When you’re locked in a defensive battle, sometimes the simplest play in hockey is to send a big body to the net, hard.

Joel Eriksson Ek did just that, making a classic “crash the net” play in the latter half of the third period for the eventual game-winner as the Minnesota Wild made it six victories in a row, winning 5-2 against the Blue Jackets in Columbus, Ohio.

Goals by Ryan Hartman and Vladimir Tarasenko helped the Wild overcome an early deficit and a slow start to the second period. They got 26 saves from rookie goalie Jesper Wallstedt, who improved to 10-1-2.

Zach Werenski had his second consecutive two-goal game for the Blue Jackets, but Kirill Kaprizov and Matt Boldy added late empty-net goals for the Wild.

The win came with a number of minor leaguers in key roles, as Minnesota is missing seven regulars due to injury.

Minnesota’s top offensive unit — with Kaprizov, Boldy and Eriksson Ek at forward, Brock Faber and Quinn Hughes on defense — had a dominating shift in the Columbus offensive zone, only to see the Blue Jackets turn the tables for the opening period’s only goal. A turnover by the Wild at the offensive blue line sprung Columbus on an odd-man rush the other way, which ended when Werenski zipped a glove-side wrist shot past Wallstedt.

The Wild had a sluggish start to the middle frame, with Wallstedt keeping the deficit manageable as Columbus outshot Minnesota 12-1 through the first half of the period. But the Wild’s first power play of the night was productive, with Kaprizov feeding Hartman down low for a quick redirect and a 1-all tie.

Minnesota’s all-Russian line clicked to give the visitors a lead via Tarasenko’s third goal in the past two games, set up by linemates Yakov Trenin and Danila Yurov. But Columbus had an answer almost immediately, when Werenski hopped on another Wild turnover and made it 2-all after two periods.

Jet Greaves finished with 22 saves for Columbus, which split its season series with the Wild by spoiling Minnesota’s home opener back in October, winning 7-4 in St. Paul.

With their pre-Christmas road schedule complete, the Wild return to St. Paul for the next three in a row, beginning on Saturday afternoon when they host Edmonton in a 2 p.m. start at Grand Casino Arena.

Briefly

At the team’s morning skate in Columbus, Wild coach John Hynes gave an update on the team’s lengthy injury roster. Defensemen Jonas Brodin and Jake Middleton, and forwards Mats Zuccarello and Vinni Hinostroza have all resumed skating, and the coach is hopeful that at least a few of them could potentially return for one or both of the Wild’s back-to-back home games on Saturday and Sunday. Defenseman Zach Bogosian and forward Marcus Johansson have not yet begun skating. Hynes commented that it has been “injury after injury” for the most part in his two years as head coach, but he does not recall missing seven regulars at any one time before.

Related Articles

Blue line injuries mean Carson Lambos’ NHL debut

Danila Yurov finding comfort, and points, alongside fellow Russians

Twins’ new limited partners include Wild owner Craig Leipold

Russian revolution in St. Paul as Wild dominate Capitals

Amid the Quinn Hughes hype, Matt Kiersted makes a quiet Wild debut

Five years after it was introduced, the City Council passed a revised version of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, or COPA, which supporters say will give mission-driven groups a leg up when affordable and distressed buildings come up for sale. Critics say it’s government overreach.

COPA supporters at a rally for the bill in November. (Gerardo Romo / NYC Council Media Unit.)

Five years after it was introduced, the City Council on Thursday passed a revised version of the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, or COPA, which will give certain nonprofits—and for-profits, if they team up with a nonprofit—an early shot to bid on certain residential properties that go up for sale, before they hit the wider market.

Landlord and real estate groups have criticized the legislation as government overreach. But supporters say COPA will give mission-driven groups, including community land trusts, a leg up against deep-pocketed real estate speculators in the city’s competitive housing market.

Modeled after a similar bill in San Francisco, it specifically targets buildings with poor conditions or where an affordability provision is expiring. In those situations, lawmakers said, COPA can serve as a preservation tool, allowing a “qualified entity” to come in and, with the help of other city programs, right the ship—making repairs, maintaining affordable rents—ideally in coordination with the tenants who live there.

“We want to try to keep those units affordable. This is an opportunity to do that,” Councilmember Sandy Nurse, who sponsored the latest version of the legislation, said in a press conference Thursday. Without COPA, she said, “we potentially lose those affordable units.”

The bill passed by lawmakers underwent a number of revisions since COPA was originally introduced in 2020, a response to concerns raised by both property owner groups and the city’s Department of Housing, Preservation and Development (HPD) that it would delay sales too dramatically and could burden small landlords.

The revamped version narrowed the types of buildings covered by the legislation, and exempts small properties. It also created more specific criteria for what kind of nonprofits would qualify to make an early bid, and shortened the window of time they’d have to make an offer.

“What we have before us is a bill that achieves as much consensus from as many stakeholders as possible,” Nurse said ahead of the vote Thursday, which marked the Council’s final meeting of the year and its last chance to pass legislation this session.

But real estate groups have maintained their opposition to COPA, questioning its efficiency and saying it unfairly favors nonprofits at the expense of private property owners. Ahead of the Council vote, the bill’s opponents parked a truck with a digital billboard near City Hall. “COPA makes housing more expensive,” the screen read in bright pink letters. “Corruption. Socialism. Rent Hikes.”

A digital billboard with an anti-COPA message near City Hall
Thursday. (Photo by Todd Baker)

“The amended proposal would still give nonprofits and for-profits leverage, advantages and privileged access through an exclusive months-long window that no ordinary buyer is afforded,” Ann Korchak, board president of the Small Property Owners of New York (SPONY) and Robert Lee, a SPONY member and building owner in Bushwick, said in a joint statement shared with City Limits. “For a small owner in distress trying to sell quickly to avoid liens and foreclosure, the amended scheme still creates serious timing risk that would artificially devalue property.”

How it will work

The revised version of COPA covers a smaller breadth of buildings than originally proposed, rolled out in phases. Properties with fewer than four apartments are exempt, as are owner-occupied buildings with five or fewer units, and vacant lots.

For the first year, impacted properties will include those that have been involved in one of several city initiatives that target very poor building conditions (like the Alternative Enforcement or Certificate of No Harassment programs) for at least a year—what Nurse described as “an extremely targeted universe of properties that we already spend a lot of time and money on trying to make safer.” For the second year, it would expand to buildings in less severe, but still bad shape (at least one open hazardous or immediately hazardous housing violation per apartment).

Also covered: buildings with affordability restrictions set to expire within two years, what officials say could help ensure properties transition to new ownership that will prioritize keeping rents affordable for existing tenants.

Should the owner of one of these types of buildings wish to sell, they’d be required to notify the city and a list of “qualified entities,” to be established by HPD. The law sets a number of benchmarks these groups must meet: they must be nonprofits (or for-profits partnering with a nonprofit), and have demonstrated experience in managing residential properties and preserving affordable housing, among other criteria.

Once these groups are notified of a covered building owner’s plan to sell, they have 25 days to notify the owner and HPD of their interest to purchase, and then 80 days to make an offer, according to the New Economy Project, an advocacy group that’s been campaigning for the bill.

If no qualified groups express interest in those first 25 days, or if the landlord rejects all the qualified buyers’ offers after the 80-day window, the property can go up for sale on the wider market. The first qualified buyer who made an offer, however, has 15 days to exercise a “right of first refusal” and match the terms of any open market offer the landlord is weighing.

The debate

In addition to accusations of government overreach, COPA critics question if shepherding distressed buildings to nonprofit buyers will mean improvements for the people living there.

“COPA does not bring the necessary resources to the table for non-profits to cover their necessary capacity building and upfront costs, let alone funding for acquisition and repairs,” Erica F. Buckley, a real estate attorney and partner at Nixon Peabody LLP, wrote in an op-ed published in City Limits last week.

Three buildings on 3rd Street in the East Village that are a part of the Cooper Square Community Land Trust. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

But supporters say COPA can work in conjunction with existing city programs to address those needs, like Neighborhood Pillars, which provides low-interest loans and tax exemptions for nonprofits and community groups that buy and renovate rent stabilized housing.

They point to previous examples of tenant groups that transitioned their buildings to community ownership models, like the East New York and Cooper Square Community Land Trusts.

The bill offers “an opportunity for nonprofits that we trust, that we fund, that we have a relationship with, that we are holding accountable all the time,” Nurse said.

“Instead of that building being sold to some company with people and investors from all over the world that we have no relationship to, and we have no relationship of accountability to.”

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post NYC Passes Bill Giving Nonprofits First Chance to Buy Certain Buildings appeared first on City Limits.

A man and his sister were charged this week in the fatal shooting of a 49-year-old St. Paul man.

Ryshaun Ca’Mia Rhodes (Courtesy of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office)

Derek Alonzo Mitchell, of Belton, Missouri, and Ryshaun Ca’Mia Rhodes, of Brooklyn Park, were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree unintentional murder in the shooting of Michael D. Tucker, according to court documents.

Officers responded to a report of shots fired in the 900 block of Edgerton Street in St. Paul’s Payne-Phalen neighborhood on Dec. 4, where they found a man with an apparent gunshot injury to the upper torso, according to police.

Officers rendered first aid and called for medics, but the man, later identified as Tucker, was pronounced dead before arriving at Regions Hospital, according to police.

Rhodes, 36, was charged Wednesday. Mitchell, 35, was charged Thursday. Bail was set for each at $1 million.

Derek Alonzo Mitchell (Courtesy of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office)

According to the complaint, investigators believe Tucker had agreed to buy $700 worth of cocaine from Rhodes, but first he wanted to try a sample. Tucker allegedly left to try the sample, then returned to complain about the quality.

During an argument in what police have identified as Rhodes’ vehicle, Tucker allegedly brandished a firearm and “tried to rob Rhodes” of the cocaine.

The complaint alleges that this is when Rhodes pulled her own black and purple Taurus and fired. Another version of the events states that Mitchell asked Rhodes for her gun and fired once through the open passenger door. “Mitchell said he didn’t even know he had shot (Tucker),” the complaint states.

Rhodes told police, “I didn’t have anything to do with that man being hurt, and that’s the God’s honest truth,” per the complaint.

Both Rhodes and Mitchell denied the case involved drugs.

Rhodes’ attorney couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Thursday afternoon. An attorney for Mitchell wasn’t listed in the court file.

The homicide was the 13th of the year in St. Paul.

Related Articles

‘Industrial-scale’ MN fraud may have cost billions, feds say announcing new charges

House Democrats release more photos from Epstein’s estate

Bayport mayor’s husband charged in connection with skull found in Wisconsin in 2002

Eagan teen charged with school threats; prosecutors say he poses safety risk, parents say he’s ‘gullible’

Judge says he’ll rule in May on Luigi Mangione’s fight to exclude evidence from NY murder trial

By BEN FINLEY, ERIC TUCKER, KEVIN FREKING and JOSHUA GOODMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s “blockade” of sanctioned oil tankers off Venezuela’s coast is raising new questions about the legality of his military campaign in Latin America, while fueling concerns that the U.S. could be edging closer to war.

Related Articles

Head of workplace rights agency urges white men to report discrimination

Kansas tribe ends nearly $30 million deal with ICE

US Justice Department sues 3 states, District of Columbia for voter data

TikTok signs deal to form new US unit with investors, including Oracle, Silver Lake

Trump’s new $1,776 ‘Warrior Dividend’ to troops is coming from Pentagon funding, not tariffs

The Trump administration says its blockade is narrowly tailored and not targeting civilians, which would be an illegal act of war. But some experts say seizing sanctioned oil tied to leader Nicolás Maduro could provoke a military response from Venezuela, engaging American forces in a new level of conflict that goes beyond their attacks on alleged drug boats.

“My biggest fear is this is exactly how wars start and how conflicts escalate out of control,” said Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. “And there are no adults in the room with this administration, nor is there consultation with Congress. So I’m very worried.”

Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, said the use of such an aggressive tactic without congressional authority stretches the bounds of international law and increasingly looks like a veiled attempt to trigger a Venezuelan response.

“The concern is that we are bootstrapping our way into armed conflict,” Finkelstein said. “We’re upping the ante in order to try to get them to engage in an act of aggression that would then justify an act of self-defense on our part.”

Republicans largely are OK with the campaign

Trump has used the word “blockade” to describe his latest tactic in an escalating pressure campaign against Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the U.S. and now has been accused of using oil profits to fund drug trafficking. While Trump said it only applies to vessels facing U.S. economic penalties, the move has sparked outrage among Democrats and mostly shrugs, if not cheers, from Republicans.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Trump going after sanctioned oil tankers linked to Venezuela is no different from targeting Iranian oil.

“Just like with the Iranian shadow tankers, I have no problem with that,” McCaul said. “They’re circumventing sanctions.”

The president has declared the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels in an effort to reduce the flow of drugs to American communities. U.S. forces have attacked 26 alleged drug-smuggling boats and killed least 99 people since early September. Trump has repeatedly promised that land strikes are next, while linking Maduro to the cartels.

The campaign has drawn scrutiny in Congress, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike. But Republicans so far have repeatedly declined to require congressional authorization for further military action in the region, blocking Democrats’ war powers resolutions.

Sen. Roger Wicker, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, has essentially ended his panel’s investigation into the Sept. 2 strike, saying Thursday that the entire campaign is being conducted “on sound legal advice.”

Venezuela pushes back

Trump announced the blockade Tuesday, about a week after U.S. forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker off Venezuela’s coast. The South American country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and relies heavily on the revenue to support its economy.

The U.S. has been imposing sanctions on Venezuela since 2005 over concerns about corruption as well as criminal and anti-democratic activities. The first Trump administration expanded the penalties to oil, prompting Maduro’s government to rely on a shadow fleet of falsely flagged tankers to smuggle crude into global supply chains.

The state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, has been largely locked out of global oil markets by U.S. sanctions. It sells most of its exports at a steep discount on the black market in China.

Nicolás Maduro Guerra, Maduro’s son and a lawmaker, on Thursday decried Trump’s latest tactic and vowed to work with the private sector to limit any impact on the country’s oil-dependent economy. He acknowledged that it won’t be an easy task.

“We value peace and dialogue, but the reality right now is that we are being threatened by the most powerful army in the world, and that’s not something to be taken lightly,” Maduro Guerra said.

Pentagon prefers the term ‘quarantine’

It wasn’t immediately clear how the U.S. planned to enact Trump’s order. But the Navy has 11 ships in the region and a wide complement of aircraft that can monitor marine traffic coming in and out of Venezuela.

Trump may be using the term “blockade,” but the Pentagon says officials prefer “quarantine.”

A defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to outline internal reasoning about the policy, said a blockade, under international law, constitutes an act of war requiring formal declaration and enforcement against all incoming and outgoing traffic. A quarantine, however, is a selective, preventive security measure that targets specific, illegal activity.

Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he was unsure of the legality of Trump’s blockade.

“They’re blockading apparently the oil industry, not the entire country,” said Smith, who represents parts of western Washington state. “How does that change things? I got to talk to some lawyers, but in general, a blockade is an act of war.”

The U.S. has a long history of leveraging naval sieges to pressure lesser powers, especially in the 19th century era of “gunboat diplomacy,” sometimes provoking them into taking action that triggers an even greater American response.

But in recent decades, as the architecture of international law has developed, successive U.S. administrations have been careful not to use such maritime shows of force because they are seen as punishing civilians — an illegal act of aggression outside of wartime.

During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy famously called his naval cordon to counter a real threat — weapons shipments from the Soviet Union — a “quarantine” not a blockade.

Mark Nevitt, an Emory University law professor and former Navy judge advocate general, said there is a legal basis for the U.S. to board and seize an already-sanctioned ship that is deemed to be stateless or is claiming two states.

But a blockade, he said, is a “wartime naval operation and maneuver” designed to block the access of vessels and aircraft of an enemy state.

“I think the blockade is predicated on a false legal pretense that we are at war with narcoterrorists,” he said.

Nevitt added: “This seems to be almost like a junior varsity blockade, where they’re trying to assert a wartime legal tool, a blockade, but only doing it selectively.”

Geoffrey Corn, a Texas Tech law professor who previously served as the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues and has been critical of the Trump administration’s boat strikes, said he was not convinced the blockade was intended to ratchet up the conflict with Venezuela.

Instead, he suggested it could be aimed at escalating the pressure on Maduro to give up power or encouraging his supporters to back away from him.

“You can look at it through the lens of, is this an administration trying to create a pretext for a broader conflict?” Corn said. “Or you can look at it as part of an overall campaign of pressuring the Maduro regime to step aside.”

Goodman reported from Miami. Associated Press reporters Stephen Groves and Konstantin Toropin in Washington and Regina Garcia Cano in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.