Why pay when you can slash? TikTok slash and free lets you cut prices all the way to zero. Download TikTok, search slash free and share the link to get free items. Start slashing now. It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Friday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. We start off this morning with an update on violence, specifically gang violence in the state of North Carolina, as the state's gang violence task force is confronting an increasingly uncomfortable reality. The criminal networks emerging across the state no longer resemble the traditional gang structures that many public institutions were designed to combat. At a public meeting this week, the task force heard updates from its enforcement, intervention, and prevention subcommittees as members debated how North Carolina should respond to evolving gang activity, rising online exploitation, weakening community engagement, and mounting pressure on law enforcement and juvenile justice systems.
This task force itself is relatively new. It was created through an executive order by Governor Josh Stein in 2025 following growing statewide concerns over violent crime, juvenile offenses, gang recruitment, and broader Community violence. The order directed state agencies, law enforcement leaders, educators, juvenile justice officials, and community organizations to develop recommendations aimed at reducing gang-related crime and improving prevention efforts across the state of North Carolina. The task force is expected to receive formal recommendations from its subcommittees coming up here later on this year. Then the full committee itself will decide and make some of its recommendations public.
And then, of course, we'll see how the state government reacts. Throughout the meeting and previous recent subcommittee meetings, members repeatedly returned to one conclusion. that many of North Carolina's existing anti-gang systems were built for what are described as a different era. Participants described gang activity that increasingly operates through social media, online extortion, loosely connected affiliations, and decentralized criminal networks rather than strictly neighborhood-based organizations. Members discussed juveniles becoming involved in gang activity entirely online, including cases involving sextortion, digital coercion, and financial exploitation of Juveniles across North Carolina.
The discussion exposed concerns that government systems often adapt more slowly than the criminal organizations themselves, as task force members voice frustration over what they described as declining direct engagement between institutions and communities that they serve. Several participants criticized the growing reliance on remote communication, virtual meetings, administrative systems, and reactive responses instead of face-to-face outreach inside of neighborhoods, schools, and homes where gang recruitment often develops. With the concerns extending well beyond policing, the participants in the subcommittees argued that schools, clinicians, social workers, interventional providers, and law enforcement agencies increasingly operate behind the scenes and behind the screens instead of maintaining consistent community. relationships. Members described fewer foot patrols, fewer home visits, reduced neighborhood engagement, and a broader institutional retreat from what is described as proactive outreach.
At the same time, law enforcement staffing shortages remain a major obstacle, not only as it relates to gang violence, but violence as a whole. Across our streets in North Carolina, task force members discussed urban patrol divisions beginning shifts already overwhelmed by emergency calls, limited opportunities for proactive community policing or neighborhood relationship building as well. Several participants acknowledged that staffing shortages, burnout, and recruitment challenges have weakened the proactive enforcement efforts not only here in North Carolina, but across the nation. The broader discussion suggested that staffing problems alone do not explain declining community engagement. A main focus of the discussion as well were not just the enforcement and this community outreach, but the root causes of violence, as the task force repeatedly emphasized that gang violence cannot be addressed solely through arrests or incarceration.
Instead, members framed the issue as a broader societal challenge involving unstable families, educational failures, weak community ties, social isolation, mental health struggles and issues, as well as economic opportunities and institutional distrust. One of the meeting's largest presentations focused on North Carolina's Juvenile Crime Prevention Council. Known as JCPCs, which distributed roughly $28 million annually in taxpayer funding to local intervention and prevention programs across the state of North Carolina. Cindy Porterfield, who is the director of the juvenile community programs at the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, defended the organization's structure as an intentionally local system. Designed by lawmakers to involve multiple sectors of community in the juvenile justice decisions that take place.
With Porterfield telling the committee the legislature was very smart in directing how to elect this membership and lay it into the general statute. According to Porterfield, each council includes representatives from schools, courts, law enforcement agencies, health departments, faith organizations, recreational programs, as well as county governments, with county commissioners also appointing additional members. Porterfield described the JCPC program as a local decision-making body that analyzes court data, gang-related information, also looking at things like educational trends and existing service gaps before issuing requests for proposals to nonprofits and community organizations. With Porterfield saying in part, the JCPC looks at data from our court service folks. It looks at gang-related data locally, educational data, and it develops what it needs locally by assessing that profile of the kids that are in the community.
The state distributes funding to all 100 counties using a formula based partially on youth population, with each county receiving a base allocation of roughly $35,000, though there are disparities between counties and subcommittees. Of course, as you look at the different size and scope. For example, Mecklenburg County receives more than $2 million annually through the JCPC, while some rural counties receive less than $60,000. Porterfield says: think about that in today's time: what you can do with $60,000 in terms of service. The funding supports a wide range of programs, including emergency shelters, restorative justice programs, teen courts, structural day programs for suspended students, clinical assessments, mentoring services, and intervention programs for juveniles returning from youth development centers.
Porterfield said that approximately 14,000 at-risk youth and another 8,000 juveniles already involved in the justice system receive services annually through the programs funded along with what state officials describe as continuum of care. Supporters argued that the JCPC model does allow local communities to tailor services based on local conditions rather than relying solely on statewide mandates. But the broader task force discussion also highlighted ongoing questions surrounding oversight effectiveness and a big one: measurable outcomes. Critics of some local JCPC systems argue that public participation at the meetings is often minimal or non-existent, and taxpayers can struggle to determine whether funded programs are producing meaningful reductions in violence or recidivism within their communities. In smaller counties especially, funding discussions can become dominated by the same limited network of nonprofits, agencies, and local officials involved in both recommending and administering the program.
The task force repeatedly stressed the importance of evidence based solutions and measurable outcomes as members continue to develop recommendations and that which, of course, as I mentioned, will be coming out later this year. The meeting included also discussions about changing conditions inside of correctional facilities. This has been a major discussion across the state as well. Participants with decades of prison experience described growing hostility towards law enforcement, worsening gang aggression, and younger offenders increasingly seeking identity and structure through gang affiliation.
Some members argued that earlier correctional systems relied more heavily on activities, incentives, and community interactions that helped reduce tension and support rehabilitation. Several participants suggested modern institutions have become more isolated, more bureaucratic, and less connected to the communities that they actually serve. That concern appeared to unify much of the meeting's discussion as North Carolina already operates an extensive network of gang intervention systems, juvenile justice programs, nonprofit partnerships, school incentives, grant-funded services, and public safety committees, with the state spending years building overlapping prevention frameworks. Through the courts, schools, law enforcement agencies, local governments, and community organizations. The challenge confronting the task force is whether those systems can adapt quickly enough to confront criminal networks.
You can read more on this meeting this week. A lot of detail, a lot of structure in here as the state of North Carolina as a whole examines how to deal with rising gang violence, particularly focusing on the juvenile justice system here in North Carolina. We've got the details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the story with the headline: Task Force examines state gang violence strategy. Here, there are beaches as wide open as your plans.
and waterfront towns more charming than you could ever imagine. Ready for the perfect spring getaway? Visit crystalcoastnc.com slash booking now. Uh It's 5:21. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
Over the last few months here on the Carolina Journal News Hour and on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, we have been covering a very large amount of state incentive programs, predominantly those coming from the J Dig program that have fallen through. It seems like almost on a bi-weekly basis now, we're hearing about a company that previously announced they were going to be bringing a bunch of jobs, a bunch of economic investment to the state of North Carolina, only to turn around months or years later and say, actually, it's not going to be as great as we originally proposed it to be. That is another story that we are tracking this morning to walk us through some of the latest. Katie Zender, CarolinaJournal.com, joins us on the news hour. Katie, a lot of the J Dig stories that we've covered recently deal with incentive deals that were announced three, four, five years ago in some cases.
The one that you're tracking this morning as it relates to Jet Zero, that's relatively new. That announcement was only last year, right? That's exactly right, Nick. Yeah, so this announcement was made last year, I believe in June, so not quite a year, and they're already announcing delays in the hiring timeline.
So yeah, this announcement was made in 2025. Jet Zero is an aerospace manufacturer startup that is based out of California, and they're supposedly supposed to be bringing their first manufacturing plant to Greensboro at the Triad International Airport there. And they have already requested delays that were approved by the Department of Commerce to their hiring timeline. And the big issue with these JDIG programs, as we've continued to cover them, or these JDIG incentives, as I should say, is that these are, in a lot of cases, Katie, very large hiring goals, sometimes thousands, five, six, seven thousand employees, billions of dollars worth of private investment. They're very lofty goals.
And unfortunately, this track record over the last couple of years shows that either, A, the projects don't happen at all, as you're talking about now, the timeline can be delayed pretty significantly, or in some cases, they pare down the hiring so much, sometimes cutting it by 80 or 90 percent, that it's nowhere near the deal that was originally announced. Yeah, that's exactly right, Nick.
So with this project, their overall hiring goal was 14,000 jobs by 2036. That deadline has now been pushed back to 2037. And then they had some smaller hiring goals that have been shifted a little bit.
So their original hiring goal for 2027, which is next year, was just over a thousand jobs. They have now changed that timeline to be no hires in 2027, but they're accelerating the hires in 2028 and 2029.
So they're still trying to meet their initial hiring targets for 2029 of 3,020 jobs. They just won't be making any hires in 2027 and then increasing their hires in 2028 and 2029. And then they're pushing back their entire timeline one year from the end of 2036 to the end of 2037.
Okay, we're talking about a lot of jobs here. We're talking about a lot of investment. This was a major announcement over at the Triad airport when this was originally announced back in 2025. And obviously, it'd be great to have 14,000 new jobs here in North Carolina, billions of dollars worth of additional private investment. But I would imagine a lot of folks hearing this original announcement: oh, yeah, we're only pushing it back a year.
We're going to continue with our goals as they're stated out right now. There might be a little bit of PTSD because we've seen this similar story with a lot of these other J-Dig companies as well. That's exactly right, Nick. In fact, we just saw it here recently in the last month with VinFast. And Teresa Opeca, you know, has covered that, been covering that story for the last couple of years.
And so, Brian Balfour, he's the VP of research here at the John Locke Foundation. He said, This is already beginning to resemble the VINFAST debacle. This project's failure began with requested delays, and it seems like barely a day goes by without another announced delay or failure of a JDIG project. In fact, he also posted on Twitter this morning: he said, Will this become the VinFast of the sky? Yeah, again, we hope that's not the case because, again, we're talking about a lot of really great paying jobs, a lot of folks in and around the Piedmont area of North Carolina having the ability to work for this employer, a lot of economic impact from this.
But even outside of this, Katie, I was reading another story this week about a window and door manufacturer that was supposed to open a facility in Johnston County. They've completely scrapped that project. It's unfortunate because when these projects are announced, it is unfortunately so many years down the road that we find out these jobs aren't coming to fruition. And a lot of people don't even remember exactly what the original deal was, what the original announcement was.
So you take this kind of victory lap before anything has even begun, only to find out two, three, four years down the road that the project is completely scrapped or it's pared back so much, it doesn't even resemble what it was originally intended to be. That's exactly right, Nick. And so the reasoning with Jet Zero for this delays is they are blaming the tie-up with the state budget and the delays in the state budget for the needed delayed timeline. And so both the deputy chief of staff on both the House and Senate side have commented on this. Demi Dowdy, who's Speaker Hall's Deputy Chief of Staff of Communications and External Affairs, she said we have fully funded year one of the project and have passed necessary technical corrections to facilitate Jet Zero's construction process and are committed to funding year two of the project by the start of the fiscal year.
And then Lauren Horsh, who's the Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Berger, Senate Leader Phil Berger, she said the Senate remains committed to fully funding the project and securing the $133.9 million necessary for this upcoming fiscal year in the state budget.
So according to both Lauren and Demi, this project is fully funded for the first two years. is fully committed to funding this project and then Patr Patrice. Geist Pathia also commented on this. She is the Deputy Communications Director for the North Carolina Department of Commerce. And she also said that these kind of modification requests are not uncommon.
And the state often grants these modifications, as they did in this case. This was approved by the Economic Investment Committee of the Department of Commerce on Tuesday. She said they usually grant these if it's believed that the company is acting in good faith. Yeah, and of course, that question over good faith does remain relatively unknown as of right now, as we're still in the very early phases of this project. But Katie, it is interesting to see Jet Zero say, hey, this fact that the state and the North Carolina General Assembly didn't pass a budget when the new fiscal year started July the 1st of 2025, that's the reason we're pulling this back.
And then to hear from both corner offices and the North Carolina General Assembly saying, hey, we've passed your technical bills. We've already set the money aside. Kind of an interesting rift seemingly already beginning between the state and this company. Right, right.
So yeah, we'll definitely be keeping an eye on this, Nick, and just keeping everyone up to date with this story as it progresses. And yeah, hopefully we don't see another VinFest debacle here. Yeah, no question about it. The VINFAST story has been an unmitigated disaster. We encourage our audience to go read more about JetZero.
Katie's got the story on that over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. And of course, we've got continuing coverage of VinFast and other J-Dig announcements that have not come to fruition here over the last couple of months and years. All those details, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the information this morning. Katie Zender joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
It's 5.36. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good Friday morning to you. It's hard to escape if you're in any sort of city or downtown area, especially during a weekend. You will likely see a food truck or a set of food trucks around selling a variety of different food and beverages to individuals that are looking to purchase them.
This has been a really big uptick in these kinds of venues over the last couple of years here, not only in North Carolina, but across the rest of the United States. That has prompted an interesting lawsuit that we've been keeping an eye on here on the Carolina Journal News Hour and on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. To join us and walk through some of those details, Mitch Coke joins us. Mitch, this deals with the city of Jacksonville. There was a lawsuit filed against a small business owner who was inviting some food trucks to operate in front of that property.
And it would appear now that that lawsuit is said and done, which presumably will have some major ramifications for other municipalities across the state that might try something similar. What's the latest that you're following?
Well, it certainly could have ramifications in other cities. It definitely will in Jacksonville. And the final resolution of this case is that the city of Jacksonville decided not to appeal a judge's decision that said that the city had lost the case and would have to pay for losing the case.
Now, the payment for the taxpayers who were concerned out there at Jacksonville is not going to be all of that much. There were three plaintiffs, two food truck owners, and a property owner who wanted to have the food trucks operating on her property. They're going to get nominal damages, basically $4 a piece, a total of $12. But the city will have to fork over about $15,000 for lawyers' fees.
So there is a little bit of a hit. But the main thing that was the goal in this case all along was to tell Jacksonville that it couldn't place the types of onerous restrictions that it had placed on food trucks. There were three particular pieces of Jacksonville's food truck regulations that were challenged in this city. Lawsuit. A couple of them are very simple.
One was a $300 annual permitting fee. Basically, the argument was that was way too much compared to what was charged to other businesses that operate in Jacksonville. A second was signage restrictions. The types of signage limitations that were placed on food trucks were much more restrictive than the types of restrictions placed on signs for other businesses. And so the food truck operators say they were singled out to have less of an opportunity to promote their businesses than other similarly situated businesses.
But the main piece that was challenged was a regulation that basically, from the argument of the plaintiffs and the Institute for Justice, which was working alongside the plaintiffs, basically they said this rule put 90% of Jacksonville off limits from even the possibility of having a food truck. And basically, what it said was you couldn't have a food truck in a property. that was within 250 feet. of a property that had either a brick and mortar restaurant or another food truck Or was a residentially zoned property.
So basically, the lawsuit said if you take all of those things into account, 90% of Jacksonville is off limits for a food truck. And that is an unconstitutional violation of these food truck owners' rights to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor and the property owner's right for the free use of her property. Back in, so this case was initially filed. It was dismissed.
So that was a win for Jacksonville. But the food truck owners and the property owner appealed to the State Court of Appeals, which said, no, this case actually couldn't move forward because there's a legitimate complaint here about the violation of economic rights. And back in the spring, a judge ruled in favor of the food truck owners and against the city of Jacksonville.
Meanwhile, by the time that ruling came out, Jacksonville had already rescinded the challenge restrictions. Jacksonville, the planning board looked at this and said, well, you know, we're looking at what other cities have done, and our rules do seem to be more restrictive. And so we probably, regardless of this lawsuit, could revisit these and get rid of them. The city council, after the planning board took its action, decided to get rid of the rules.
So by the time there was a final written ruling in this case on April 9th, Jacksonville's food truck rules that had been challenged were already gone. Still, the judge decided that the plaintiffs had won and prevailed on all of the claims. He gave them the nominal damages, he gave them the attorney's fees. And then the latest development was that Jacksonville decided not to appeal. The case is over.
Jacksonville's rules are gone. The IJ will get attorney's fees. The plaintiffs who really just wanted to be able to operate their food trucks, they'll get a few bucks from the city of Jacksonville. Literally.
Now, one of the things that you asked about the ramifications for other cities, no direct ramifications because we did not have a ruling from the Court of Appeals or the state Supreme Court saying that this type of food truck regulation is definitely a restriction on economic rights that is unconstitutional. Certainly, if any other cities are thinking about these kinds of draconian rules on food trucks, they will certainly have to look at Jacksonville's experience and say, hmm, we might want to think twice about this because we know that the Institute for Justice is going to find a food truck owner who's going to sue us. And they're going to say, well, look what happened to Jacksonville. The same situation applies here. And we do know that the Court of Appeals has at least ruled that this is the type of thing that will go beyond a motion to dismiss.
They might not have ruled. Totally in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, but they did say it's the type of case that can move forward and just doesn't get dismissed right out of the gate. Mitch, this reminds me a little bit, and I know that it's not a direct comparison in any way, shape, or form, but it reminds me in terms of kind of maybe this shot across the bow for some of these other municipalities that might be put, and there might be some public pressure bought from other brick-and-mortar restaurants or other folks saying, Oh, we don't want any food trucks here. We know how city and county governments can be pretty easily swayed, even with just a couple of individuals speaking up with Airbnb restrictions. This goes back probably 10 years or so here in the state.
You started seeing some municipalities start putting some. Ridiculous restrictions on Airbnbs. There can only be a certain number per neighborhood. We're going to charge you an exorbitant multi-thousand a year fee to operate an Airbnb on your own privately owned property. I remember a similar discussion.
I don't remember exactly what city it was that was struck down on that, but everybody else very quickly backed off that and said, Yeah, this is not a road that we're going to go down. It's the same principle exactly. You're basically saying that if you're going to restrict People from earning a living or restrict their use of their property. There has to be a really compelling government interest that's going to survive and surpass the state constitutional protections of people's property rights. And in North Carolina, our state constitutional right to the enjoyment of the fruits of our own labor.
And what the courts have said in recent years, in things like the Airbnb example that you're giving, and in this food truck case, is that we're not just going to say, oh, the government says that they have this interest, and so we're going to defer it to the government. They're basically saying, no, this is a fundamental constitutional right to be able to earn a living and to be able to use the property that you own in the way that you want. And if the government is going to place restrictions, there has to be a really compelling interest and they have to be able to prove that this is the type of thing that benefits the public safety or health or welfare in a way that counteracts people's fund. Counteracts or is greater than people's fundamental right to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor. And so, my guess is as local governments are looking at food trucks, as they're looking at Airbnb, as they're looking at other ways in which people want to use their properties or ply their trade in a way that might not comport with what the traditional business establishment wants, they're going to have to think twice about putting restrictions in place or know that they're going to run into legal action from groups like the Institute for Justice, like the Pacific Legal Foundation, like the Goldwater Institute, groups that like to take this type of case because they want to protect economic rights and then want to strike down city or state regulations that conflict with those rights in a way that's not defensible.
And Mitch, an important point of this story, you mentioned it a couple of times about essentially being able to do what you want on your own property. And this story in Jacksonville, the individual that owned the physical property where these two food trucks were setting up and operating, they weren't just randomly pulling into the parking lot and setting up shop. They were invited by that business owner to sell food to the patrons of said business. They were invited guests into that area. And from what I understand and from some of the past conversations you and I have had about this, that rubbed a lot of the brick and mortar restaurants and food places in the area the wrong way.
They went to the municipal government, tried to get these restrictions put in place. It did. And that is essentially how the story ended up to where it is right now. Yeah, that was certainly part of the argument of the complaint: the city officials, when they put these restrictions in place, were basically trying to protect their friends who had brick and mortar restaurants. Yeah.
By saying you couldn't have a food truck within 250 feet of a property that had a brick and mortar restaurant, that was going to protect the brick and mortar restaurants. Also, by blocking more than one food truck on a property that was adjacent to each other, you couldn't have one of those food truck rodeos or have multiple food trucks in one place.
So, enticing other people who might not want to go to a brick and mortar restaurant or might want an alternative to a brick and mortar restaurant, those seem to be particularly onerous restrictions. And that was part of the case that was argued, and something that helped convince the judge that the plaintiff should prevail on all the claims. But I think one of the key points to keep in mind here is that courts in North Carolina, especially in recent years, have become much more attentive to this idea of protecting people's economic. rights. And if the government's going to step in, and the government does have legitimate reasons at times to step in and block people's economic rights, but it has to be a legitimate reason.
And it can't just be, we're the government. We said so. It has to be, we're the government. We have this reason. This is the least restrictive thing that we can do to meet our purpose.
And if they can pass all of the hurdles, then they can have their restriction. But if they can't pass the hurdles, then you default to people being able to earn a living and people being able to use the property in the way you want. You mentioned the fact that in this case, we've got a private property owner who invited the food trucks. It would be a 100% different case if these were food trucks who just pulled up in front of someone's business and said, we're going to operate here. And the business owner didn't want them, even though they own that property.
That would certainly be trespassing and the food trucks would be, the business owner would certainly be well within their. Rights to say, get off my property. And the city would certainly have a right to say, well, you can't trespass on other people's property. But this was a case where you had a willing property owner who wanted the food trucks to help generate business for her business because she was not in the restaurant business, but wanted to be able to have people to come to her business and then get some food while they were there. That was the type of situation where IJ stepped in and said, this is the type of case that we certainly would like to step in on because it would help both the food truck owners, the property owners who would like to have food trucks, and it stops an overly onerous government regulation.
A major win for economic freedom and liberty. We've got a lot of coverage on this going back to when this case was originally filed over on our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the information this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Woo!
Good morning again. It's 554. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM. WBT, we are following an executive order this week signed by Democrat Governor Josh Stein that prohibits state employees from using inside information they obtain at work to make bets on prediction markets like Calci or Polymarket. These prediction markets have become very popular.
They are markets where individuals trade contracts based on the outcome of unknown future events such as election results or sports competitions. The governor said an estimated $63.5 billion were traded in prediction markets in 2025. That is a 300% increase from the prior year, with the governor also inviting Secretary of State Elaine Marshall to sign the executive order. The governor said at the press conference, this executive order is a natural Extension of the North Carolina State Ethics Act, which prohibits public servants and legislative employees from using or disclosing non-public information gained through their official responsibilities towards their own personal financial interest. To be clear, I do not have any reason to believe that any state employees are currently making these unethical bets.
But the governor said the action was taken in light of a Fort Bragg soldier accused of using insider information to make a wager on a prediction market. This story was pretty hot back just a couple of months ago as a master sergeant from Fort Bragg assigned to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command made more than $400,000 trading on polymarket on the basis of classified information regarding the timing of U.S. military operations to capture former Venezuela president Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. That is according to charges that have now been levied against that.
Individual from the United States Department of Justice. Stein also said that it was due to growing concerns about issues across the country and the possibility of becoming an issue in the state as well, saying, We put this executive order on ensuring that public employees do not exploit non-public information for their own personal gain. There is story after story after story of insane bets of millions of dollars immediately before an action takes place. And then the action takes place and it is corrupting a people's faith in government. What I know is that the people who work in North Carolina state government do so with incredible commitment, incredible passion for service to ensure that the people are getting what they should out of their government.
North Carolina joins a list of growing states, including New York, Maryland, Illinois, and California, that are barring state employees from those prediction market bets. You can read more details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Friday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you Monday morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip-off. And Granger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from HVAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock.
So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRANGER, visit Granger.com, or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
