New York
Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck in Connecticut on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:33 p.m. Eastern about 1 mile northwest of Moodus, Conn., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Aftershocks in the region
An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Eastern. Shake data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 7:41 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, Nov. 20 at 11:34 p.m. Eastern.
It is an idea that many point to as a solution for New York City’s worst housing shortage in over 50 years: Build more homes.
More people keep deciding they want to live in the city — and the number of new homes hasn’t kept pace. Residents compete over the limited number of apartments, which pushes rents up to stratospheric levels. Many people then choose to leave instead of pay those prices.
So why is it so hard to build more housing?
The answer involves a tangled set of financial challenges and bitter political fights.
We looked at two developments that provided a unique window into the crisis across the city, and the United States, where there aren’t enough homes people can actually afford.
Both developments — 962 Pacific Street in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, and 145 West 108th Street on the Upper West Side in Manhattan — might have appeared similar. Both were more than eight stories, with plans for dozens of units of affordable housing. And each had a viable chance of being built.
But only one was.
Here’s how their fates diverged, from the zoning to the money and the politics.
The Neighborhood
The lack of housing options across the region makes high-demand areas particularly expensive.
Homes are built in Westchester County and the Long Island suburbs, for example, at some of the slowest rates in the country. In New York City, only 1.4 percent of apartments were available to rent in 2023, according to a key city survey.
And median rent in the city has risen significantly over the past few decades.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
That leaves neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Crown Heights sought after by people of all income levels. Both neighborhoods have good access to parks, subways and job centers in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
The pressures are immense, even as each neighborhood has added some new housing to try to match the demand, though at different rates.
Crown Heights has become one of the most striking emblems of gentrification in the city, with new residents, who tend to be white and wealthy, pushing out people who can no longer afford to live there. Low-rise rowhouses line many streets, just blocks from Prospect Park. But there are also shiny new high-rises.
There were more than 50,000 housing units in the Crown Heights area, according to a 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, a roughly 13 percent jump over the past decade.
The Upper West Side has long been one of the city’s more exclusive enclaves with many brownstone homes. Next to Central Park and Riverside Park, with easy access to downtown, the neighborhood is home to many of the city’s affluent residents.
There were 129,000 housing units on the Upper West Side according to the 2022 Census Bureau data, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the same time period.
The Lot
There isn’t as much empty land left in New York City compared with places like Phoenix or Atlanta, which can expand outward. City developers have to look hard to find properties with potential, and then they have to acquire the money to buy them.
The empty lot in May 2021. Google Street View
Between the two proposals, the Crown Heights site seemed to be more promising at first glance. Until 2018, it was just vacant land that local businesses sometimes used as a parking lot. The developer, Nadine Oelsner, already owned it, removing a potential roadblock that can often tie up projects or make them financially unworkable.
One of three aging parking garages in September 2015.
Google Street View
On the Upper West Side, though, the site was already occupied by three aging parking garages with a shelter and a playground in between. The garages would need to be demolished if the developer, a nonprofit known as the West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing that operated the shelter, succeeded in its plan to build apartments on either side of the playground.
The new development, which was floated to the community in 2015, would also include a renovated and expanded shelter. And the nonprofit did not own the garages or the land — the city did.
One thing working in the group’s favor, though, was that the city had wanted to build housing on the site since at least the mid-2000s, according to planning documents.
Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing
The Zoning
But something invisible can matter more than a plot’s physical characteristics: zoning.
That governs how every piece of land in New York City can be used. Zoning determines, for example, whether homes or warehouses are allowed in a particular area, how much parking is needed and how tall a building can be.
It also aims to prevent growth in haphazard ways, with schools next to factories next to office buildings.
The city’s modern zoning code does not leave much room for growth, which means that a bigger building often requires a zoning change. One 2020 study by the nonprofit Citizens Budget Commission found that only about one residentially zoned plot in five would allow for that kind of additional housing. A zoning change triggers a lengthy, unpredictable bureaucratic process.
The site Ms. Oelsner owned was zoned for industrial, not residential use, a throwback to a time when that part of Brooklyn was dominated by businesses supported by the nearby railroad line.
Community leaders were frustrated by one-off changes to individual lots — there had been at least five zoning changes within a two-block radius of Ms. Oelsner’s site in recent years. To counter the trend, the community decided to come up with a bigger rezoning plan for the area. Ms. Oelsner saw an opportunity for her lot in that idea.
But she would need a zoning change, too.
Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning
The site on the Upper West Side had a slight edge: It was zoned for residential use.
As the project began to move forward, the city also sought a slight zoning change to allow for a bigger structure with more homes.
Sources: OpenStreetMap, New York City Department of City Planning
The Proposal
U.S. housing is mostly built and run by the private sector. If developers and owners can’t cover their costs with income from rents and sales — and make a profit — they most likely won’t build.
This can make it hard to keep rents affordable to potential tenants without big subsidies from the government, such as money a developer receives directly or tax breaks in exchange for making some units affordable for people at specified income levels.
Here are more details of what the two developers planned.
The proposal for the Crown Heights lot was by Ms. Oelsner and her company, HSN Realty, who were private developers working without city support.
Ms. Oelsner also made the case that her family had been part of the community for years, operating a Pontiac dealership.
Most of the apartments she proposed would rent at market rates, meaning the rents could be set as high as the landlord thought tenants could pay. This was similar to other new buildings in the area.
In Ms. Oelsner’s case, a government subsidy would likely come in the form of a decades-long property tax exemption.
In exchange, several apartments would be made “affordable” — in this case, rents would be capped at a certain percentage of gross household income for particular groups.
Under one plan, for example, 38 units would be restricted in this way. Of those, 15 might rent for around $1,165 for a one-bedroom apartment, or $1,398 for a two-bedroom.
Source: West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing
The proposal from the West Side Federation had a much stronger case because of the city’s support. The group wanted to construct a building where all the apartments would rent below market rates and be targeted to some of the city’s poorest residents.
Most units would rent to people who were formerly homeless, often referred from shelters and typically relying on government-funded voucher programs to pay almost all of their rent. The remaining apartments would rent for between $865 and $1,321.
The West Side Federation said it had slowly built trust in the community over decades, in part because of the shelter it already operated on the street and was now expanding, as well as two dozen other area buildings it ran.
Because of that track record, and the need for affordable housing, the city decided to do several things. It essentially gave the developer the land — appraised at about $55 million — for free, a typical government practice in such a scenario.
It also chipped in $9 million to help pay for construction and another $33 million through a federal tax credit program. The West Side Federation would not have to pay property taxes on the development.
The Politics
Both projects met immediate opposition as they began to wade through a bureaucratic city process in which housing proposals often run into challenges from community members and politicians. It’s not unusual for this process to be costly and time-consuming, often taking more than two years.
In fact, this is where Ms. Oelsner’s project in Crown Heights met its end.
Informal project discussions
These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals.
Application filed with the city
An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change. Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.
Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.
City Planning Commission review
Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects were approved.
Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved. The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.
Informal project discussions
These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals.
Application filed with the city An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change.
Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.
Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.
City Planning Commission review
Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects were approved. Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved.
The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.
Informal project discussions
These discussions between the developer, the community and the government about the project can determine its fate early. They helped shape both the Crown Heights and the Upper West Side proposals. Application filed with the city
An application is filed with the City Planning Department and is considered certified if it properly describes the proposal and any zoning change.
Over 60 days, the community board holds a public hearing. The Upper West Side project was recommended for approval while the Crown Heights project wasn’t. This isn’t binding so the Crown Heights proposal still moved ahead.
Over 30 days, the borough president’s office might hold another public hearing and issue its own recommendation. Both projects were recommended for approval.
City Planning Commission review Over 60 days, the commission may hold another public hearing and
vote on whether to allow the project to move forward. Both projects
were approved.
Here’s where things ended for the Crown Heights project, which was rejected by the council member from the area. The Upper West Side project was approved.
The mayor has the option to veto a project, and the City Council can override that veto. In this case, the Upper West Side project was not vetoed.
In Crown Heights, neighbors wanted more apartments to be available at lower rents and were concerned about parking. Ms. Oelsner worried the bigger rezoning plan of the area would take too long and, if she waited, would run up the costs of her project, which she said she had designed to be consistent with the broader efforts.
In the end, Crystal Hudson, who held the power to approve or reject the development as the local council member, voted against Ms. Oelsner’s proposal last year, effectively killing the project. Ms. Hudson said she would not back individual developments until the bigger neighborhood rezoning was finished.
On the Upper West Side, a vocal resident group had several complaints: that the loss of the parking garages could lead to an uptick in traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and accidents; that the development could disturb students at a nearby middle school; and that it could reduce the amount of sunlight in nearby parks.
The councilman who represented the neighborhood at the time, Mark Levine, initially said he would hold off on supporting the plan until he better understood the effects of more cars on the street.
Eventually, though, the project gave the community enough of what it wanted, the group behind the project said, and government officials came around. The project was split into two phases, keeping one garage running for a few years after the first two were demolished.
The Results
One key to successful development is buy-in from the government and local politicians. The Upper West Side plan had that, despite the opposition it faced, while the Crown Heights project did not.
That’s in part because the Upper West Side lots were owned by the city, which was ready and willing to chip in lots of money to create a deeply needed housing project in the area that would most likely not have been built otherwise. The Crown Heights lot, on the other hand, is privately owned and mostly out of the city’s control — which made the project potentially very lucrative for the owners, even if it added some benefit to the community.
Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times
The dirt lot in Crown Heights remains a dirt lot. The broader plan Ms. Hudson pushed is underway, set to be completed next year.
Ms. Oelsner, however, has said that she’s not sure whether it still makes financial sense to build her project, so its fate remains uncertain.
Hiroko Masuike/The New York Times
The Upper West Side building has been open for about two years. It is full and has a long waiting list.
And the amount tenants pay in rent remains low. That’s because the government sends the West Side Federation about $1 million annually to help cover the rent.
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit murder-for-hire, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
6. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD SHAKERI,
CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, and others known and
unknown, would and did knowingly travel in and cause others to travel in interstate and foreign
commerce, and would and did use and cause another to use a facility of interstate and foreign
commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of the State of New
York or the United States as consideration for the receipt of and as consideration for a promise or
agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, to wit, SHAKERI, RIVERA, and LOADHOLT
participated in an agreement whereby RIVERA and LOADHOLT would kill Victim-1 in exchange
for payment, and used cellphones and electronic messaging applications to communicate in
furtherance of the scheme.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1958 and 3238.)
COUNT FIVE
(MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY)
7. From at least in or about December 2023, up to and including the date of
this Complaint, in Iran, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, and in an offense begun
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit money laundering, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.
8. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, in an offense involving and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce, knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the
proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such
financial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit,
the proceeds of the murder-for-hire offenses charged in Counts Three and Four of this Complaint,
knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to
transport, transmit, and transfer, monetary instruments and funds to a place in the United States
3
Thomas SchiavoniT. SchiavoniSchiavoni Democrat 56%
Stephen KielyS. KielyKiely Republican 44%
Jodi GiglioJ. GiglioGiglio*incumbent Republican 65%
Tricia ChiaramonteT. ChiaramonteChiaramonte Democrat 35%
Joseph De StefanoJ. De StefanoDe Stefano*incumbent Republican 61%
Trina MilesT. MilesMiles Democrat 39%
Rebecca KassayR. KassayKassay Democrat 50.4%
Edward FloodE. FloodFlood*incumbent Republican 49.6%
Douglas SmithD. SmithSmith*incumbent Republican 65%
Michael ReynoldsM. ReynoldsReynolds Democrat 35%
Philip RamosP. RamosRamos*incumbent Democrat 65%
Daniel MitolaD. MitolaMitola Republican 35%
Jarett GandolfoJ. GandolfoGandolfo*incumbent Republican 63%
Garrett PetersenG. PetersenPetersen Democrat 37%
Michael FitzpatrickM. FitzpatrickFitzpatrick*incumbent Republican 66%
Steven BasileoS. BasileoBasileo Democrat 34%
Michael DursoM. DursoDurso*incumbent Republican 66%
Steven DellaVecchiaS. DellaVecchiaDellaVecchia Democrat 34%
Steve SternS. SternStern*incumbent Democrat 56%
Aamir SultanA. SultanSultan Republican 44%
Kwani O’PharrowK. O’PharrowO’Pharrow Democrat 50.2%
Joseph CardinaleJ. CardinaleCardinale Republican 49.8%
Keith BrownK. BrownBrown*incumbent Republican 57%
Thomas CoxT. CoxCox Democrat 43%
Charles LavineC. LavineLavine*incumbent Democrat 57%
Ruka AnzaiR. AnzaiAnzai Republican 43%
David McDonoughD. McDonoughMcDonough*incumbent Republican 60%
Ellen Lederer DeFrancescoE. Lederer DeFrancescoLederer DeFrancesco Democrat 40%
Jake BlumencranzJ. BlumencranzBlumencranz*incumbent Republican 55%
William MurphyW. MurphyMurphy Democrat 45%
Gina SillittiG. SillittiSillitti*incumbent Democrat 51%
Daniel NorberD. NorberNorber Republican 49%
John MikulinJ. MikulinMikulin*incumbent Republican 62%
Harpreet ToorH. ToorToor Democrat 38%
Noah BurroughsN. BurroughsBurroughs Democrat 85%
Danielle SmikleD. SmikleSmikle Republican 15%
Edward RaE. RaRa*incumbent Republican 64%
Sanjeev JindalS. JindalJindal Democrat 36%
Eric BrownE. BrownBrown*incumbent Republican 63%
Tina PosterliT. PosterliPosterli Democrat 37%
Judy GriffinJ. GriffinGriffin Democrat 55%
Brian CurranB. CurranCurran*incumbent Republican 45%
Michaelle SolagesM. SolagesSolages*incumbent Democrat 64%
Ian BergstromI. BergstromBergstrom Republican 36%
Stacey Pheffer AmatoS. Pheffer AmatoPheffer Amato*incumbent Democrat 51%
Thomas SullivanT. SullivanSullivan Republican 49%
David WeprinD. WeprinWeprin*incumbent Democrat 61%
Ruben CruzR. CruzCruz Republican 36%
Nily RozicN. RozicRozic*incumbent Democrat 53%
Kenneth PaekK. PaekPaek Republican 47%
Edward BraunsteinE. BraunsteinBraunstein*incumbent Democrat 68%
Robert SperanzaR. SperanzaSperanza Conservative 32%
Sam BergerS. BergerBerger*incumbent Democrat 57%
Angelo KingA. KingKing Republican 43%
Andrew HevesiA. HevesiHevesi*incumbent Democrat 58%
Jonathan RinaldiJ. RinaldiRinaldi Republican 42%
Alicia HyndmanA. HyndmanHyndman*incumbent Democrat 86%
Dwayne MooreD. MooreMoore Republican 14%
Steven RagaS. RagaRaga*incumbent Democrat 60%
Brandon CastroB. CastroCastro Republican 40%
Khaleel AndersonK. AndersonAnderson*incumbent Democrat
Vivian CookV. CookCook*incumbent Democrat
Clyde VanelC. VanelVanel*incumbent Democrat
Jessica Gonzalez-RojasJ. Gonzalez-RojasGonzalez-Rojas*incumbent Democrat
Larinda HooksL. HooksHooks Democrat
Zohran MamdaniZ. MamdaniMamdani*incumbent Democrat
Claire ValdezC. ValdezValdez Democrat
Jenifer RajkumarJ. RajkumarRajkumar*incumbent Democrat
Catalina CruzC. CruzCruz*incumbent Democrat
Ron KimR. KimKim*incumbent Democrat 55%
Philip WangP. WangWang Republican 45%
Kalman YegerK. YegerYeger Democrat
Rodneyse BichotteR. BichotteBichotte*incumbent Democrat
Brian CunninghamB. CunninghamCunningham*incumbent Democrat
Robert CarrollR. CarrollCarroll*incumbent Democrat 85%
John BennettJ. BennettBennett Republican 15%
Michael NovakhovM. NovakhovNovakhov*incumbent Republican 50.5%
Joey Cohen-SabanJ. Cohen-SabanCohen-Saban Democrat 49.5%
Alec Brook-KrasnyA. Brook-KrasnyBrook-Krasny*incumbent Republican 53%
Chris McCreightC. McCreightMcCreight Democrat 47%
William ColtonW. ColtonColton*incumbent Democrat 61%
David SepiashviliD. SepiashviliSepiashvili Republican 39%
Simcha EichensteinS. EichensteinEichenstein*incumbent Democrat
Lester ChangL. ChangChang*incumbent Republican
Emily GallagherE. GallagherGallagher*incumbent Democrat
Marcela MitaynesM. MitaynesMitaynes*incumbent Democrat 77%
Erik FrankelE. FrankelFrankel Republican 23%
Jo Anne SimonJ. SimonSimon*incumbent Democrat 94%
Brett WynkoopB. WynkoopWynkoop Conservative 6%
Maritza DavilaM. DavilaDavila*incumbent Democrat
Erik DilanE. DilanDilan*incumbent Democrat
Latrice WalkerL. WalkerWalker*incumbent Democrat 92%
Berneda JacksonB. JacksonJackson Republican 8%
Stefani ZinermanS. ZinermanZinerman*incumbent Democrat
Phara ForrestP. ForrestForrest*incumbent Democrat
Monique Chandler-WatermanM. Chandler-WatermanChandler-Waterman*incumbent Democrat
Jaime WilliamsJ. WilliamsWilliams*incumbent Democrat
Nikki LucasN. LucasLucas*incumbent Democrat
Charles FallC. FallFall*incumbent Democrat
Michael ReillyM. ReillyReilly*incumbent Republican
Sam PirozzoloS. PirozzoloPirozzolo*incumbent Republican 58%
Matthew MobiliaM. MobiliaMobilia Democrat 42%
Michael TannousisM. TannousisTannousis*incumbent Republican
Grace LeeG. LeeLee*incumbent Democrat
Deborah GlickD. GlickGlick*incumbent Democrat
Linda RosenthalL. RosenthalRosenthal*incumbent Democrat
Edward GibbsE. GibbsGibbs*incumbent Democrat
Micah LasherM. LasherLasher Democrat
Jordan WrightJ. WrightWright Democrat 91%
Seson AdamsS. AdamsAdams Republican 9%
Al TaylorA. TaylorTaylor*incumbent Democrat 87%
Joziel AndujarJ. AndujarAndujar Republican 13%
Manny De Los SantosM. De Los SantosDe Los Santos*incumbent Democrat
Alex BoresA. BoresBores*incumbent Democrat 74%
Awadhesh GuptaA. GuptaGupta Republican 26%
Harvey EpsteinH. EpsteinEpstein*incumbent Democrat
Tony SimoneT. SimoneSimone*incumbent Democrat
Rebecca SeawrightR. SeawrightSeawright*incumbent Democrat
Landon DaisL. DaisDais*incumbent Democrat 75%
Norman Sobe McGillN. McGillMcGill Republican 21%
George AlvarezG. AlvarezAlvarez*incumbent Democrat 74%
John SantiagoJ. SantiagoSantiago Republican 26%
Chantel JacksonC. JacksonJackson*incumbent Democrat 80%
Sharon DarbyS. DarbyDarby Republican 16%
John ZaccaroJ. ZaccaroZaccaro*incumbent Democrat 68%
Nicholas MarriccoN. MarriccoMarricco Republican 27%
Jeffrey DinowitzJ. DinowitzDinowitz*incumbent Democrat 77%
Kevin PazminoK. PazminoPazmino Republican 23%
Michael BenedettoM. BenedettoBenedetto*incumbent Democrat 69%
Juan De la CruzJ. De la CruzDe la Cruz Republican 31%
Carl HeastieC. HeastieHeastie*incumbent Democrat 89%
Stephanie LiggioS. LiggioLiggio Republican 11%
Amanda SeptimoA. SeptimoSeptimo*incumbent Democrat 77%
Rosaline NievesR. NievesNieves Republican 20%
Emerita TorresE. TorresTorres Democrat 79%
Kelly AtkinsonK. AtkinsonAtkinson Republican 18%
Yudelka TapiaY. TapiaTapia*incumbent Democrat 75%
Woodrow Hines, Jr.W. Hines, Jr.Hines, Jr. Republican 23%
Karines ReyesK. ReyesReyes*incumbent Democrat
Amy PaulinA. PaulinPaulin*incumbent Democrat 61%
Thomas FixT. FixFix Republican 39%
Gary PretlowG. PretlowPretlow*incumbent Democrat
Nader SayeghN. SayeghSayegh*incumbent Democrat 55%
John IsaacJ. IsaacIsaac Republican 45%
Steven OtisS. OtisOtis*incumbent Democrat 62%
Katie MangerK. MangerManger Republican 38%
MaryJane ShimskyM. ShimskyShimsky*incumbent Democrat 59%
Alessandro CroccoA. CroccoCrocco Republican 41%
Chris BurdickC. BurdickBurdick*incumbent Democrat
Matthew SlaterM. SlaterSlater*incumbent Republican 64%
Zachary CouzensZ. CouzensCouzens Democrat 36%
Dana LevenbergD. LevenbergLevenberg*incumbent Democrat 60%
Michael CapalboM. CapalboCapalbo Republican 40%
Patrick CarrollP. CarrollCarroll Democrat 58%
Ronald DizR. DizDiz Republican 42%
John McGowanJ. McGowanMcGowan*incumbent Republican 50%
Aron WiederA. WiederWieder Democrat 46%
Karl BrabenecK. BrabenecBrabenec*incumbent Republican
Christopher EachusC. EachusEachus*incumbent Democrat 51%
Tom LapollaT. LapollaLapolla Republican 49%
Paula KayP. KayKay Democrat 52%
Louis IngrassiaL. IngrassiaIngrassia Republican 48%
Brian MaherB. MaherMaher*incumbent Republican
Christopher TagueC. TagueTague*incumbent Republican 64%
Janet Tweed TweedJ. TweedTweed Democrat 36%
Sarahana ShresthaS. ShresthaShrestha*incumbent Democrat 64%
Jack HayesJ. HayesHayes Republican 36%
Jonathan JacobsonJ. JacobsonJacobson*incumbent Democrat
Anil BeephanA. BeephanBeephan*incumbent Republican
Didi BarrettD. BarrettBarrett*incumbent Democrat 58%
Stephan KrakowerS. KrakowerKrakower Republican 42%
Chloe PierceC. PiercePierce Democrat 55%
Scott BendettS. BendettBendett*incumbent Republican 45%
John McDonaldJ. McDonaldMcDonald*incumbent Democrat
Gabriella RomeroG. RomeroRomero Democrat 72%
Alicia PurdyA. PurdyPurdy Republican 28%
Phillip SteckP. SteckSteck*incumbent Democrat 58%
Jeff MaddenJ. MaddenMadden Republican 42%
Angelo SantabarbaraA. SantabarbaraSantabarbara*incumbent Democrat 62%
Joseph MastroianniJ. MastroianniMastroianni Republican 38%
Mary Beth WalshM. WalshWalsh*incumbent Republican 61%
Joe SeemanJ. SeemanSeeman Democrat 39%
Carrie WoernerC. WoernerWoerner*incumbent Democrat 56%
Jeremy MessinaJ. MessinaMessina Republican 44%
Matthew SimpsonM. SimpsonSimpson*incumbent Republican
Billy JonesB. JonesJones*incumbent Democrat
Scott GrayS. GrayGray*incumbent Republican
Kenneth BlankenbushK. BlankenbushBlankenbush*incumbent Republican
Robert SmullenR. SmullenSmullen*incumbent Republican
Marianne ButtenschonM. ButtenschonButtenschon*incumbent Democrat 50.5%
Christine EspositoC. EspositoEsposito Republican 49.5%
William BarclayW. BarclayBarclay*incumbent Republican
Joe AngelinoJ. AngelinoAngelino*incumbent Republican 66%
Vicki DavisV. DavisDavis Democrat 34%
Brian MillerB. MillerMiller*incumbent Republican 63%
Adrienne MartiniA. MartiniMartini Democrat 37%
Donna LupardoD. LupardoLupardo*incumbent Democrat 59%
Lisa OKeefeL. OKeefeOKeefe Republican 41%
Christopher FriendC. FriendFriend*incumbent Republican
Anna KellesA. KellesKelles*incumbent Democrat
John LemondesJ. LemondesLemondes*incumbent Republican 54%
Ian PhillipsI. PhillipsPhillips Democrat 46%
Albert StirpeA. StirpeStirpe*incumbent Democrat 58%
Timothy KellyT. KellyKelly Republican 42%
Pamela HunterP. HunterHunter*incumbent Democrat 62%
Daniel CiciarelliD. CiciarelliCiciarelli Republican 38%
William MagnarelliW. MagnarelliMagnarelli*incumbent Democrat
Brian ManktelowB. ManktelowManktelow*incumbent Republican 54%
James SchulerJ. SchulerSchuler Democrat 46%
Jeff GallahanJ. GallahanGallahan*incumbent Republican
Philip PalmesanoP. PalmesanoPalmesano*incumbent Republican
Andrea BaileyA. BaileyBailey Republican 65%
Colleen Walsh-WilliamsC. Walsh-WilliamsWalsh-Williams Democrat 35%
Josh JensenJ. JensenJensen*incumbent Republican
Jen LunsfordJ. LunsfordLunsford*incumbent Democrat 60%
Kimberly DeRosaK. DeRosaDeRosa Republican 40%
Sarah ClarkS. ClarkClark*incumbent Democrat 69%
Orlando RiveraO. RiveraRivera Republican 31%
Demond MeeksD. MeeksMeeks*incumbent Democrat 72%
Marcus WilliamsM. WilliamsWilliams Republican 28%
Harry BronsonH. BronsonBronson*incumbent Democrat 62%
Tracy DiFlorioT. DiFlorioDiFlorio Republican 38%
Stephen HawleyS. HawleyHawley*incumbent Republican
William ConradW. ConradConrad*incumbent Democrat
Crystal PeoplesC. PeoplesPeoples*incumbent Democrat
Patrick BurkeP. BurkeBurke*incumbent Democrat 50.7%
Marc PrioreM. PriorePriore Republican 49.3%
Patrick ChludzinskiP. ChludzinskiChludzinski Republican 52%
Monica Piga WallaceM. Piga WallacePiga Wallace*incumbent Democrat 48%
Paul BolognaP. BolognaBologna Republican 62%
Michelle RomanM. RomanRoman Democrat 38%
Angelo MorinelloA. MorinelloMorinello*incumbent Republican 61%
Jeff ElderJ. ElderElder Democrat 39%
Karen McMahonK. McMahonMcMahon*incumbent Democrat 60%
Deborah KilbournD. KilbournKilbourn Republican 40%
David DiPietroD. DiPietroDiPietro*incumbent Republican 68%
Darci CramerD. CramerCramer Democrat 32%
Joseph SempolinskiJ. SempolinskiSempolinski Republican 64%
Daniel BrownD. BrownBrown Democrat 36%
Jonathan RiveraJ. RiveraRivera*incumbent Democrat
Andrew MolitorA. MolitorMolitor Republican 63%
Mike BobseineM. BobseineBobseine Democrat 37%
Sarah McBride: Republican speaker backs proposal to ban transgender women from women's restrooms in US Congress, Sarah McBride responds | World News – Times of India
Top 10 states where Trump outperformed in 2024
Democrat mayor not welcome at funeral for slain police officer
'DOGE' meets Congress: GOP lawmaker launches caucus to help Musk take on 'Crazytown’
Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds exclusion of certain mail-in ballots, in victory for GOP
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
Sarah McBride: Republican speaker backs proposal to ban transgender women from women's restrooms in US Congress, Sarah McBride responds | World News – Times of India
Trump-district House Democrat loses Alaska seat to political scion
US Senate votes down effort to withhold weapons to Israel amid Gaza war
Federal courts trumpet steps to protect workers after #MeToo movement
Video: Migrant Found Guilty of Killing Laken Riley
-
News1 week agoHerbert Smith Freehills to merge with US-based law firm Kramer Levin
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week agoBird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business4 days agoColumn: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
World1 week agoSarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Politics3 days agoTrump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Science1 day agoTrump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25739950/247386_Elon_Musk_Open_AI_CVirginia.jpg "Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI")
Technology3 days agoInside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI
