Business
Column: The richest Americans finished paying their Social Security taxes last week. Most of us will pay all year
Here are some rough calculations of when some of America’s richest individuals fulfilled their Social Security tax obligations for 2025: For Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook, it was at about 2 p.m. on New Year’s Day. For McDonald’s CEO Christopher Kempczinski, sometime on the morning of Jan. 3. For Elon Musk, it was sometime around 12:31 a.m. New Year’s Day.
For most of the rest of us, it won’t happen until next New Year’s Eve.
The real figures on the payroll tax liabilities of the America’s plutocrat class are necessarily murky, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment. But they tell a dismal story nonetheless, as set forth annually by labor economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School.
A lot of income escapes the Social Security system; and the escaping income is that from the wealthiest Americans.
— Economist Teresa Ghilarducci
The story is one of rising economic inequality in United States — and more specifically how our tax system is designed to benefit the wealthy rather than ordinary workers. Anyone needing empirical evidence of these conditions need not look beyond the way we fund Social Security, our indispensable federal retirement and disability program.
Although the program is designed to provide universal coverage, the burden of paying for it falls disproportionately on the working class. Under the program’s current structure, benefits are progressive — they come to a larger percentage of lifetime earnings for lower-income retirees — but the tax is regressive, amounting to less as a percentage of income as income rises.
At least 230 of the richest Americans already have paid their Social Security tax for the year, Ghilarducci reports. That’s because wage earnings of $176,100 or more this year — the cap on wages taxed by Social Security — are exempt, and their income is so high that they reached the ceiling within days or even minutes of the New Year’s ball dropping at Times Square.
“A civil engineer earning $176,100 per year looks the same as Elon Musk in the eyes of the Social Security system,” Ghilarducci writes. By contrast, “over 164 million workers (about 94% of us) pay Social Security taxes all year long. The point is a lot of income escapes the Social Security system; and the escaping income is that from the wealthiest Americans.”
One of the most effective Social Security reforms proposed by Democrats is to raise or (preferably) eliminate the payroll tax cap. But that change doesn’t go quite far enough. What’s necessary, as Ghilarducci correctly observes, is to bring more income categories — interest, business receipts, capital gains — into the definition of earnings.
“Taxing the expanded base could more than pay for promised Social Security benefits for 35 years and there would even be some money to eliminate poverty among all Social Security recipients,” she observes.
Here’s a brief primer on the payroll tax, which typically appears on pay stubs under the label “FICA” (for “Federal Insurance Contributions Act”). For Social Security, it comes to 12.4% of gross wage income, shared equally by worker and employer, up to an annually adjusted cap. In 2025, the cap is $176,100, up from $168,600 last year. That means that you’ll pay a maximum of $10,918 directly in Social Security tax this year, with your employer paying the same sum on your behalf. (Self-employed workers have to pay both levies.)
Workers and employers each pay an additional 1.45%, with no cap, to help fund Medicare. The richest taxpayers may also be subject to a 3.8% tax on some of their investment income.
Two aspects of the payroll tax are boons for the wealthy. One is that it applies only to wages, tips, bonuses, commissions, and some fringe benefits — generally, almost anything that appears on the annual W-2 forms workers receive from their employers. “Unearned income” such as interest, dividends and capital gains distributions isn’t counted.
That’s important because unearned income tends to represent a greater share of total income for the wealthy compared with the rank-and-file.
In tax year 2022 (the most recent for which the IRS provides statistics), W-2 income accounted on average for about 75% of the total income reported by households with adjusted gross income of $50,000-$75,000. For households with income of $1 million or more, only about 25% was subject to the payroll tax. For those with income of $10 million or more (averaging about $30.4 million each), only about 12% on average was subject to the payroll tax — and then only up to the FICA cap.
To put it another way, any workers earning wages of $176,100 or less this year will pay 6.2% of their pay in Social Security tax. For someone earning $10 million, assuming all of it comes in wages, the tax rate is 0.11%.
That brings us to the complexities involved in gauging the income of America’s richest individuals, notably top corporate executives. Mostly to reduce corporate and income taxes, companies tend to keep the cash components of their executives’ pay as meager as possible, as opposed to stock and stock options. The latter aren’t subject to the payroll tax.
Apple, for example, listed Cook’s total compensation for 2023 (the most recent year reported) as $63.2 million. But only $3 million of that was in salary, plus another $10.7 million reported as a cash incentive tied to the company’s performance. An additional $2.5 million was paid for items such as security services and personal travel on private aircraft, which Apple requires Cook to use “for security and efficiency reasons.” Cook may have to pay tax on some of those items.
It’s difficult, and in some cases impossible, to figure out how much in cash a top corporate executive actually pockets in any year. The Securities and Exchange Commission implemented a regulation in 2022 mandating that public companies disclose “compensation actually paid” to top executives, ostensibly so shareholders could accurately assess how the money paid to the C-suite corresponded to a company’s performance.
In practice, however, the resulting metrics obscure almost as much as they reveal. Apple, for example, disclosed in its 2024 proxy statement that in 2023 it “actually paid” $106.6 million to Cook — but it also stated that the figure “does not represent cash or equity value realized or paid” to Cook, or to the company’s four other top executives.
Rather, the “actually paid” disclosure is merely a way to adjust the value of stock options and other equity awards given to the executives, as the value of the underlying shares rises or falls. So if you’re trying to determine how much more the bank accounts of executives swelled during the year, this is no help.
Musk’s income from Tesla, his publicly traded electric vehicle company, is especially hard to gauge. (Ghilarducci says she based her estimate of Musk’s potential tax liability on “public data on Musk’s income,” including nonwage income.)
According to Tesla’s disclosure, Musk received no salary, bonus, stock or options from 2021 through 2023. That may have something to do with the issues connected with his groundbreaking $56-billion 2018 pay package, which was challenged in a shareholder lawsuit. The pay package was overturned in January 2024 by Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, who found it excessive and not the product of an arm’s length negotiation between Musk and the Tesla board. (Tesla didn’t respond to my request for comment.)
That points to how the wealthy exploit their assets without incurring income tax, whether on ordinary or “unearned” income: They borrow against them. Tesla has disclosed that as of last March, Musk had pledged more than 238.4 million of his Tesla shares — about one-third of the total 715 million shares of which he was listed as beneficial owner — as “collateral to secure certain personal indebtedness.” The pledged stock is worth about $95 billion at the current stock price. The proceeds of loans aren’t generally treated as taxable income unless the loan is forgiven.
Tesla disclosed in its proxy statement in April that the compensation it “actually paid” Musk came to $1.4 billion in 2023. But it stated — as Apple did in relation to Cook’s pay — that the figure did “not reflect the actual amount of compensation earned by or paid to Mr. Musk” that year. It was merely an artifact of adjustments to the putative value of his stock grants as it fluctuated in relation to the value of the underlying shares.
So whether Musk paid his entire payroll tax obligation by 15 minutes into 2025 (as Ghilarducci estimated based on Musk’s total Tesla-connected wealth), or owed nothing and has paid nothing can’t be determined.
All we can say is this: The run-up of wealth among a tiny camp of mega-billionaires comes at great social cost. Conservatives and Republicans in Congress continue to claim that the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits is an insupportable burden on America, so benefits need to be cut, though President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to preserve entitlements like Social Security and Medicare.
But if the wealthy paid their fair share of the cost of those programs, they might well be solvent, even flush enough for benefits to be expanded and extended, into the limitless future.
Business
Kevin Costner’s western ‘Horizon’ faces more claims of unpaid fees
In the midst of attempting to complete filming on his western anthology ”Horizon: An American Saga,” Kevin Costner is facing another legal dispute over the production.
On Monday, Western Costume Co. sued Costner and the production companies behind the epic western, claiming unpaid costume fees and damages to some of the clothing during the filming of the series’ second episode.
“The costumes are costly to replace if damaged or not returned,” states the complaint, which included copies of invoices for about $134,000 in costume rentals. “Without a reasonable basis for doing so and/or with reckless regard to the consequences, defendants failed to pay for the rented costumes and failed to return the costumes undamaged.”
Western Costume, the iconic business based in North Hollywood, is seeking to recover roughly $440,000, including legal fees, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court.
A spokesperson for Costner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal and financial problems that have dogged the sprawling western drama, which Costner directed, co-wrote, starred in and partially funded.
In May, United Costume Corp., sued the production, claiming $350,000 in unpaid fees for the first two chapters of “Horizon.” Two months later, the costume firm filed to dismiss the suit with prejudice.
In May, Devyn LaBella, a stunt performer on “Chapter 2,” sued the production for sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation in Los Angeles Superior Court. LaBella alleged an unscripted rape scene was filmed without the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.
In a motion filed in August to get the suit tossed, Costner said he had reviewed LaBella’s complaint and was “shocked at the false and misleading allegations she was making.”
In October, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case. The judge also denied LaBella’s claim that Costner had interfered with her civil rights through the use of intimidation or coercion with respect to her participation in the filming of a rape scene, but allowed several of her other claims to proceed.
The case is pending.
The production is also facing an arbitration claim for alleged breaches in its co-financing agreement with its distributor New Line Cinema and City National Bank, “Horizon” bondholder, according to the Hollywood Reporter.
In June 2024, “Chapter 1” of the planned four-part series was released in theaters followed by a streaming broadcast on HBO Max, but it was largely panned by critics.
In its review, The Times described “Horizon” as “a massive boondoggle, a misguided and excruciatingly tedious cinematic experience.”
It failed at the box office, grossing just $38.8 million worldwide, on a reported $100 million budget.
“Chapter 2” premiered at the Venice International Film Festival last September, but its theatrical release was pulled and remains indefinitely delayed, while the final two chapters remain in production or development, according to IMDb.
Business
Snoopy is everywhere right now — from jewelry to pimple patches. Why?
As a child, Clara Spars, who grew up in Charles M. Schulz’s adoptive hometown of Santa Rosa, assumed that every city had life-size “Peanuts” statues dotting its streets.
After all, Spars saw the sculptures everywhere she went — in the Santa Rosa Plaza, at Montgomery Village, outside downtown’s Empire Cleaners. When she and her family inevitably left town and didn’t stumble upon Charlie Brown and his motley crew, she was perplexed.
Whatever void she felt then is long gone, since the beagle has become a pop culture darling, adorning all manner of merchandise — from pimple patches to luxury handbags. Spars herself is the proud owner of a Baggu x Peanuts earbuds case and is regularly gifted Snoopy apparel and accessories.
“It’s so funny to see him everywhere because I’m like, ‘Oh, finally!’” Spars said.
The spike in Snoopy products has been especially pronounced this year with the 75th anniversary of “Peanuts,” a.k.a. Snoopy’s 75th birthday. But the grip Snoopy currently has on pop culture and the retail industry runs deeper than anniversary buzz. According to Sony, which last week acquired majority ownership of the “Peanuts” franchise, the IP is worth half a billion dollars.
To be clear, Snoopy has always been popular. Despite his owner being the “Peanuts” strip’s main character and the namesake for most of the franchise’s adaptations, Snoopy was inarguably its breakout star. He was the winner of a 2001 New York Times poll about readers’ favorite “Peanuts” characters, with 35% of the vote.
This year, the Charles M. Schulz Museum celebrated the 75th anniversary of the “Peanuts” comic strip’s debut.
(Brennan Spark / Charles M. Schulz Museum)
But the veritable Snoopymania possessing today’s consumers really exploded with the social media boom of the early 2010s, said Melissa Menta, senior vice president of global brand and communications for Peanuts Worldwide.
That’s also when the company saw the first signs of uncharacteristically high brand engagement, Menta said. She largely attributed the success of “Peanuts” on social media to the comic strip’s suitability to visual platforms like Instagram.
“No one reads the comic strips in newspapers anymore,” Menta said, “but if you think about it, a four-panel comic strip, it’s actually an Instagram carousel.”
Then, in 2023, Peanuts Worldwide launched the campaign that made Snoopy truly viral.
That year, the brand partnered with the American Red Cross to create a graphic tee as a gift for blood donors. The shirt, which featured Snoopy’s alter ego Joe Cool and the message “Be Cool. Give Blood,” unexpectedly became internet-famous. In the first week of the collaboration, the Red Cross saw a 40% increase in donation appointments, with 75% of donors under the age of 34.
“People went crazy over it,” Menta said, and journalists started asking her, “Why?”
Her answer? “Snoopy is cute and cool. He’s everything you want to be.”
“Charles Schulz said the only goal he had in all that he created was to make people laugh, and I think he’s still doing that 75 years later,” Schulz Museum director Gina Huntsinger said.
(Brennan Spark / Charles M. Schulz Museum)
The Red Cross collaboration was so popular that Peanuts Worldwide brought it back this year, releasing four new shirt designs. Again, the Snoopy fandom — plus some Woodstock enthusiasts — responded, with 250,000 blood donation appointments made nationwide in the month after the collection’s launch.
In addition to the Red Cross partnership, Peanuts Worldwide this year has rolled out collaborations with all kinds of retailers, from luxury brands like Coach and Kith to mass-market powerhouses like Krispy Kreme and Starbucks. Menta said licensed product volume is greater than ever, estimating that the brand currently has more than 1,200 licensees in “almost every territory around the world,” which is approximately four times the number it had 40 years ago.
Then again, at that time, Schulz enjoyed and regularly executed veto power when it came to product proposals, and licensing rules were laid out in what former Times staff writer Carla Lazzareschi called the “Bible.”
“The five-pound, 12-inch-by-18-inch binder given every new licensee establishes accepted poses for each character and painstakingly details their personalities,” Lazzareschi wrote in a 1987 Times story. “Snoopy, for example, is said to be an ‘extrovert beagle with a Walter Mitty complex.’ The guidelines cover even such matters as Snoopy’s grip on a tennis racquet.”
Although licensing has expanded greatly since then, Menta said she and her retail development associates “try hard not to just slap a character onto a T-shirt.” Their goal is to honor Schulz’s storytelling, she added, and with 18,000 “Peanuts” strips in the archive, licensees have plenty of material to pull from.
Rick Vargas, the senior vice president of merchandising and marketing at specialty retailer BoxLunch, said his team regularly returns to the Schulz archives to mine material that could resonate with customers.
“As long as you have a fresh look at what that IP has to offer, there’s always something to find. There’s always a new product to build,” Vargas said.
Indeed, this has been one of BoxLunch’s strongest years in terms of sales of “Peanuts” products, and Snoopy merchandise specifically, the executive said.
BaubleBar co-founder Daniella Yacobovsky said the brand’s “Peanuts” collaboration was one of its most beloved yet.
(BaubleBar)
Daniella Yacobovsky, co-founder of the celebrity-favorite accessory retailer BaubleBar, reported similar high sales for the brand’s recent “Peanuts” collection.
“Especially for people who are consistent BaubleBar fans, every time we introduce new character IP, there is this huge excitement from that fandom that we are bringing their favorite characters to life,” Yacobovsky said.
The bestselling item in the collection, the Peanuts Friends Forever Charm Bracelet, sold out in one day. Plus, customers have reached out with new ideas for products linked to specific “Peanuts” storylines.
More recently, Peanuts Worldwide has focused on marketing to younger costumers in response to unprecedented brand engagement from Gen Z. In November, it launched a collaboration with Starface, whose cult-favorite pimple patches are a staple for teens and young adults. The Snoopy stickers have already sold out on Ulta.com, Starface founder Julie Schott said in an emailed statement, adding that the brand is fielding requests for restocks.
“We know it’s a certified hit when resale on Depop and EBay starts to spike,” Schott said.
The same thing happened in 2023, when a CVS plush of Snoopy in a puffer jacket (possibly the dog’s most internet-famous iteration to date) sold out in-store and started cropping up on EBay — for more than triple the original price.
The culprits were Gen-Zers fawning over how cute cozy Snoopy was, often on social media.
“People who love Snoopy adore Snoopy, whether you grew up with ‘Peanuts’ or connect with Snoopy as a meme and cultural icon today,” said Starface founder Julie Schott.
(Starface World Inc.)
Hannah Guy Casey, senior director of brand and marketing at Peanuts Worldwide, said in 2024, the official Snoopy TikTok account gained 1.1 million followers, and attracted 85.4 million video views and 17.6 million engagements. This year, the account has gained another 1.2 million followers, and racked up 106.5 million video views and 23.2 million engagements.
Guy Casey noted that TikTok is where the brand experiences much of its engagement among Gen Z fans.
Indeed, the platform is a hot spot for fan-created Snoopy content, from memes featuring the puffer jacket to compilations of his most relatable moments. Several Snoopy fan accounts, including one dedicated to a music-loving Snoopy plushie, boast well over half a million followers.
Caryn Iwakiri, a speech and language pathologist at Sunnyvale’s Lakewood Tech EQ Elementary School whose classroom is Snoopy-themed, recently took an impromptu trip to the Charles M. Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa after seeing its welcome center decked out with Snoopy decor on TikTok. Once she arrived, she realized the museum was celebrating the “Peanuts” 75th anniversary.
Last year, the Schulz Museum saw its highest-ever attendance, driven in large part by its increased visibility on social media.
(Brennan Spark / Charles M. Schulz Museum)
It’s a familiar story for Schulz Museum director Gina Huntsinger.
“Last December, we were packed, and I was at the front talking to people, and I just randomly asked this group, ‘Why are you here?’”
It turned out that the friends had traveled from Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas to meet in Santa Rosa and visit the museum after seeing it on TikTok.
According to Stephanie King, marketing director at the Schulz Museum, the establishment is experiencing its highest-ever admissions since opening in 2002. In the 2024–2025 season, the museum increased its attendance by nearly 45% from the previous year.
Huntsinger said she’s enjoyed watching young visitors experience the museum in new ways.
In the museum’s education room, where visitors typically trace characters from the original Schulz comics or fill out “Peanuts” coloring pages, Gen Z museumgoers are sketching pop culture renditions of Snoopy — Snoopy as rock band Pierce the Veil, Snoopy as pop star Charli XCX.
“When our social media team puts them up [online], there’s these comments among this generation that gets this, and they’re having conversations about it,” Huntsinger said. “It’s dynamic, it’s fun, it’s creative. It makes me feel like there’s hope in the world.”
The Schulz Museum’s “Passport to Peanuts” exhibition emphasizes the comic’s global reach.
(Brennan Spark / Charles M. Schulz Museum)
Laurel Roxas felt similarly when they first discovered “Peanuts” as a kid while playing the “Snoopy vs. the Red Baron” video game on their PlayStation Portable. For Roxas, who is Filipino, it was Snoopy and not the “Peanuts” children who resonated most.
“Nobody was Asian. I was like, ‘Oh, I’m not even in the story,’” they said.
Because Snoopy was so simply drawn, Roxas added, he was easy to project onto. They felt similarly about Hello Kitty; with little identifying features or dialogue of their own, the characters were blank canvases for their own personification.
Roxas visited Snoopy Museum Tokyo with their brother last year. They purchased so much Snoopy merchandise — “everything I could get my hands on” — that they had to buy additional luggage to bring it home.
For some Snoopy enthusiasts, the high volume of Snoopy products borders on oversaturation, threatening to cheapen the spirit of the character.
Growing up, Bella Shingledecker loved the holiday season because it meant that the “Peanuts” animated specials would be back on the air. It was that sense of impermanence, she believes, that made the films special.
Now, when she sees stacks of Snoopy cookie jars or other trend-driven products at big-box stores like T.J. Maxx, it strikes her as a bit sad.
“It just feels very unwanted,” she said. For those who buy such objects, she said she can’t help but wonder, “Will this pass your aesthetic test next year?”
Lina Jeong, for one, isn’t worried that Snoopy’s star will fade.
“[Snoopy is] always able to show what he feels, but it’s never through words, and I think there’s something really poetic in that,” said Lina Jeong.
(Brennan Spark / Charles M. Schulz Museum)
Jeong’s affinity for the whimsical beagle was passed down to her from her parents, who furnished their home with commemorative “Peanuts” coffee table books. But she fell in love with Snoopy the first time she saw “Be My Valentine, Charlie Brown,” which she rewatches every Valentine’s Day.
This past year, she was fresh out of a relationship when the holiday rolled around and she found herself tearing up during scenes of Snoopy making Valentine’s crafts for his friends.
“Maybe I was hyper-emotional from everything that had happened, but I remember being so struck,” that the special celebrated platonic love over romantic love, Jeong said.
It was a great comfort to her at the time, she said, and she knows many others have felt that same solace from “Peanuts” media — especially from its dear dog.
“Snoopy is such a cultural pillar that I feel like fads can’t just wash it off,” she said.
Soon, she added, she plans to move those “Peanuts” coffee table books into her own apartment in L.A.
Business
Fight between Waymo and Santa Monica goes to court
Waymo is taking the city of Santa Monica to court after the city ordered the company to cease charging its autonomous vehicles at two facilities overnight, claiming the lights and beeping at the lots were a nuisance to residents.
The two charging stations at the intersection of Euclid Street and Broadway have been a sour point for neighbors since they began operating roughly a year ago. Some residents have told The Times they’ve been unable to sleep because of the incessant beeping from Waymos maneuvering in and out of charging spots on the lot 24 hours a day.
Last month, the city ordered Waymo and the company that operates the charging stations, Voltera, to stop overnight operations at the sites, arguing that the light, noise and activity there constitute a public nuisance. Instead of complying, Waymo has turned around and filed a suit against the city, asking the court to intervene.
“Waymo’s activities at the Broadway Facilities do not constitute a public nuisance,” the company argued in its complaint, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “Waymo faces imminent and irreparable harm to its operations, employees, and customers.”
A spokesperson for the city did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to the suit, the city was aware that the Voltera charging facilities were to operate and maintain a commercial electric vehicle fleet 24 hours a day, and the city approved its use when it approved the permits for the stations.
The rift between the company and some Santa Monica residents began as soon as the vehicles began utilizing the 24-hour charging stations, which have overnight staffing, lights and cars beeping as they reverse in and out of parking spots. Tensions got so bad that some residents took to blocking the path of the driverless vehicles, blocking the driveways into the charging stations, and placing orange cones in the area to hinder their routes and create backups, a practice several have called “stacking the Waymos.”
Meanwhile, employees at the charging stations have called police several times as a result, although no arrests have been made. Waymo also unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a temporary restraining order against one resident who had allegedly repeatedly blocked the vehicles.
On Nov. 19, the city ordered Waymo to stop charging its autonomous cars at the two lots overnight or face the possibility of legal action. Waymo declined and instead sued the city last week after negotiations with the city on mitigation measures to the lots fell apart.
According to the lawsuit, Waymo and Voltera representatives reached out to the city after the Nov. 19 order, looking for ways to mitigate the noise and lights from the lots, including initiating a software update that would change the vehicles’ path to the charging stations. But after a meeting on Dec. 15 with the city, no agreement was reached, the company said in its complaint.
“We are disappointed that the City has chosen an adversarial path over a collaborative one,” a spokesperson for Waymo said in a statement.
“The City’s position has been to insist that no actions taken or proposed by Waymo would satisfy the complaining neighbors and therefore must be deemed insufficient.”
The company also blasted the city’s handling of the dispute, arguing that despite facing a budget crisis, city officials have adopted a contentious strategy against business.
“The City of Santa Monica’s recent actions are inconsistent with its stated goal of attracting investment,” the company said in a statement. “At a time when the City faces a serious fiscal crisis, officials are choosing to obstruct properly permitted investment rather than fostering a ‘ready for business’ environment.”
The lawsuit is just the latest legal battle for the Alphabet-owned company, which has been rapidly expanding across California, making the white, driverless vehicles more commonplace.
Two years ago, the company was sued by the city of San Francisco, which argued that the California Public Utilities Commission shouldn’t have handed Waymo permits to expand and operate in the city, and that the regulatory agency had abdicated its responsibilities.
The California 1st District Court of Appeal disagreed, and ruled against the city.
This past June, Waymo announced it would expand its service area to 120 square miles in Los Angeles County, with Waymos operating in Playa del Rey, Ladera Heights, Echo Park, Silver Lake and Hollywood.
In November the company launched its ride-hailing service to now operate across Los Angeles County freeways, as well as in the San Francisco Bay and Phoenix.
Since it launched in Santa Monica, the company argues it has done more than a million trips in the city and in November alone, recorded more than 50,000 rides starting or ending there.
“The [charging] site has enabled Waymo to provide a safe, sustainable and accessible transportation option to city residents,” Waymo said in the statement.
-
Iowa1 week agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Maine1 week agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland1 week agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
New Mexico7 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
South Dakota1 week agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Detroit, MI1 week ago‘Love being a pedo’: Metro Detroit doctor, attorney, therapist accused in web of child porn chats
-
Health1 week ago‘Aggressive’ new flu variant sweeps globe as doctors warn of severe symptoms
-
Maine7 days agoFamily in Maine host food pantry for deer | Hand Off