The update comes from the Lumbee Tribal Chairman, John L. Lowery, who has discussed the land purchase and land in trust process at length, with it being confirmed that the Lumbee Tribal Holdings (the for-profit arm of the Tribe) acquired the land and has transferred it to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina.

Its explained how the ‘strategic’ acquisition was made to secure land that can be utilized for long-term economic development initiatives that benefit people for generations to come. It comes days after Catawba Nation Chief Brian Harris announced the tribe had filed for state recognition in North Carolina, ahead of a planned casino opening.

Future of Lumbee Tribe newly acquired land is up to the people

The actual purpose for the new site hasn’t yet been determined, as the announcement suggests the decision will be made “by the will of the Lumbee people.”

The update continues to say that if, and when, the Tribe votes for gaming, the 241-acre tract could serve as the site of a casino and resort, accompanied by a shopping outlet and additional amenities like a golf course, a Top Golf-style facility, a water park, or similar attractions.

If, however, people vote against gaming, the land can be developed into a business and industrial park designed to attract employers. It’s suggested that either of these options could lead to the creation of thousands of jobs and “be an economic boom not just for our Tribal territory but for this entire region of the state.”

The Lumbee Tribe is actually the largest in North Carolina and the largest tribe east of the Mississippi River, according to the Department of Administration.

Regardless, this property, along with the Lumbee Tribe Cultural Center, the Tribal Administration Building, and several other Tribal assets, will eventually be placed into trust with the United States Government.

The Tribe says placing land into trust transfers title to the federal government to be held on behalf of the Tribe, removing the application of eminent domain and providing protections.

Featured image: Screenshot via YouTube video

sydneypools

The post Lumbee Tribe secures land, teasing North Carolina casino appeared first on Our Story Insight.

The expanded AI data centers will be located in Richmond County and support Amazon Web Services, the company’s cloud-computing unit.

The project is expected to create “at least 500 new high-skilled jobs,” including data center engineers and network specialists, the company said.

Amazon is one of several Big Tech firms competing in the AI race. Oleksandr – stock.adobe.com

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, touted Amazon’s commitment as “among the largest in state history” and said it would provide “an economic boost to Richmond County.”

The rural county is located about 70 miles east of Charlotte.

“Artificial intelligence is changing the way we work and innovate, and I am pleased that North Carolina will stay at the forefront of all that’s ahead as we continue to attract top technology companies like Amazon,” Stein said in a statement.

Amazon’s chief global affairs and legal officer David Zapolsky said the “investment will position North Carolina as a hub for cutting-edge technology, create hundreds of high-skilled jobs, and drive significant economic growth.”

“We look forward to partnering with state and local leaders, local suppliers, and educational institutions to nurture the next generation of talent,” Zapolsky added.

As part of the investment, Amazon will also roll out new training programs focused on areas such as data center operations and fiber optics. The company has a growing footprint in North Carolina and has invested $12 billion in the state since 2010.

Amazon plans to spend $100 billion on capital expenditures this year. Christopher Sadowski

Amazon shares were flat in Wednesday trading.

Amazon and other Big Tech firms are pouring billions into AI infrastructure as they race to develop the advanced technology.

Led by CEO Andy Jassy, Amazon has signaled it will spend $100 million in capital expenditures this year.

North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein is pictured. AP

President Trump is also backing the nationwide effort and has pushed companies to boost their commitments within the US.

In January, Trump announced the $500 billion “Project Stargate” – a collaboration between OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle to build out AI data centers.

The post Amazon to invest $10B in North Carolina toward AI data center infrastructure appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She’s the editor/author of (DON’T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

Whether or not public school students will continue to have fewer diverse choices in their reading life across South Carolina was the topic of today’s State Department of Education meeting. Ten books were on the table for statewide removal following committee input, but a robust discussion about the unintended consequences of such decisions–and the abuse of the process that has imbued one parent in one county with outsized power to ban books across the state–led to a motion to table the decisions for another month.

The books under consideration at the April 1, 2025 meeting included:

Due to Regulation 43-170 (R-43-170), decisions over content in school libraries is in the hands of the South Carolina Department of Education. Materials deemed to have “descriptions of sexual content” are inappropriate for schools and must be removed. What that phrase means is intentionally vague, allowing for the opinions of a small number of individuals within the state to decide on behalf of all students and parents statewide.

The South Carolina Department of Education, headed by Ellen Weaver–who used taxpayer money to hire a lawyer to lobby in support of this school book banning bill–set up an Instructional Materials Review Committee (IMRC), where any parent in the state can submit complaints. This has allowed individuals to exert significant power in what’s available not only in their public schools but in schools statewide.

The IMRC reviews complaints and elects whether or not to advance the complaints to the Department of Education for a final decision. Decisions are made not on reading the entire book and assessing whether or not it rises to the definition of obscenity per the Miller Test. They’re made based on excerpts provided by the person bringing about the complaints.

Literary Activism Newsletter

News you can use plus tips and tools for the fight against censorship and other bookish activism!

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

The IMRC recommended that 10 new books be added to the state-sponsored banned list. Those decisions were passed on to the Department of Education who voted to table the decision making for a future meeting. This was in no small part thanks to the voices of several board members.

Among them was Dr. O’Shield. He spoke at length about how all of the books banned so far–as well as the 10 on the docket for the day–were coming from one single county out of a state with more than 40 counties. As an educator, he had not seen problems with any of the books in his own school and put in the effort to see how many of the 10 titles were available where he taught, when they were purchased, and how frequently they’d been borrowed.

O’Shield also questioned why there could not be restrictions applied to books, rather than outright bans. He mentioned that there are plenty of 18 year olds in high school who shouldn’t be restricted from accessing so-called “adult” materials. The IMRC explained that this option is one among many the committee can recommend and has in the past. Ellen Hopkins’s book Crank, for example, is only available with parental permissions.

This restriction option, however, is not available to books that meet the state’s criminal code definition of depictions of “sexual content.” That’s why the 10 books at hand could not be given that recommendation and why Crank could. Crank‘s content did not meet that threshold.

Reverend Tony Vincent, a newcomer to the state education board, talked about how reading passages out of context–as is how the decisions have been made in the state–is a deep disservice. While he may not wish his own children to read the books, he acknowledged that not only are there young people who would benefit from the books but also that his duty in his role on the board (and elsewhere) was to make decisions out of love for other people. Banning books statewide over a small selection of passages would be the opposite of acting in love.

Board member Maya Slaughter spoke, pointing out that now that the Board has been through this review process, it seemed as though they may now be able to identify potential abuses of the process. She suggested more time to review the process before making any decisions on the slate of books.

That would ultimately be granted.

South Carolina banned its first round of books for all public schools on Election Day when people were otherwise occupied. Seven made the initial list. In the weeks following the ban of those books, listed below, further action was taken in deciding to not ban Crank by Ellen Hopkins but to restrict its access to parents who grant opt-in permission.

In early February 2025, the State Department of Education voted to ban four more books. Those titles were The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson, Flamer by Mike Curato, and Push by Sapphire. Two additional books brought before them at that meeting were retained, meaning they could remain in public schools: Bronx Masquerade by Nikki Grimes and The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros. Those two titles were part of a series of challenges by one parent in the Fort Mill School District; that parent unsuccessfully challenged a third title, too, an introduction to literature for 8th graders textbook.

All 10 of the books brought before the South Carolina Department of Education today were challenged by one individual, Elizabeth Szalai. Szalai was behind the demands to remove nearly 100 titles challenged in Beaufort County Schools, the bulk of which were returned to shelves. With South Carolina’s new law, she and others like her now have the opportunity to take their complaints beyond their own school district and potentially have books pulled from all public schools in the state. Szalai was behind the complaints that led to the state banning four books in February.

One single parent has had outsized power to have books banned across an entire state.

Complaints over each of the books, both banned and retained, are available the South Carolina Department of Education’s website (here is where final decisions and associated documents live and here is where pending decisions and associated documents live). Take the time to read them and understand these decisions are being made on conspiracy theories and cherry picked passages being distributed by Moms For Liberty and similar groups. One member of the board in today’s meeting suggested that some of the titles in question could be used by older students or librarians to “indoctrinate” younger people.

For all the arguments about “local control,” the power given to the State Board of Education to remove books statewide is the precise opposite. The South Carolina Department of Education is the arbiter of what is and is not accessible to students in public institutions across the state, not those who live or work in those communities.

Today’s decision suggests that many have come to realize the consequences associated with that power. This is a positive motion.

The full list of books banned in every public school in South Carolina is currently as follows:

Three states have legal mechanisms that allow for statewide book bans, though only South Carolina and Utah have used them so far. The other state is Tennessee.

The post South Carolina Postpones Vote on Banning 10 Books Statewide appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Amazon workers voted overwhelmingly against a bid to unionize their North Carolina warehouse, the National Labor Relations Board said on Saturday, the latest setback in labor organizing efforts at the e-commerce giant.

Workers at the RDU1 fulfillment center in Garner, outside of Raleigh, voted 2,447 to 829 against unionizing with Carolina Amazonians United for Solidarity and Empowerment, or CAUSE, an upstart union founded by warehouse workers in 2022.

Organizers at the warehouse, which employs more than 4,000 people, sought starting wages of $30 an hour. The current pay range is about $18 to $24, Amazon said. The union also demanded longer lunch breaks and increased vacation time.

In a statement, leaders of CAUSE said the election outcome was the result of Amazon’s “relentless and illegal efforts to intimidate us.” They did not say whether they would challenge the outcome, but vowed to keep trying to organize.

Eileen Hards, a spokeswoman for Amazon, wrote: “We’re glad that our team in Garner was able to have their voices heard, and that they chose to keep a direct relationship with Amazon.”

Leading up to the election, the worker-led union filed charges with the labor relations board accusing Amazon of interfering with employees’ protected union activity. The company gave preferential treatment to workers who did not support the union, according to the charges filed by CAUSE. Amazon also unfairly fired the co-founder of the union one week before workers filed for a union election in December, CAUSE said in a filing.

Amazon denied any election interference. Employees have the choice of whether to join a union, and the company talks “openly, candidly and respectfully” about unionization, Ms. Hards said before the vote. She said the CAUSE co-founder had been fired for “repeated misconduct that included making derogatory and racist comments to his co-workers.”

Addressing demands voiced by the union, Ms. Hards said the company already offered safe workplaces, competitive pay, industry-leading benefits and consistent scheduling. The CAUSE union, she added, “has no experience representing workers or their interests.”

On top of what they characterized as resistance from the company, organizers at the warehouse faced an environment in the South that has historically been hostile to unions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership in North Carolina last year was 2.4 percent, the lowest rate in the country and far below the national average of 9.9 percent.

Amazon has aggressively fended off union campaigns and stalled the bargaining process in multiple segments of its business, including warehouses, delivery operations and grocery stores.

In 2022, workers at a Staten Island warehouse in New York voted to form Amazon’s first union in the United States; it is now affiliated with the Teamsters union. Amazon has challenged the election outcome in court, and has refused to recognize the union or bargain with it. Delivery drivers, who work for third-party package delivery companies serving Amazon, have also mounted campaigns with the Teamsters.

The Trump administration’s moves at the labor relations board since the inauguration — including the replacement of the general counsel appointed in the Biden administration, who was considered friendly to labor — could further embolden employers to clamp down on organizing and refuse to bargain, labor law experts said.

Workers at a Philadelphia location of Whole Foods Market voted in January to affiliate with the United Food and Commercial Workers union, establishing the first union beachhead at the Amazon-owned grocery chain. In a filing with the labor board challenging the election, the company cited President Trump’s firing of a Democratic board member, which stripped the board of a quorum necessary to issue decisions.

In January, Amazon said that it was closing its warehouse and logistics operations in the Canadian province of Quebec, where unions had gained a foothold among some Amazon workers, and that it would lay off 1,700 employees.

The North Carolina election is not the first unsuccessful union bid among Amazon warehouse workers. In 2021, workers at a warehouse in Bessemer, Ala., voted against unionizing, but labor officials later ruled that Amazon had illegally influenced the election. Workers voted a second time in 2022, but the outcome was too close to call, prompting a labor judge to order a third election. That vote has yet to be held, and Amazon has denied wrongdoing.

“Ultimately, the biggest thing that we’re fighting for is dignity,” Italo Medelius-Marsano, a member of the CAUSE organizing committee who works at the RDU1 ship dock, said before the vote. “We’re making sure Amazon knows that we are human beings,” he said, citing the movement’s catch phrase: “I am not a robot.”

The post Amazon Union Push Falls Short at North Carolina Warehouse appeared first on Our Story Insight.