £600 million, is roughly double the earlier estimate. The quarter was not even. Equities revenue rose 47 percent; fixed income and currency trading fell 19 percent, which Venkatakrishnan said he was “disappointed” by — “This is always the house that fixed income built.”

Now the defense. Barclays says the people are not being discarded. A spokesperson told Banking Dive, “We are committed to helping our colleagues develop and build rewarding careers, while meeting the changing needs of customers and clients and ensuring Barclays continues to succeed in the years ahead.” The executive committee said last week it would invest about £150 million in skills by 2030 and prioritize filling advertised openings with existing employees, and at a Thursday town hall, per Bloomberg as cited by Banking Dive, the CEO said the bank would invest in retention and launch projects for support staff moving into other roles. Venkatakrishnan has also been careful with his words in a way some of his peers were not: “AI is the icing on the cake, not the cake,” he said Thursday, and in May he told Bloomberg, “What people do are jobs, and a job is much more than a collection of tasks.” Its results also spell out the cost target the cuts serve — group total costs of about £18.5 billion this year and £18.4 billion next — and the market did not exactly throw a parade; CNBC reports the shares were almost 1 percent lower in early London trading.

Taryn says the twins have discovered that if they combine two toys into one toy, they can ask for a third toy, and that this is called simplification. Buck says he simplified his tool shed in 1997 and is still looking for the level. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Simplification” is the alibi. The buyback is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. I did the division, and it is mine, not the bank’s: £500 million spread over 5,000 jobs is £100,000 a head. Nobody at Barclays said the cuts pay for the buyback, and I am not saying they did. I am saying both sentences sit in the same document, on the same morning, under the same word — capacity. The machine got more efficient, the efficiency became profit, and the profit went where profit goes, which is upward and out. That is not a story about artificial intelligence. That is the oldest story the counting house tells, with a new font. The CEO is right that a job is more than a collection of tasks. So is a person more than a full-time equivalent. If AI is the icing, the cake is the same cake it always was: a bank deciding the people who keep its systems running are a cost base, and the people who own its shares are a distribution. I do not need a chancellor to bless it or a minister to scold it; neither has ever stopped one. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, who gets to call five thousand people simple.

Sources:

• Barclays PLC, “Q3 2026 Results Announcement,” Oct. 22, 2026
• CNBC, Hugh Leask, “Barclays to slash 5,000 jobs in AI efficiency push,” Oct. 22, 2026
• Banking Dive, Dan Ennis, “Barclays to cut 5,000 employees this year,” Oct. 22, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They budgeted the officers they won’t hire and called it a departmental need. I know the sentence. It is what a government says when a law tells it how much it may take from drivers, and instead of taking less, it makes the denominator bigger with people who do not exist.

Here is the record, and it comes from the town’s own police chief, out loud, in a public meeting. The Americus Times-Recorder reported Oct. 22, 2026, that at the Leslie, Georgia, City Council meeting on Oct. 19, Council Member Roger Hoffman noticed discrepancies between the prior year’s actual expenses and the budget. Police Chief Mike Allen explained that the department can only collect the equivalent of 35 percent of its budget on citations for speeding under 20 miles per hour, and that the budget is inflated to allow more citations. His words, as the paper printed them: “We put employees that like, we don’t intend to hire in there that will kind of make it look like our budget’s higher than it is so that we can write what we need to write.” The 35 is real and it is the state’s. Georgia Code section 40-14-11 says there is a rebuttable presumption that a law enforcement agency is using speed detection devices “for purposes other than the promotion of the public health, welfare, and safety” if speeding fines equal or exceed 35 percent of the agency’s budget, with tickets for more than 20 over left out of the count, and it lets the commissioner of public safety investigate and suspend or revoke a town’s speed detection permit. Allen told the paper: “I don’t want to go over that 35% because that’s going to lose us our radar permit, and then we can’t enforce speed at all.” The department he described is small. Allen is one of two full-time officers, with a third working part-time; he told the paper that is not enough to cover the roads and that full coverage would take four full-time officers and a couple of part-timers. His officers lack retirement and insurance. The former chief, Bob Smith, said the department used to have four full-time and two part-time officers and that “the City’s always maintained that flat budget,” and he put the hiring problem in one line: “Nobody’s coming to work for 18 bucks an hour when you got them starting at 23 elsewhere.”

Now the defense, and there is a real one. Council Member Clint Ledger clarified that Allen does not set the budget, though he is involved in the process, and this is his first year doing it; the paper ran a correction on exactly that point. Allen says the point is safety, not money: drivers ignore warnings, he said, and truck drivers on Seaboard Street got warnings “left and right” for about two months until citations finally slowed them down. Smith pointed to three accidents involving cars striking an elderly man as he pulled out of his driveway, and the paper notes that the expansion of Highway 280 will likely bring more traffic through town. A smaller budget, Allen said, would not stop warnings, only citations. And Hoffman, the council member who spotted the gap, said budgets move around in any year, and then gave the sentence that belongs in the title: “Personally, I’m okay with the police department’s use of an inflated budget to meet a departmental need.”

Buck says the last time he got a ticket he asked the officer if the town was hiring, and the officer said not really. Deb says she has budgeted for a second freezer since 2009 and has never once bought it, which she insists is different. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Departmental need” is the alibi. The empty positions are the story. Sit with it until it confesses. The state wrote a rule to stop towns from turning a highway into a cash register, and the rule measures a ratio, so the town learned to feed the ratio a fiction. The phantom officers do not patrol anything. They do one job: they sit on a spreadsheet and make the real tickets legal. Meanwhile the officers who do exist work without retirement for $18 an hour, and the town’s answer to a staffing crisis is to budget people it will not pay and fine drivers to stay under a line drawn around people who are not there. I am not against a cop stopping a truck on Seaboard Street. I am not asking for a camera vendor to come in and do it by mail for a cut; that vendor would call the fines a service. I am asking why the state’s idea of protecting me from the speed trap is a fraction, and why the town’s idea of obeying it is fan fiction with a line-item. Both are the help. One wrote the 35. One padded the 100. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, how many people on your town’s payroll exist only so somebody else can be ticketed.

Sources:

• Americus Times-Recorder, Joshua Windus, “Leslie Police Chief says budget inflated to allow for more citations,” Oct. 22, 2026
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated § 40-14-11 (as amended effective July 1, 2026), via Justia

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They extended the tent camp and called it temporary. I know the sentence. It is what a government says when it has decided to keep paying the same company for the same tents for two more years, without asking anyone else, and needs one word on the form to suggest it is still thinking about leaving.

Here is the record. On Oct. 19, 2026, Project Salt Box reported on a revised federal justification in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it intends to definitize a previously awarded letter contract with Amentum Services Inc., on a sole-source basis, for detention and facility management at Camp East Montana — a tent camp on the Army’s Fort Bliss post in El Paso that Salt Box calls the nation’s largest immigration detention center. The revised redacted justification is posted, dated Oct. 19, on the camp’s federal contracting page, and the extension, Salt Box reports, would keep Amentum there into late 2028 and raise the estimated value to about $2.8 billion. The July version of the same justification, as summarized on that page, put the contract at $1,229,179,038.02 under the federal “only one responsible source” exception. Salt Box says the first seven months under the new plan would cost about $477 million, roughly $68 million a month, rising to about $97 million a month by the final six months, with another $57 million redacted and unexplained. The camp’s history, per the outlets: the Army awarded the original contract July 18, 2025, to Acquisition Logistics, a small business that Salt Box says had never won a federal contract worth more than $16 million; Amentum was a subcontractor — Salt Box’s claim; the Capture Cascade timeline notes federal subaward records list Amentum at about $184 million under Acquisition Logistics, while the justification itself does not describe that relationship. ICE took the contract over in October 2025, ended it, and in March gave Amentum a $453 million no-bid contract; DHS said Amentum was picked for its “size, maturity and pedigree.” In June, the Government Accountability Office found the Army and ICE had rushed the award, chose a contractor with no prior detention experience, and wrote a contract that paid the full cost of meals and services for 5,000 people even when the camp held far fewer — about 1,600 at the end of February 2026 — including two weeks in August 2025 when it held no one. ICE never inspected the camp before housing people there, as its own policy requires; it opened without perimeter security cameras, outdoor recreation or visitation space, and later came gaps in medical care, a lost loaded firearm and unsanitary conditions. Salt Box reports three detainees have died there since it opened, and that the El Paso County medical examiner ruled one of those deaths a homicide.

Now the defense. ICE’s contracting office argues, per Salt Box, that only Amentum can do the work because the company owns the camp’s housing units, generators, security systems and kitchen equipment; it points to a nationwide shortage of detention beds; and Amentum was the only company to express interest after a March notice that told companies it was not a request for competitive quotes. The July justification said no other vendor could provide the services “without significant risk to detainee welfare and mission continuity.” DHS agreed with all four of the GAO’s recommendations. In May it said it would shift Camp East Montana to pricing tiered by population by the end of 2026; Salt Box reports the new plan lists a set price for each month and does not mention paying by the number of detainees. DHS told the GAO its existing pre-occupancy inspection policy already covers the second recommendation; the GAO replied that ICE did not follow that policy here. The Army expects its lessons-learned paper Dec. 30. How Amentum came to own the equipment that makes it the only possible bidder, Salt Box writes, the filing never explains.

Taryn asked whether a thing is still temporary after the twins outgrow it. Deb says the card table in her basement has been temporary since 1994 and has hosted every Thanksgiving since. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Temporary” is the alibi. The equipment is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. Watch the shape of the handshake. A government decides it needs beds faster than it can plan for them. It hands the job to a small firm that has never run detention, on a clock senior leadership set. A bigger firm comes in underneath. Somewhere in there the bigger firm ends up owning the generators and the kitchens, and the owning becomes the reason nobody else can bid. Then the government posts a notice that says, in effect, this is not a competition, and is surprised that only one company shows up. Sole source is how a monopoly gets born inside a federal filing, and “temporary” is the blanket they wrap it in. The GAO told them to stop paying for 5,000 meals when 1,600 people are eating; the new plan sets a price per month. Both parties are the help. One signs the justification. One owns the kitchen. I do not need a softer administration to love this camp better or a different contractor with a nicer pedigree; I need a government that stops calling an arrangement temporary after it has priced it through 2028. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, what the word temporary costs per month, and who it was ever temporary for.

Sources:

• Project Salt Box, Michael Wriston and Mia Barragán, “ICE plans to extend no-bid Camp East Montana contract to $2.8 billion,” Oct. 19, 2026
• U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Immigration Detention: Waste and Performance Issues at Camp East Montana Provide Valuable Lessons for Future Facilities,” GAO-26-108886, June 9, 2026
• GovTribe, Camp East Montana (70CDCR26C00000016), ICE Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (July 22, 2026 posting; revised file dated Oct. 19, 2026)
• The Capture Cascade Timeline, “ICE Revised Justification Puts Amentum’s Camp East Montana Contract at $2.8 Billion; Subaward Records Show Amentum and Akima Under Acquisition Logistics,” Oct. 19, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They kept the tariff refund and called it redeploying. I know the sentence. It is what a company says when it charged you for a tax, the tax turned out to be illegal, the government mailed the money back to the company, and the company needs a verb for keeping it that sounds like a truck leaving a warehouse.

Here is the record, and the lawsuit part of it is an allegation, so I will treat it like one. On Oct. 20, 2026, Deborah Brucker of Santa Ana — a Levi’s customer for more than forty years, per her complaint — filed a proposed nationwide class action against Levi Strauss & Co. in federal court in San Francisco, case 3:26-cv-12214, and Hoodline reported it Oct. 22. The background is not in dispute: in February the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the sweeping tariffs, and the government began refunding them, with interest, to the companies that paid them directly — not to the shoppers who absorbed them at the register. The complaint says that on April 7, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported CEO Michelle Gass saying the company would be “surgical” with price hikes; that executives then told investors Levi was taking “targeted pricing action” to “offset the impact of tariffs”; that by early 2026 the Ribcage Straight Ankle women’s jeans were up $10 to $108 and the original-fit men’s jeans up $5 to $84.50; and that “Levi made no announcement of the increases to consumers.” Brucker says she paid $60.80 for a pair of 501s on or about Oct. 11, 2025. On a July 8, 2026, earnings call, the complaint quotes management on the roughly $80 million refund: “It’s substantial. We haven’t figured out what to do with it, because that’ll depend on the environment and a whole bunch of things.” Then they figured it out. Levi’s own Oct. 7 earnings release reports $79 million in refunds booked against cost of goods and $5 million in interest, says the refunds contributed 490 basis points of gross-margin expansion, and quotes CFO Harmit Singh: “We made the decision to redeploy a majority of our tariff refund benefit back into the business during Q3 and Q4 to support future growth.” About $60 million for the year — $25 million in the third quarter, “including additional promotion and marketing expenditures,” and about $35 million in the fourth. Supply Chain Dive reports a third of that goes to distribution and logistics, the rest split between marketing and promotions. The same release raised full-year profit guidance and announced a plan for a $100 million accelerated share repurchase. The complaint notes that FedEx and UPS, which acted as importers of record, have begun passing their tariff refunds through to the customers who paid the duties. It asks for restitution and a constructive trust over the refunds, and Hoodline reports it also seeks unspecified punitive damages.

Now the defense. Levi’s declined to comment on the filing, Hoodline reports, citing the San Francisco Chronicle. Its public position is the earnings release and the call: Singh told analysts, per Supply Chain Dive, “We believe this balanced approach strengthens our competitive position, supports near-term growth and keeps us on track to deliver our annual algorithm of mid-single-digit revenue growth with a clear path to 15% operating margins over time.” And the law is genuinely unsettled. No court has ruled that a company must share a tariff refund with its customers or roll back prices, Hoodline notes; the refund program pays importers, not shoppers; and nothing in the complaint has been proven. Levi’s will get to argue that a price is a price, set by a market, and that nobody bought a pair of jeans with a tariff line on the receipt.

Deb has owned the same pair of jeans since the Carter administration and says she paid for them once, at a store that no longer exists. Buck wants to know if the refund covers the knee. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Redeploying” is the alibi. The $60.80 is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. The tariff was the state’s crime; I have opened enough envelopes from a government this year to know what it feels like to pay a number somebody else picked. But hating the tariff does not acquit the price tag. A company stood up in front of investors, said the price increases were there to offset the tariff, collected them from the people who wear the product, and then, when the tariff came back with interest, discovered that the money had always really been a growth initiative. That is not a supply chain. That is a toll booth that keeps the coins after the road is declared illegal. And do not tell me Washington will fix it. Washington wrote the tariff, lost in court, and mailed the refund to the importer of record, which is the state’s way of saying it has never met you. The anti-capitalist in me does not need the suit to win to see the shape of it; a court can decide whether it is unjust enrichment. I can decide what it looks like. It looks like the same dollar getting paid twice and thanked once. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, how many other price tags in your closet are still wearing a tax that no longer exists.

Sources:

• Brucker v. Levi Strauss & Co., Class Action Complaint, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Case 3:26-cv-12214, filed Oct. 20, 2026 (via Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy)
• Hoodline, Eileen Vargas, “Levi’s Sued Over $79 Million in Tariff Refunds It Never Gave Back to Shoppers,” Oct. 22, 2026
• Levi Strauss & Co., “Levi Strauss & Co. Reports Third-Quarter Results,” Oct. 7, 2026
• Supply Chain Dive, Antone Gonsalves, “Levi’s to use part of $80M tariff refund for supply chain,” Oct. 12, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They got the scars wrong and called it technical. I know the sentence. It is what a bureau says when an inspector pulls its homework, finds red ink on more than a third of the pages, and the bureau’s reply is a lecture on sample sizes — as if the math were the defendant and not the decisions.

Here is the record, from the government’s own watchdog. The Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General issued Report 25-03303-266 on Oct. 21, 2026, and Military Times reported it on Oct. 22. The OIG examined disability decisions in which the Veterans Benefits Administration granted service connection for painful scars, or raised the rating on one, between June 1, 2024, and May 31, 2025 — scars, Military Times notes, from burns, surgeries, shrapnel and gunshot wounds, among other sources. More than a half-million veterans receive VA disability benefits for painful scarring caused or worsened by service. The OIG estimated that about 17,900 of those decisions, 38 percent, contained at least one error, and that at least about 920 of them produced roughly $5.6 million in overpayments “which will continue to accrue until VBA takes corrective action.” That is the conservative number; the report’s own note says the errors were estimated at about $12.5 million in improper payments, and the $5.6 million is the lower-bound scenario. On decisions that increased a rating, the estimated error rate was 58 percent. The biggest categories: about 7,400 decisions with no objective evidence that the scar was painful; about 5,500 that rated the same scars under multiple painful-scar codes, the practice the regulations call “pyramiding”; and about 1,300 where a scar already service-connected became painful and never got the separate evaluation the manual allows — the kind of error where the veteran is the one left short. The inspectors found the exam questionnaire for scars “does not clearly define objective versus subjective evidence,” and that the VA’s claims software flagged pyramiding for other kinds of claims but not for painful scars; a flag was added April 19, 2026, in response to the review. One example: a keloid scar on an ear rated 10 percent with no documented tenderness, an ongoing overpayment that had reached about $6,900 by March 2026 because nobody had fixed it. The OIG briefed the VBA in February 2026, then checked 30 more decisions from January 2026 and found a 43 percent error rate.

Now the defense. The principal deputy under secretary for benefits concurred with all three recommendations — revise the scar questionnaire, make sure employees know how to rate painful scars, and review and correct the decisions the OIG flagged — and Military Times reports the VA aims to finish by February 2027. But the VBA also filed what it called a technical comment. “The OIG examined 130 decisions, representing approximately 0.27 percent of the total review population of about 47,300 decisions,” it wrote. “Importantly, only seven of the 60 errors OIG found resulted in improper payments, which represents about 5.4 percent of the sample, and when viewed across the full review population, only about 0.015 percent of all decisions reviewed. The remaining 53 errors, more than 88 percent of the sample, were technical or procedural issues that did not result in improper payments.” The OIG answered that its estimates are population-based projections and that the size of a sample as a percentage of the population “has very little influence on statistical precision,” and it made no material changes. As of July 17, 2026, the report says, the VBA still had not responded to the OIG’s additional evidence on two errors it disputed — one of them a case where staff carried out an appeals-board decision that itself violated the scar regulation.

Buck has a scar on his shin from a riding mower in 1988 and has told the story so many times that Deb says it is service-connected to the lawn. Taryn says the twins now rate each other’s bandages out of ten. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Technical” is the alibi. The 38 is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. A veteran with a burn scar did not write the questionnaire. He did not build the software that catches pyramiding on every other kind of claim and waved this one through. He did not pick the diagnostic code. The bureau did all of that, for years, at scale, and when its own inspector counted the misses, the bureau’s first instinct was to shrink the denominator. An agency that overpays some veterans and shorts others is not generous and it is not stingy. It is guessing, with the government’s seal on the guess. And watch which way the correction runs. The fix for an overpayment the bureau made is a decision the bureau will make about somebody else’s money, and I will be curious whether the man with the scar or the form that confused his examiner ends up carrying it. I am not asking for the claims to be farmed out to some vendor with a dashboard; the vendor would bill by the decision and call the errors “learnings.” I am asking the office that rates the wound to read the wound. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, how many technicalities it takes to add up to a veteran.

Sources:

• Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, “Review of Accuracy of Claims Processors’ Disability Evaluation Decisions for Painful Scars,” Report 25-03303-266, Oct. 21, 2026
• VA OIG, full report PDF, Report 25-03303-266
• Military Times, Claire Barrett, “Errors in disability cases for ‘painful scars’ resulted in overpayment: VA watchdog,” Oct. 22, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They abated the tower and called it better than zero. I know the sentence. It is what a city says when it has decided to forgive most of a building’s taxes for a quarter-century and wants you to compare the deal not to what the building would owe, but to the parking lot it replaces, because next to a parking lot everything is a bargain.

Here is the record. On Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026, Baltimore’s Board of Estimates — the mayor-controlled spending board, five members — voted unanimously for a payment in lieu of taxes that The Banner reports will abate $80 million over the next 25 years for the University of Maryland, Baltimore’s North Quad, the first piece of a planned “college town.” The development is led by Wexford Science & Technology: a $160 million, 15-story building in the 600 block of West Lexington Street with 404 units and 730 beds for graduate students, rented by the bed, plus about 16,000 square feet of retail. It is the first award under Downtown RISE, a new PILOT program the Baltimore Development Corporation says was authorized by the General Assembly and signed by Gov. Wes Moore; the law took effect in April 2026 for ten years, and it lets a project replace city property tax with a negotiated annual payment if the developer can “demonstrate financial necessity.” The Banner says the program can erase up to 95 percent of property taxes for 25 years in exchange for an annual fee that’s substantially less; the Capital Gazette puts it as up to 95 percent of the taxes on the property’s increased value. It is the same program the city is using to negotiate a PILOT for the towers proposed to replace the Harborplace pavilions. A South Quad may come later and may ask for its own. The plan around it includes a gathering space that could feature a pub and an outdoor entertainment venue, and courts for pickleball or tennis. The Capital Gazette notes the deal contains no labor agreements for workers.

Now the defense. The site is a parking lot that pays no property tax, said Jeremy Watson, a senior vice president at the development corporation. “Without this deal,” he said, “the building doesn’t get built and the city keeps collecting what it gets today, which is zero.” Then he quoted Kevin O’Leary of “Shark Tank” — “My money is my military. I send it out, every dollar, to capture and bring back more soldiers” — and said the abatement brings back “2.43 soldiers” for each one. Council President Zeke Cohen said the show’s investors would be disappointed if the board were not “pushing and scrutinizing.” The meeting started late because Comptroller Bill Henry and university officials were hammering out an assurance that UMB — a nonprofit that does not pay property taxes on most of its land — would keep these parcels on the tax rolls when the PILOT ends. President Bruce Jarrell committed to it, speaking of a vision from Lexington Market down Eutaw Street “right to the Eutaw gate of the Orioles.” Henry said he would like that in writing. Joan Jacobson of With Us For Us, a coalition of advocacy groups and unions, said the discount was too steep and too long: “labor agreements and a small, brief tax discount would better benefit the city.”

Deb wants to know if she can rent Buck’s old room by the bed. Buck says the room has one bed and it is his. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Zero” is the alibi. The 95 is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. Every abatement in America is sold against the empty lot, and the empty lot always loses, because it cannot speak at the hearing. But the honest comparison is not the lot. It is every other building on that street paying full freight to the same city — and I say that as a man who has opened his own envelope and knows exactly what full freight feels like — while this one gets to call its discount a favor. Look at the shape of the handshake. A state legislature writes the program. A governor signs it. A city development corporation runs the math. A board that the mayor controls votes it through. A university that belongs to the state system and pays no tax on most of its land partners with a private developer to build a tower that rents students by the bed. The public is on every side of the table and still somehow ends up as the party that gives. And when somebody asks for labor agreements, the room quotes a reality show about rich people buying slices of small businesses. Both parties are the help. One signs the bill in Annapolis. One holds the term sheet on Lexington Street. The comptroller holds a promise he wants in writing. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, who in Baltimore gets to pay five cents on the dollar for 25 years, and why it is never the rowhouse.

Sources:

• The Baltimore Banner, Emily Opilo, “Baltimore approves 25-year tax savings for UMB ‘college town’ project,” Oct. 21, 2026
• Capital Gazette / Baltimore Sun, Chevall Pryce and Jessica Baugh, “Baltimore approves 25-year tax break for $160M development despite concerns,” Oct. 21, 2026
• Baltimore Development Corporation, “Downtown RISE PILOT” program page

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They scanned your face and called it navigational data. I know the sentence. It is what a company says when it rolled a camera on six wheels up to your door, pointed it at you while you bent down for your groceries, and needs the thing it recorded to sound like a sidewalk instead of a person.

Here is the record, which for now is an allegation, and I will treat it like one. USA Today, Mashable and Straight Arrow News all reported on Oct. 21, 2026, on two proposed class-action lawsuits filed Oct. 9 in Cook County, Illinois, against Coco Robotics and Serve Robotics, the companies whose little coolers on wheels carry orders for DoorDash, Uber Eats and Grubhub. Mitchell Breidinger says a Coco robot delivered his DoorDash grocery order on Sept. 29, 2025; per his complaint, the robot’s cameras recorded his face, head and hands while its sensors measured the shapes and dimensions of those body parts, a remote operator watched the drop-off in real time, and Coco gave him no written notice and got no written consent. Barry Schain says he got three deliveries from Serve robots through Uber Eats, most recently Oct. 4, and makes the same claim. Both men say they never chose robot delivery; Mashable reports the suits hinge on customers being assigned to robots after they ordered. Breidinger’s complaint alleges Coco shared robot-collected data with OpenAI and other third parties; Schain’s alleges Serve licenses video and LiDAR data to third parties for AI training, and Mashable says the suits cite company disclosures that video and sensor data can be licensed that way. The law in question is Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, passed in 2008, which says a company that collects face or hand geometry must first tell you in writing why and for how long, and get your written consent. The suits seek $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless one.

Now the defense. Both companies deny it. Serve told USA Today, “Our robots use cameras and sensors to navigate the sidewalks of Chicago safely. Serve does not use that data to identify individuals and our systems are not designed to identify individuals or create biometric profiles,” and said it will defend itself. Coco’s head of government relations, Carl Hansen, called the case “frivolous”: “This lawsuit fundamentally misunderstands our technology, we have not collected biometric data in Chicago.” He said Coco has never used LiDAR in Chicago, that “the data we share is navigational data used to make sidewalks safer for all users” — real-time hazard information for BlindSquare, an app for people who are blind or have low vision — and that it does not share data from the beginning or end of delivery trips. Straight Arrow notes residents have complained about the robots since the city’s 2022 pilot, from blocked paths for people with disabilities to surveillance. None of it has been proven in court, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers had not answered USA Today when it asked for the complaints.

Buck says a robot came up the driveway in August and he waved at it, and now he wants to know if the wave is in a dataset. Taryn says the twins would try to ride it. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Navigational” is the alibi. The bag is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. A sidewalk robot does not need to know the shape of my hands to find my porch; it needs to know where the curb is. Every camera company swears it only looks at the curb, and the suits point to these companies’ own disclosures saying the video and sensor data can be licensed for AI training. I do not know yet whether that footage includes anybody’s face; that is what a court is for, and I will wait for it. But I know the shape of the business the suits describe. You order lettuce. The platform you ordered from assigns your lettuce to a machine you did not pick. The machine is owned by a company that is not the platform, and the footage is licensed to a third company that is neither, and the only party in the chain that never signed anything is the one with the face. That is not a delivery. That is a supply chain where you are the raw material. The anti-capitalist in me does not need a new statute to see it. He needs the old one read out loud. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, what else rolls up the driveway with a camera, and who it reports to.

Sources:

• USA Today, Anthony Thompson, “Food delivery robots collected biometric data, lawsuits allege,” Oct. 21, 2026 (updated Oct. 22)
• Mashable, Chase Dibenedetto, “Delivery robots scan faces and collect customer biometric data, lawsuit alleges,” Oct. 21, 2026
• Straight Arrow News, Mikael Thalen, “Lawsuits claim robots deliver your food — and scan your face,” Oct. 21, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They lost track of half the wards and called it multilayered oversight. I know the sentence. It is what a government says when the law made one office the parent of last resort, the office never wrote down the names of most of its children, and the department above it explains, in a response long enough that the auditor had to print it on its own pages, that the parenting was being done by everybody else, which is the bureaucratic way of saying nobody in particular.

Here is the record, from the State of Michigan itself. The Office of the Auditor General released performance audit 491-2700-25 on the Michigan Children’s Institute this month — the report letter to the Department of Health and Human Services is dated Oct. 15, 2026 — and Michigan Public put it in front of the public on Oct. 19. MCI was created by Public Act 220 of 1935. Under that law its superintendent represents the State as legal guardian of each child a court commits to it after parental rights are terminated, until the child turns 19. As of August 2026 the institute was seven people, including the superintendent. The auditor’s conclusion on its guardianship work is two words: “Not sufficient.” MCI identified its wards only by tracking the consent requests caseworkers happened to send it — about 2,200 children during the audit period — while the state’s own child welfare system showed more than 5,000 active MCI wards. For over half of them, the auditor wrote, MCI “had not identified and/or carried out any monitoring activities,” and it did only limited monitoring of the ones it had found. State law tells the superintendent to order investigations of the homes where wards are placed and to procure regular reports during placement; MCI said it relied on caseworkers and typically read the reports only when an adoption request arrived. In a sample of 30 nonemergency procedures performed under anesthesia, MCI had no consent or notification on file for four, 13 percent, including surgery under general anesthesia. Its records on more than 17,000 past and present wards — names, birth dates, prospective and competing adoptive families, siblings — sat in an unencrypted Microsoft Access database on a shared drive where the auditor counted 626 non-MCI employees with permission to view and edit them, some not employed by the department at all. MCI said it was unaware the drive was open. Of 65 adoption consents made by county directors, 36 — 55 percent — had no written delegation from the superintendent, and 18 more came before the authorization did. Three of MCI’s six staff had no conflict-of-interest form on file after about nine years of handling adoption consents. In fiscal 2024 it missed the 90-day timeframe on 96 percent of competing-party adoption requests. And the auditor notes that most of the 1935 law has gone unchanged for 70 to 90 years; it still assigns powers to a Michigan Social Welfare Commission that was abolished in 1965.

Now the defense. The department disagreed with the main finding. It told the auditor it “maintains a comprehensive, multilayered system of oversight that fulfills all statutory guardianship requirements,” that those duties are carried out across program areas and contracted foster care agencies and “are not the sole responsibility of MCI,” and that daily case management of roughly 5,000 wards belongs to county offices and private agencies, with MCI consulted for statutory functions and notified of critical incidents. “MCI fulfills the statutory requirement to review investigative assessments,” it said. To Michigan Public it added that it “cares deeply for the children it serves.” The auditor answered that the report is about guardianship, not daily case management, and that the law created MCI precisely so the State could more effectively exercise the duty it owes these children. On the database and the adoption consents, the department agreed: it says it moved the database to a more restricted environment, will review access annually, tightened consent authorizations and hired a consultant to work the competing adoption requests. It has about 60 days to file a plan.

Taryn says she has to sign a form when the twins get a tooth looked at, and the dentist calls if she forgets. Deb kept every one of Buck’s permission slips in a shoebox from 1979 on, and Buck says he did not know he was being monitored. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Multilayered” is the alibi. The 2,200 is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. When the State takes a child away from her parents it does not become an idea; it becomes, by statute, one named guardian, and that guardian is supposed to know her name. A department that runs a statewide case system with every one of those children in it could not tell the auditor which children its guardian office was the parent of, and when an auditor counts the gap it does not say “we will find them” — it says the layers have it covered. Layers are how a government turns a duty into a diagram. Every layer can point to the layer underneath, and the child is at the bottom of the drawing, where nobody signs. I do not need the caseworkers to be villains; most of them are doing a job nobody pays enough for. And I am not going to tell you a contractor would love these kids better; the contractors are one of the layers. What I need is for the office that holds the guardianship to hold it. Both parties are the help. One writes the 1935 law and never reads it again. One writes the response so long the auditor gave it its own section. The kids get a shared drive with 626 strangers on it. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, who in Lansing is the parent, and why the answer is a flowchart.

Sources:

• Michigan Office of the Auditor General, Performance Audit Report 491-2700-25, “Michigan Children’s Institute, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services,” October 2026 (report letter dated Oct. 15, 2026)
• Michigan Public / MPRN, Colin Jackson, “Thousands of foster kids under state guardianship not being monitored, audit finds,” Oct. 19, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström

They leased the park for a dollar and called it removing blight. I know the sentence. It is what a city says when it has spent years buying up a neighborhood after a hurricane, found a developer to take the land off its hands for roughly half of what it paid, and needs a word for the transaction that sounds like hygiene instead of a discount.

Here is the record. On Wednesday night, Oct. 21, 2026, after a long final public hearing, the Cape Coral City Council approved the $500 million Bimini East redevelopment, WINK News reports. North Dakota-based Crown Development and the Bimini Basin Redevelopment Company plan up to 900 apartments and townhomes, about 250 hotel rooms, medical and office space, retail, a 50-slip marina, parking garages, a police substation and a bandshell on roughly 34 acres downtown, south of Cape Coral Parkway and west of Coronado Parkway. The Cape Coral Breeze laid out the money at the first hearing on Oct. 7. The city bought the core site — 47 individual properties — site by site after Hurricane Ian, for some $45 million; WINK puts it at $45.2 million and notes it forced out some families, who were offered up to $6,000 in rental assistance if they qualified. The developer will pay about $24.3 million for the land, prorated as it pulls permits or sells parcels, with the balance due at 10 years, on a promissory note the Breeze describes as no-recourse. The city’s redevelopment agency also funds two more acquisitions totaling $11 million, the Trumbull Apartments and George’s Garage. On top of that: a tax-increment rebate at 95 percent, capped at $45.75 million and running through 2042; impact-fee credits up to $5 million; demolition help up to $200,000 a structure for eight structures; and cost-sharing on a promenade and streets. And then the line in the lease agreement: Four Freedoms Park, on the Bimini Basin with direct access to the Caloosahatchee — “the first park of Cape Coral,” as one resident told WBBH — goes to the developer on a 99-year lease at $1 per year. The city keeps ownership, the name and a public-recreation covenant; the developer takes over utilities, taxes, repairs and maintenance, and the park “will be altered,” in the assistant city manager’s words. The city-sponsored preschool program in the park has to move; the city says it is still looking for a location.

Now the defense. City staff estimated construction alone would generate $750.9 million in economic output and more than 3,000 jobs. Councilwoman Jennifer Nelson-Lastra said the redevelopment agency’s purpose is to remove blight, “and that’s exactly what we’re doing.” Councilman Joe Kilraine said no relationship “just goes completely on trust,” but, looking at the incentives in the contract, “I think we’re on the up side on this thing.” The tax rebate is pay-as-you-go: no building, no rebate. Crown’s president, Larry Nygard, told council at the first hearing, “I want to do what is right and what is good for the city, but I have to run a business too.” From the podium, David Hulsey said staff had negotiated for more than a year and then gave residents about 20 days. Speakers asked the council to wait until after the November election. It did not.

Deb asked what the dollar is for, and Buck said it’s so somebody can say it wasn’t free. Taryn wants to know if the twins can lease the playground for 99 years at a dollar, and whether the dollar can be in quarters. I love them. They are seasoning.

“Blight” is the alibi. The dollar is the story. Sit with it until it confesses. A government that knows to the penny what my house is worth cannot find a price for its own first park above one dollar a year, for 99 years, which is longer than anyone at that dais will be alive to regret it. I do not need the developer to be a villain; a man who says he has to run a business is telling the truth, and that is exactly why the public should not be the one carrying his land on a note with no recourse. And I do not need the council to be crooks; they are something more ordinary, which is believers. They believe in the multiplier. They believe the rendering. The handshake is the oldest machine in local government: the public buys the risk at full price, sells the upside at a discount, rebates the taxes the upside was supposed to pay, and calls the residue revitalization. Both parties are the help. One holds the gavel. One holds the term sheet. The preschool holds a moving box. The cardigan stays. Fill the notebook. Then ask, out loud, who in Cape Coral gets to lease anything public for a dollar, and why it is never the people who were already there.

Sources:

• WINK News, Hunter Walterman, “Cape Coral approves massive Bimini East redevelopment,” Oct. 22, 2026
• Cape Coral Breeze, Meghan Bradbury, “Bimini East moves to final public hearing,” Oct. 8, 2026
• WBBH / Gulf Coast News, “Cape Coral City Council to decide fate of Bimini East project,” Oct. 21, 2026

— Theo Ashford-Lindström