A truck driver told a trooper he was looking at a map and a GPS unit when ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle in Washington County, after which the other driver died, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Shane Joseph Loughney, 48, was taken to Regions Hospital with life-threatening injuries following the collision last Wednesday and died at the hospital on Saturday.

State Patrol troopers responded about 1:50 p.m. to Denmark Township. Investigation showed a 27-year-old man was driving a semitrailer northbound on Minnesota 95 “at highway speeds,” the affidavit said.

Loughney was eastbound on 70th Street, stopped at a stop sign and began turning left onto Minnesota 95. The semi T-boned his pickup in the intersection. The collision pushed both vehicles into another pickup.

The semi’s driver told a State Patrol sergeant he was “at fault for the crash,” the affidavit said. He said he’d “been looking at a combination of maps on his phone and a separate GPS unit which distracted him from seeing the stop signs.”

The warrant, approved by a judge and filed in court Monday, was for a forensic search of the driver’s phone.

The Washington County Attorney’s Office had not received a case to review for charges as of Tuesday.

Loughney was from Woodville in St. Croix County, Wisconsin.

Related Articles

Woodbury officials seek info on rug connected to house fire

Firefighters make progress on Northern Minnesota blazes

St. Paul Police Department tickets most distracted drivers — by a long shot — in state campaign

States are telling sheriffs whether they can — or can’t — work with ICE

Ely team helps fight northern Minnesota wildfires from the sky

“What’s really on the line here isn’t paperwork—it’s power. Without member deference, decisions about what gets built and where shift away from accountable elected leaders and into the hands of deep-pocketed developers who answer to no one but their investors.”

Members of the City Council during a stated meeting in November. (Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit)

In the fight over the future of New York City, one thing must stay non-negotiable: our neighborhoods don’t belong to developers—they belong to the people who live and work in them.

That’s why we must reject the Charter Revision Commission’s proposal to eliminate member deference in the City Council. It’s not some obscure procedural rule—it’s one of the last lines of defense New Yorkers have against profit-first developers who treat our city like a Monopoly board.

Member deference gives locally elected councilmembers the ability to fight for the people they represent on major land use decisions. It’s not just a courtesy—it’s a shield. It’s how working people protect their homes, their jobs, and their neighborhoods from being steamrolled by billionaire real estate interests that see every block as an investment opportunity.

Yes, we need to build more housing. Yes, we need to do it faster. And the carpenters are ready to roll up our sleeves to get it done. But efficiency can’t come at the cost of fairness. It can’t mean giving developers a blank check while stripping communities, and the workers who build this city, of a voice. Streamlining the process is one thing. Silencing the people? That’s something else entirely.

What’s really on the line here isn’t paperwork—it’s power. Without member deference, decisions about what gets built and where shift away from accountable elected leaders and into the hands of deep-pocketed developers who answer to no one but their investors. That is not reform, it is a sellout. 

We need a process that makes damn sure the people at the table are thinking about their neighbors, not the donors lining their pockets. Member deference holds councilmembers accountable. If they stop listening to the people and start siding with developers, voters can show them the door. That’s real democracy.

We’ve seen what happens when development is done right—with labor standards and community input. Good jobs are created, affordable housing goes up, and neighborhoods thrive. And we’ve seen what happens when developers get free rein: rents skyrocket, workers get shut out, and communities are hollowed out.

If we’re serious about solving the housing crisis, then we need to build more housing that is affordable, union-built, and community-driven. And that only happens when local voices are part of the process from the start, not pushed out of the way for the sake of speed.

This isn’t about protecting a political norm. It’s about protecting working people. Weakening their voice doesn’t move us forward; it hands the reins to the powerful few.

Let’s build a city for the people who power it—not the people who profit off it. 

Paul Capurso is the executive secretary-treasurer pro tem of the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters.

The post Opinion: Build a City for People, Not Developers appeared first on City Limits.

By JACQUES BILLEAUD

PHOENIX (AP) — Twenty years ago, when Arizona became frustrated with its porous border with Mexico, the state passed a series of immigration laws as proponents regularly griped about how local taxpayers get stuck paying the education, health care and other costs for people in the U.S. illegally.

Related Articles

US immigration authorities appear to have begun deporting migrants to South Sudan, attorneys say

US business owners are concerned about Venezuelan employees with temporary status

Trump wants to end temporary protection for over a million immigrants. What does that mean?

White House says Trump is reviewing IVF policy recommendations promised in executive order

Former FBI director James Comey calls controversy over Instagram post ‘a bit of a distraction’

Then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio gladly took up the cause, launching 20 large-scale traffic patrols targeting immigrants from January 2008 through October 2011. That led to a 2013 racial profiling verdict and expensive court-ordered overhauls of the agency’s traffic patrol operations and, later, its internal affairs unit.

Eight years after Arpaio was voted out, taxpayers in Maricopa County are still paying legal and compliance bills from the crackdowns. The tab is expected to reach $352 million by midsummer 2026, including $34 million approved Monday by the county’s governing board.

While the agency has made progress on some fronts and garnered favorable compliance grades in certain areas, it hasn’t yet been deemed fully compliant with court-ordered overhauls.

Since the profiling verdict, the sheriff’s office has been criticized for disparate treatment of Hispanic and Black drivers in a series of studies of its traffic stops. The latest study, however, shows significant improvements. The agency’s also dogged by a crushing backlog of internal affairs cases.

Thomas Galvin, chairman of the county’s governing board, said the spending is “staggering” and has vowed to find a way to end the court supervision.

“I believe at some point someone has to ask: Can we just keep doing this?” Galvin said. “Why do we have to keep doing this?”

Critics of the sheriff’s office have questioned why the county wanted to back out of the case now that taxpayers are finally beginning to see changes at the sheriff’s office.

Profiling verdict

Nearly 12 years ago, a federal judge concluded Arpaio’s officers had racially profiled Latinos in his traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.

The patrols, known as “sweeps,” involved large numbers of sheriff’s deputies flooding an area of metro Phoenix — including some Latino neighborhoods — over several days to stop traffic violators and arrest other offenders.

The verdict led the judge to order an overhaul of the traffic patrol operations that included retraining officers on making constitutional stops, establishing an alert system to spot problematic behavior by officers and equipping deputies with body cameras.

Arpaio was later convicted of criminal contempt of court for disobeying the judge’s 2011 order to stop the patrols. He was spared a possible jail sentence when his misdemeanor conviction was pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2017.

Several traffic-stop studies conducted after the profiling verdict showed deputies had often treated Hispanic and Black drivers differently than other drivers, though the reports stop short of saying Hispanics were still being profiled.

The latest report, covering stops in 2023, painted a more favorable picture, saying there’s no evidence of disparities in the length of stops or rates of arrests and searches for Hispanic drivers when compared to white drivers. But when drivers from all racial minorities were grouped together for analysis purposes, the study said they faced stops that were 19 seconds longer than white drivers.

While the case focused on traffic patrols, the judge later ordered changes to the sheriff’s internal affairs operation, which critics alleged was biased in its decision-making under Arpaio and shielded sheriff’s officials from accountability.

The agency has faced criticism for a yearslong backlog of internal affairs cases, which in 2022 stood around 2,100 and was reduced to 939 as of last month.

Taxpayers pick up the bill

By midsummer 2026, taxpayers are projected to pay $289 million in compliance costs for the sheriff’s office alone, plus another $23 million on legal costs and $36 million for a staff of policing professionals who monitor the agency’s progress in complying with the overhauls.

Galvin has criticized the money spent on monitoring and has questioned whether it has made anyone safer.

Raul Piña, a longtime member of a community advisory board created to help improve trust in the sheriff’s office, said the court supervision should continue because county taxpayers are finally seeing improvements. Piña believes Galvin’s criticism of the court oversight is politically driven.

“They just wrote blank checks for years, and now it makes sense to pitch a fit about it being super expensive?” Piña said.

Ending court supervision

Christine Wee, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the sheriff’s office isn’t ready to be released from court supervision.

Wee said the plaintiffs have questions about the traffic-stop data and believe the internal affairs backlog has to be cleared and the quality of investigations needs to be high. “The question of getting out from under the court is premature,” Wee said.

The current sheriff, Jerry Sheridan, said he sees himself asking the court during his term in office to end its supervision of the sheriff’s office. “I would like to completely satisfy the court orders within the next two years,” Sheridan said.

But ending court supervision would not necessarily stop all the spending, the sheriff’s office has said in court records.

Its lawyers said the costs “will likely continue to be necessary even after judicial oversight ends to sustain the reforms that have been implemented.”

“Homelessness is such a major issue in New York,” said Patrick Boyle, senior director at Enterprise Community Partners, one of the advocacy groups helping shelter residents and domestic violence survivors take part in the upcoming elections. “We want to make sure that people who have experienced homelessness are making their voices heard.”

Reilly Arena, left, and Ellen Murphy, right, of The League of Women Voters, set up a voter registration table in the lobby of a New Destiny housing building earlier this month. (Photo by Adi Talwar)

The lobby of New Destiny Housing’s shelter for domestic violence survivors was decorated with balloons during a recent Friday afternoon. A brightly-covered table dotted with pamphlets was set up to greet those entering.

This cheerful scene in the lobby had a purpose: to help tenants there to register to vote.

“We’re not telling people who to vote for,” said Gabriela Sandoval Requena, the director of policy and communications for New Destiny Housing. “We can just say, this is how you register … in a way that is safe, confidential for you.”

The effort was arranged by the Family Homelessness Coalition (FHC)* and the League of Women Voters. FHC, a network of housing and homeless services providers, has often been involved in political advocacy, including lobbying lawmakers in Albany and co-hosting a mayoral forum with City Limits back in April. But this voter registration drive was a first for the group.

“It’s always been a goal of our coalition to really empower people with lived experience with family homelessness,” said Patrick Boyle, senior director at Enterprise Community Partners, one of the co-conveners of the FHC. 

“This idea came about in the context of all the elections happening right now, the mayoral elections, other elections happening at the state and local level,” Boyle added. “Homelessness is such a major issue in New York that we want to make sure that people who have experienced homelessness are making their voices heard.”

According to the Coalition for the Homeless, 70 percent of the 114,791 people who slept in the city’s homeless shelters in February were families with children. And in 2024 alone, nearly 12,000 individuals spent time in the domestic violence shelter system specifically, including 6,832 children.

Because of a time limit on stays in the city’s DV shelters, hundreds of people exit these facilities each year to enter the wider Department of Homeless Services’ system, as City Limits previously reported.

According to New Destiny Housing, more than 20 percent of families with kids in the DHS shelter system in 2023 cited domestic violence as their reason for experiencing homelessness, more than eviction.

“When [people] think of homelessness,” said Sandoval Requena, “they think of the individual that you see on the streets. But kids make up the biggest chunk of the population in shelters.”

“Because we have a right to shelter in New York, you don’t see families sleeping on the streets; they’re usually in the shelter system,” she added. “It’s just the fact that there is a strong safety net for them to have temporary respite, then it’s just not seen. It’s just not discussed, unfortunately.”

Nor are DV survivors often able to draw attention to their experiences. Fleeing domestic violence means rebuilding a life while trying to keep their abuser away; treating mental health issues, particularly PTSD, anxiety, and depression; and arranging for their children to attend school, sometimes miles from their new location.

Trissy is one of New Destiny Housing’s tenants who updated her address during the voter registration drive. She had delayed doing so, saying there was so much else to focus on after she and her children left her abuser. And casting a ballot meant she had to travel about an hour to her old neighborhood to vote there.

“As a survivor of domestic violence, once you make the decision to change your circumstance, a lot comes along with that, and it can be difficult to address basic tasks that were normal,” Trissy said. “And there’s a lot going on. Looking for an apartment and a job, things like that. I feel like it affects your mental health. I feel like sometimes new environments could be a little overwhelming as well.”

At the registration drive, advocates advised domestic violence survivors on how they can register confidentially. (Photo by Adi Talwar)

Warshana is another DV survivor who also did not immediately update her address because of how busy she was, and feeling unaware of what the issues were. “Voting will be the last thing you’re thinking about when you’re trying to go to housing and daycare and work,” she said.

Another factor is the fear that their abuser could discover where they live if they register with their new address. New York State law allows domestic violence survivors to request that their information be kept private, and the city recently passed legislation requiring local agencies to create and distribute guidance on how to do so. 

For more information on applying for confidential voter registration, visit the state’s Board of Elections website here. 

“Domestic violence survivors or current victims can keep their voter registration confidential,” said Kai Rosenthal, co-president of the League of Women Voters of the City of New York. “And it’s been made easier that they don’t have to affirm it. A judge doesn’t have to affirm it. They can just affirm on a form.”

Unhoused New Yorkers also don’t need a permanent residence to register to vote, advocates point out. They can use a street corner or even a park as their address, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless’ “You Don’t Need a Home to Vote” campaign.

Kadisha is the host of FHC’s podcast, “Hear Our Voices,” and is formerly homeless herself. While not a DV survivor, Kadisha said being unhoused in general can make New Yorkers feel their voices don’t matter. 

“They don’t think about how our vote can really make a difference,” Kadisha said. “But if you put it in their mind that if you vote, you can make sure that your voices are heard no matter what part of your life you’re in at the time.”

Survivors who spoke with City Limits said issues important to them include affordable housing, education, and mental healthcare. Warshana believes if more DV survivors voted and created a bloc, they could make a difference when it comes to those issues.

“I feel like voting is a way of speaking for yourself, for you to not fade into the background,” said Trissy. “Even if it doesn’t go the way that you want it to go, at least you know that your opinion is important and that you contributed. You get to select the candidate based on values and concerns and things that [are] important to you.”

Kadisha agrees with that sentiment. “It might not be from that person who did the thing to you, the harm,” she said. “It’s like a way of kind of taking the power back, in a sense, to make sure that you can be heard and you can be seen.”

*Editor’s note: The Family Homelessness Coalition is among City Limits’ funders.

To reach the editor, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org. Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.

The post Getting the Vote Out in NYC Homeless & Domestic Violence Shelters appeared first on City Limits.