By BARBARA ORTUTAY

Meta’s stock slid in after-hours trading on Wednesday after the tech giant posted strong third-quarter results but warned that its expenses will be significantly higher in 2026 than this year.

Related Articles

Cannabis shop at Joseph’s restaurant in Oak Park Heights approved

Starbucks halts 2-year sales slide, but costly improvements hurt its profits

Google’s corporate parent posts first-ever quarter with $100B in revenue in latest show of its power

St. Paul: Hearing officer recommends demolition of vacant Midway CVS

What a Federal Reserve rate cut means for your finances

Like its rivals, Meta Platforms Inc. has been on an artificial intelligence spending spree and said its costs will grow much faster next year, driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation as it has hired AI experts at eye-popping compensation levels.

“Employee compensation costs will be the second largest contributor to growth, as we recognize a full year of compensation for employees hired throughout 2025, particularly AI talent, and add technical talent in priority areas,” Meta said.

Menlo Park, California-based Meta Platforms Inc. earned $2.71 billion, or $1.05 per share, in the July-September period. Excluding tax-related special expenses, the company would have earned $7.25. Revenue rose 26% to $51.42 billion from $40.59 billion.

Analysts, on average, were expecting earnings of $6.72 per share on revenue of $49.51 billion, according to analysts surveyed by FactSet Research.

Meta’s daily active user base on its apps — Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram and Threads — was 3.54 billion on average for September, up 8% year-over-year.

For the current quarter, Meta is forecasting revenue in the range of $56 billion to $59 billion. Analysts are forecasting $57.36 billion for the October-December quarter.

Despite the stock drop, analysts were less concerned about Meta’s spending spree than shareholders appeared to be.

“For Meta, advertising is the foundation; AI is the growth engine,” said Debra Aho Williamson, founder and chief analyst at Sonata Insights. “There’s a lot of focus on Meta’s capital expenditures related to AI, which is completely warranted. The spending is absolutely massive. But with 26% growth in revenue in Q3, it’s clear that what Meta is doing to integrate AI into its ad products is working.”

Andrew Rocco, stock strategist at Zacks Investment Research, said “the quarter was not terrible, and forward statements continue to be positive. Most importantly, management confirmed that they expect ad revenue to remain strong.”

Meta also cautioned that it is facing a slew of legal and regulatory issues in the U.S. and the European Union that could hurt its bottom line.

“In the U.S., a number of youth-related trials are scheduled for 2026, and may ultimately result in a material loss,” the company said.

In the U.S., Meta is facing an antitrust case that’s now awaiting a judge’s decision and could force the company to break off WhatsApp and Instagram, startups Meta bought more than a decade ago that have since grown into social media powerhouses.

Meta’s shares fell $57.67, or 7.7%, to $694 in after-hours trading. The stock had closed up slightly at $751.67.

“Many of the resources that our neighborhoods enjoy today—from parks to truly affordable housing and schools—were secured by the Council exercising power on behalf of residents to negotiate with the city and developers for the public good.”

Councilmember Farías, left, with Speaker Adrienne Adams at the City Council Wednesday. (Emil Cohen/NYC Council Media Unit)

One year ago, a neighborhood rezoning to promote housing development in the East Bronx surrounding newly slated Metro-North train stations yielded nearly $500 million for local parks, schools and streets. In addition to allowing the creation of an estimated 7,000 new units of housing in the Bronx, up to 500 units of homeownership were secured for our residents to access life-changing economic opportunities.

These housing and infrastructure benefits for our neighborhoods were only possible because of the community’s power to influence development through the vote of their democratically-elected representatives in the City Council.

That power is now at risk from Mayor Eric Adams’ misleading Ballot Proposals 2, 3 and 4, which would take away this voting power and give it to the mayor and their unelected appointees. These changes would eliminate the ability for neighborhoods to secure critical improvements for their parks, schools, streets and public transit, as well as housing that is affordable for local residents. 

Another View: Vote Yes on Housing Ballot Proposals 2-5 (Opinion)

Fortunately in the coming election, voters throughout the city will have the opportunity to use their ballot to decide whether to keep or give away that power. Voters need to make sure they understand the proposals, because the ballot language describing them hides their real impact in an effort to mislead voters.

In the Bronx, we understand the consequences of when decisions are dictated by powerful political interests outside of our communities without any local input. Community power in the current land use process emerged as a response to racist and reckless land use policies from centrally-concentrated power that segregated neighborhoods and subjected them to higher rates of asthma and other environmental injustices. 

The historic lack of investment by the city in these neighborhoods further perpetuated economic, environmental and health injustices. Many Black and Latino neighborhoods are still living with and working to undo the damage from the decades of harm this caused. 

We are only now making progress from increased representation within government for communities of color, as equitable representation and power in our democracy is key to ensuring the health and well-being of every community. 

Many of the resources that our neighborhoods enjoy today—from parks to truly affordable housing and schools—were secured by the Council exercising power on behalf of residents to negotiate with the city and developers for the public good. 

As residents and representatives of our communities, we understand the urgency of solving our housing crisis to make life affordable for New Yorkers. Equitable and swift approval of new housing is critical to solving the housing shortage. Many Bronx communities know this well because they have contributed the most towards city housing production.  

I’m proud to be a leader within this City Council that has consistently demonstrated housing leadership by approving 93 percent of housing-related land use proposals sent to us. This reveals the inaccuracy of proponents’ arguments to explain and justify these ballot proposals.

While our city must actively ensure that all areas of our city contribute their share of new housing, the answer is not to systematically disenfranchise all communities and amass power in the mayor’s office, which is what these ballot proposals do. 

Mayor Adams’ ballot proposals 2, 3 and 4 make claims about affordable housing to mislead voters, but they will undermine the affordability of housing. By removing the only required vote by democratically elected representatives, they would eliminate the public’s ability to ensure that the housing built is truly affordable and development is responsive to community needs.

If enacted, Proposals 2, 3 and 4 would make it harder for everyday New Yorkers to fight for and win affordable housing and investments in parks, public transit, schools, and other essentials for our neighborhoods. 

Without being pushed to do so, developers and city government have not provided housing that is affordable to residents and investments our neighborhoods need. These misleading housing ballot proposals would take away communities’ power to negotiate these essentials in development projects. 

New York City belongs to its people—not to a single mayor or a handful of powerful and wealthy developers. New Yorkers should reject ballot proposals 2, 3 and 4, because they will lead to less affordable housing and more gentrification. 

These proposals are designed to take away New Yorkers’ voices. We cannot let a historically unpopular mayor and powerful special interests take advantage of the public and trick us into giving away our power.  

Amanda Farías is the majority leader of the New York City Council and represents Council District 18 in The Bronx.

The post Opinion: Communities’ Power in Development Decisions Helps Our Neighborhoods  appeared first on City Limits.

The scene of veteran quarterback Carson Wentz writhing on the ground in pain last week at SoFi Stadium, then tossing his helmet in frustration after reaching the sideline, has inspired a discourse about how the Vikings handled everything that transpired.

This wasn’t simply a frustrated player lashing out after being taken down for another sack. This was a grown man battling through an immense amount of pain while slowly coming to terms with the fact that his time with Vikings was done.

Should he have even been in the game at that point? That question has continued to be asked this week after Wentz was placed on injured reserve in advance of surgery to repair a torn labrum in his left shoulder.

“I knew what I was signing up for,” Wentz said. “It wasn’t like anybody was forcing me to go. This is my 10th year in the league. There’s a lot of bigger things in my life to worry about, so I wasn’t going to do anything that would be detrimental to my own health.”

This is something Wentz said he has been managing since the Oct. 5 game against the Cleveland Browns. He learned that he had suffered a torn labrum in his left shoulder soon after that, and while he knew it was going to require surgery, he proceeded to play in the Oct. 19 game against the Philadelphia Eagles, followed by the Oct. 23 game against the Los Angeles Chargers.

As soon as Wentz got word from the doctors that he couldn’t do any further damage, that was enough for him to keep going for as long as he could.

“Did it become more uncomfortable? Probably,” Wentz said. “Did it become worse that it can’t be fixed? No.”

The decision for Wentz to continue to suit up for the Vikings was made in lockstep with head coach Kevin O’Connell. They were on the same page at every step throughout the process.

“It was determined that if Carson wanted to give it a go, he could,” O’Connell said. “We felt encouraged by giving Carson the opportunity to make the call.”

After rehabbing through the bye and getting through the game against the Eagles relatively unscathed, Wentz acknowledged that in hindsight, he struggled with the four-day turnaround ahead of the game against the Chargers more than he expected.

That said, Wentz never thought about taking himself out of the game, largely because he was relishing the opportunity to be a starter in the NFL once again. That also helps explain why O’Connell left Wentz under center for as long as he did.

“We went into this thing knowing it was kind of a pain-tolerance situation and he would be able to play through it and not make it worse,” O’Connell said. “You have an obligation to the player to let them compete and see it through to a certain point.”

There were conversations on the sideline each time Wentz came off the field last week, and he kept reiterating that he wanted to stay in the game.

“I never once felt unsafe,” Wentz said. “It was like, ‘I don’t want to come out of this game as uncomfortable as this is.’ ”

As reality started to set in for him on the plane ride home last week, however, Wentz finally let himself shift his mindset, knowing it was more than likely in his best interest to fix his torn labrum sooner rather than later.

The hope from Wentz is that he’ll be ready to roll for organized team activities in the spring, whether that’s with the Vikings or another team. The good news is that he’s expected to make a full recovery.

“It’s not that concerning long term,” Wentz said. “It’s just a bummer right now.”

Related Articles

Vikings sign another quarterback for depth behind J.J. McCarthy

The Loop Fantasy Football Report Week 9: Unlikely heroes are midseason MVPs

Carson Wentz needs season-ending shoulder surgery

How has the 2025 free agent class fared for the Vikings?

Former Vikings star Adrian Peterson arrested on DWI, gun charges in Texas

The city’s legislative hearing officer will recommend that the St. Paul City Council order the demolition of the vacant CVS store at the corner of Snelling and University avenues.

The eyesore property has become a visible metaphor for the city’s retail challenges and general setbacks plaguing the Green Line, the Midway and the once-promising University Avenue business corridor. Before the installation of protective fencing around its parking lot, as many as 40 loiterers at a time could be seen gathered outside the building at 499 Snelling Ave. N., which had developed a reputation as one of the neighborhood’s most embarrassing open-air drug markets.

Legislative hearing officer Marcia Moermond held two public hearings over the past month on potential repair or demolition orders for the building, which dates to just 2007. In addition to a $5,000 performance deposit, she said last month that property owner would need to provide a complete abatement plan laying out future lighting, cameras, bids for trade labor improvements in particular parts of the structure and other evidence of a detailed scope of work.

On Tuesday, in light of obvious damage and neglect, she recommended ordering the property owner to remove the building within 15 days, with no option for repairs.

The city council will hold a public hearing on the demolition orders on Nov. 5, at which point Moermond is expected to present her formal recommendation to the council.

Related Articles

Self-described ‘right wing libertarian’ damaged pride flags, anti-Trump signs in St. Paul, charges say

St. Paul man, 65, sentenced for fatally stabbing apartment neighbor, 70, in fight over money

‘Huge boom’ as driver crashes through wall of business on St. Paul’s Grand Avenue

St. Paul Public Schools using taxpayer funds on special levy. But is it advocacy?

Carnegie libraries, including three in the east metro, will each get $10,000

Two parties have expressed interest in purchasing the property, but representatives of the building owner and CVS did not appear at Tuesday’s hearing, according to Jay Willms, the city council’s director of operations.

If the demolition order is approved by the council, the building owner would then have 15 days to demolish the structure, or it would fall to the city to put removal out to bid and pursue a hazardous materials inspection and utility disconnections, a process that could take several weeks.

Pointing to the often unseemly condition of nearby vacant lots, some residents have expressed concern that if the property owner simply sits on the lot without selling it after demolition, the site would remain a dirt lot for the foreseeable future.

CVS permanently closed the store in April 2022, and it has since become a visible magnet for litter, graffiti and vandalism.