Chatham Journal

Experience the World of Chatham County, NC with the premiere Chatham news source. PO Box 520, Pittsboro, NC 27312 919-533-4585

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.29.26 https://t.co/chwjV1l4cc

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

A $390 million expansion project is underway at the Sanford Water Filtration Facility.

The project will more than double the plant’s capacity from 12 million gallons a day to 30 million gallons per day. That added water capacity will serve our growing region for many years to come.

The water purified at the upgraded facility will be sent throughout Sanford and Lee County – as well as to parts of Chatham County, Moncure, Pittsboro, Holly Springs, and Fuquay Varina.

https://t.co/PFtbeATmHA

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

Coaching isn't just about winning; it's about using sports as a vehicle for personal growth. It's about building teams, learning from the process every day, and helping athletes become the best version of themselves. #ACCBaseball #Dukebaseball #CoreyMuscara

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

What began as a police tool to investigate car break-ins, stolen vehicles and missing-person cases became one of Pittsboro’s most contentious public debates of the year, ending with town commissioners voting 4-1 to terminate the municipality’s Flock Safety contract and require the cameras’ removal by July 1, 2026. The decision followed months of public pressure, a county-level reversal, a police presentation meant to reassure residents, and a last-minute attempt by Mayor Kyle Shipp to keep the system running under tighter guardrails.

A surveillance network hiding in plain sight

The cameras at issue are automated license plate readers, or ALPRs. Flock Safety describes such systems as cameras that capture license plates and use software to convert images into searchable data, including vehicle make, model, color, location and time. Pittsboro’s own Flock transparency portal said the local system detects “License Plates, Vehicles” but not “Facial recognition, People, Gender, Race.”

In Pittsboro, the police department has said the system was not designed for general surveillance, traffic enforcement or monitoring gatherings. Instead, officials described it as an investigative tool used after crimes occur or when a “hotlist” alert is triggered for a stolen vehicle, wanted person, missing person or Amber Alert. The town’s portal listed nine cameras, with hotlist alerts tied to NCIC and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s Amber Alert system.

https://t.co/pQNK8bEetr

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

Pittsboro commissioners voted May 11 to end the town’s contract with Flock Safety license-plate-reading cameras, capping months of public concern over surveillance and data privacy during a packed meeting that also included a proposed no-tax-increase budget, downtown awards, wetland and annexation rule changes, a Town Hall construction step and approval to purchase CSX property.

https://t.co/pcuUAQlCN6

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

Four years after North Carolina leaders celebrated VinFast’s promise to build the state’s first automobile assembly plant in Chatham County, the state is now suing the Vietnamese electric-vehicle maker, alleging it failed to meet key construction and job-creation deadlines tied to one of the largest incentive packages in state history. The lawsuit seeks to reclaim the Moncure megasite for future economic development, while VinFast’s troubled U.S. vehicle launch, safety scrutiny and mixed industry reviews now cast a sharper light on the risks behind North Carolina’s high-profile EV bet.

When Attorney General Jeff Jackson filed suit on behalf of the North Carolina Department of Commerce on May 21, 2026, the case was framed not as a dispute over electric vehicles, but as a matter of contract enforcement. State officials allege VinFast breached agreements related to its planned electric-vehicle and battery manufacturing facility in Chatham County. Through the lawsuit, North Carolina says it is exercising its contractual right to acquire the property and preserve the site for another manufacturing project.

“VinFast agreed to build a factory and create jobs for North Carolinians — it didn’t do either,” Jackson said in the state’s announcement. Gov. Josh Stein said the action was aimed at “protecting taxpayers” and getting the Chatham County megasite back on the market for future manufacturing jobs.

The lawsuit marks a stunning reversal for a project once billed as a landmark victory in North Carolina’s decades-long pursuit of a major automotive assembly plant. In 2022, state officials announced that VinFast would create 7,500 jobs and invest billions of dollars at Triangle Innovation Point, a large industrial site near Moncure. The project was promoted as North Carolina’s first car manufacturing plant and, at the time, the largest economic development announcement in state history.

https://t.co/gko8GB295T

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.22.26 https://t.co/tOHSx8vBrz

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.15.26 https://t.co/B4aHjPBDsE

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

The Soda Aisle’s Sticker Shock: Why Americans Are Leaving 12-Packs Behind

A growing number of Americans are walking away from the soda aisle, not because they suddenly forgot the taste of Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper or Mountain Dew, but because the math no longer works. In stores where a 12-pack of name-brand soda can list for $11.99, shoppers who remember four boxes for $12 or “buy two, get three free” promotions are seeing a once-routine grocery purchase turn into a budget decision. Federal price data, retail listings and company filings point to the same conclusion: soda has become more expensive not only because of inflation, but because beverage companies and retailers have increasingly leaned into a “price over volume” model — selling fewer cases at higher margins.

A $12 12-pack changes the household equation

For decades, the 12-pack was the American soda bargain. It was the stock-up item for cookouts, school lunches, tailgates, church functions, beach trips and weeknight pizza. The customer did not think in terms of price per ounce. They thought in terms of the deal: four for $12, three for $10, buy two and get three free.

That deal psychology has changed.

Recent online grocery listings show why shoppers are frustrated. Kroger, for example, listed Diet Coke Caffeine-Free and Mountain Dew Baja Blast 12-packs at $11.99, with promotions such as buy two, get one free or buy three, get three free attached to selected items. Those promotions can lower the effective price, but they also require shoppers to buy multiple boxes to get the deal. Walmart listings showed name-brand 12-packs at lower prices in some cases, including Coca-Cola at $8.42 and Pepsi at $6.97, while private-label 12-packs sold for substantially less. The wide price spread shows that the soda aisle is no longer a single market; it is a tiered market where brand loyalty now comes with a premium.

For consumers, the difference between $3 and $8, $10 or $12 per 12-pack is not abstract. A family buying two or three cases a week can easily see the monthly soda bill rise by $40, $60 or more. In a grocery environment already shaped by higher prices for meat, eggs, cereal, coffee and household goods, soda has become one of the easiest items to cut.

That is the central reason many Americans have stopped buying soda as often: it is no longer cheap enough to be automatic.

The data confirms the sticker shock

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks soda prices in several ways, and each tells part of the story. Its average-price series for “all soft drinks, 12-pack, 12-ounce cans” showed an April 2026 average of 59 cents per 12-ounce can, or about $7.08 for a 12-pack. In January 2020, that same average-price series stood at 36.1 cents per can, or about $4.33 for a 12-pack. That is a steep climb in the format many families buy most often. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, which republishes the BLS data through FRED, cautions that average-price series are best used to understand price levels, while CPI indexes are better for measuring inflation rates over time.

The broader inflation data also shows that carbonated drinks remain under price pressure. In the April 2026 Consumer Price Index report, BLS listed carbonated drinks as up 3.7 percent over the previous 12 months, while the broader category of nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials was up 5.1 percent. That means soda prices did not simply spike during the pandemic and then return to normal. They continued to rise from an already elevated base.

At the producer level, prices have also remained high. The BLS Producer Price Index for carbonated bottled and canned soft drinks stood at 189.628 in April 2026, using December 2011 as the base of 100. That index reflects prices received by producers, not just what shoppers see at checkout, and it underscores that the industry’s price structure has shifted at multiple points in the supply chain.

The exact increase a shopper sees depends on the store, brand, region, sale cycle and whether the price is measured before or after promotions. But the public’s sense that soda has become dramatically more expensive is well grounded. In some stores, name-brand 12-packs that once commonly sold near $3 on promotion now appear at list prices near $10 to $12. That is where shoppers’ claims of 80 percent, 90 percent or even higher local increases come from.

The new model: Make more money selling less

The old soda business was built on volume. Companies wanted Americans to buy more cases, drink more servings and fill more shopping carts. The new model is more complicated. The industry still wants growth, but company filings and market data show that higher pricing and product mix have become central to revenue gains.

Coca-Cola’s 2025 results are a clear example. The company reported that its full-year price/mix grew 4 percent and said the increase was “primarily driven by pricing actions.” In North America, Coca-Cola reported unit case volume growth of 1 percent, while price/mix rose 4 percent in the fourth quarter. In plain English: revenue growth was not simply about selling more soda. It was about charging more, shifting the mix and extracting more value per unit sold.

PepsiCo’s own filings show the same pattern. In its 2025 annual report, PepsiCo said its North American beverage business saw net revenue increase even as organic volume declined. The company reported that PepsiCo Beverages North America had organic volume down 3.5 percent while effective net pricing rose 5 percent. Later in the report, PepsiCo said North American beverage net revenue increased 1.5 percent, “primarily driven by effective net pricing,” partially offset by volume decline.

Industry-level data tells the same story. Beverage Digest reported that in 2025, U.S. liquid refreshment beverage dollars grew 2.5 percent while volume fell 0.9 percent. For carbonated soft drinks specifically, dollars rose 3.1 percent while volume declined 0.7 percent. That is the soda aisle’s new equation: fewer gallons, more dollars.

This is what shoppers are noticing, even if they do not use Wall Street language. The companies call it price/mix, effective net pricing and revenue management. Consumers call it getting less for more.

Promotions are no longer what they used to be

For many households, the sharpest change is not just the shelf price. It is the disappearance of the old promotion structure.

A shopper who once saw four 12-packs for $12 understood the deal immediately: $3 per box. Even a promotion such as buy two, get three free often produced a deep stock-up price. Today’s promotions can look generous at first glance but still produce a higher effective price.

At $11.99, a buy two, get one free deal works out to about $7.99 per 12-pack. A buy three, get three free deal brings the effective price down to about $6 per 12-pack, but the shopper must buy six boxes to get there. That is a major difference for families watching weekly grocery totals. It also shifts the burden onto the consumer: spend more now, store more at home and hope the promotion matches the brands the household actually drinks.

This is one reason soda inflation feels worse than the official numbers. Consumers remember the sale price, not the list price. When the old sale price was $3 and the new sale price is $6, the shopper experiences a 100 percent increase, even if the official category index shows a smaller rise.

Retailers and manufacturers have long used promotions to manage demand, clear inventory and protect brand loyalty. But the current model appears more selective. Instead of everyday deep discounts, shoppers often see high shelf prices paired with conditional deals. The discount is still there, but it is less convenient, less predictable and often less generous.

Consumers hit a pain threshold

The industry has begun to acknowledge consumer pushback.

Reuters reported in February 2025 that Americans were “paring back spending on soft drinks and salty treats” and that PepsiCo had to use promotions to rebuild volume after a slowdown caused by price hikes. The same report noted that PepsiCo’s North American beverage business saw volume decline, while the company was trying to lure shoppers back with multipacks and smaller packages.

That is a crucial signal. Consumers did not abandon soda overnight. They absorbed one increase, then another, then another. Eventually, some reached a point where soda stopped being a pantry staple and became an occasional treat.

The Associated Press captured this dynamic in 2023, when PepsiCo raised prices by double digits for the seventh consecutive quarter. At the time, the company’s North American beverage volume dropped 6 percent while prices rose 12 percent. PepsiCo executives said some of the decline reflected smaller package sizes and changing consumer preferences, but the basic pattern was clear: price hikes were lifting profits even as volume weakened.

This is the risk of a price-over-volume strategy. It works as long as enough customers stay loyal. But the longer prices remain high, the more shoppers experiment with alternatives. Once a family breaks the habit of buying soda every week, it may not return to the old pattern.

The health shift was already underway

Price is the immediate trigger, but it is not the only reason Americans are buying less soda. Health concerns have been reshaping beverage habits for years.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies sugary drinks as a leading source of added sugars in the American diet. A 12-ounce regular soda can contain more than 10 teaspoons of added sugar and about 150 calories from sugar alone. CDC guidance links frequent sugary drink consumption with weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cavities and gout.

That health message has reached parents, schools, doctors, employers and younger consumers. Even many people who still enjoy soda now treat it differently. They buy mini cans. They switch to zero-sugar varieties. They reserve soda for weekends. They replace one can a day with sparkling water, flavored seltzer, unsweetened tea or bottled water.

The result is a market where soda companies face two pressures at once. Price-sensitive shoppers are cutting back because of cost. Health-conscious shoppers are cutting back because of sugar, calories or artificial sweeteners. When those two groups overlap, the traditional 12-pack becomes especially vulnerable.

Water won the long game

The rise of bottled water did not begin with the recent soda price surge, but higher soda prices have made water a stronger competitor.

Beverage Marketing Corporation reported that bottled water became the largest beverage category by volume in the United States in 2016, surpassing carbonated soft drinks. By 2024, bottled water per-capita consumption reached 47.3 gallons, while carbonated soft drink consumption dipped to 34.8 gallons. The firm noted that carbonated soft drink consumption regularly exceeded 50 gallons per person around the turn of the century.

That long-term shift matters because consumers now have more substitutes than they did during soda’s peak. A shopper frustrated by $11.99 soda is not choosing between Coke and nothing. The same aisle or nearby aisles offer private-label soda, sparkling water, flavored water, sports drinks, energy drinks, ready-to-drink coffee, iced tea and powdered drink mixes.

Some of those alternatives are expensive, too. But water has one advantage soda cannot match: it can be cheap, calorie-free and socially acceptable in almost every setting. For households trying to save money and cut sugar, water is the obvious replacement.

Private label becomes more attractive

High name-brand prices also create an opening for store brands.

Walmart listings show private-label Great Value 12-packs selling for far less than many name-brand offerings. That kind of price gap gives consumers a simple choice: pay for the brand, wait for a promotion or trade down.

For years, soda companies benefited from powerful brand identities. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Sprite, Mountain Dew and other major brands are not generic commodities in the minds of loyal drinkers. They are tied to taste, habit, nostalgia and advertising. That brand power allowed companies to raise prices without losing every customer.

But brand loyalty has limits. When the price gap becomes wide enough, some consumers decide that the store brand is good enough. Others buy name brands only on sale. Still others stop keeping soda at home and buy fountain drinks or single bottles only when they are away from home.

The shift does not have to be dramatic to affect the industry. If millions of households buy one fewer 12-pack per month, the volume impact is significant.

Smaller cans, smaller packs and the shrinkflation effect

Another reason soda feels more expensive is that package sizes and package formats have changed.

Companies increasingly sell mini cans, smaller multipacks and premium single-serve products. These can make sense for consumers who want portion control or lower total spending per trip. But they often raise the price per ounce. A family may spend less on the package in front of them while paying more for each sip.

PepsiCo executives have described part of the volume decline as a function of smaller package sizes. In 2023, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta told analysts, “Units are growing much faster than volume,” a concise description of how a company can sell more packages but fewer total ounces.

Consumer advocates often describe this broader phenomenon as shrinkflation: paying the same or more for less product. The Bureau of Labor Statistics attempts to account for size changes in inflation calculations, but shoppers experience the change more directly. They see fewer ounces, higher prices or both.

In the soda aisle, shrinkflation does not always appear as a smaller 12-pack. It can appear as a shift from 12-ounce cans to mini cans, from deep-discount multipacks to premium-priced convenience packs, or from broad promotions to targeted deals that require more spending upfront.

Inflation helped open the door

To be fair, soda companies did face real cost pressures after 2020.

Aluminum, packaging, transportation, labor, energy and sweetener costs all moved through a disrupted supply chain. PepsiCo’s annual report cited higher commodity costs and tariffs as factors affecting operating results, while also pointing to effective net pricing as an offset.

But the important question is not whether costs rose. They did. The question is what happened after companies learned consumers would tolerate higher prices.

During the first phase of inflation, many shoppers accepted price hikes as temporary or unavoidable. Companies could point to supply-chain disruptions, fuel costs and wage pressures. But as the years passed, the higher prices became embedded in the business model. Promotions did not fully return to pre-pandemic levels. Shelf prices remained elevated. Investors began evaluating beverage companies partly on their ability to protect margins through pricing.

That is why consumers now view soda prices with suspicion. They are not just asking, “Why did this get expensive?” They are asking, “Why did this stay expensive?”

The retail shelf tells a different story than the earnings call

Company executives speak in terms of revenue growth, price/mix, package architecture and consumer elasticity. Shoppers speak in terms of whether they can afford the cart.

Those two worlds are colliding in the soda aisle.

From a corporate perspective, selling fewer cases at higher profit can be rational. It reduces the need to chase volume with heavy discounts. It protects margins. It rewards brand strength. It can keep revenue growing even in a mature category.

From a consumer perspective, the strategy feels like a broken bargain. Soda was never marketed as a luxury product. It was marketed as an everyday pleasure. When an everyday pleasure begins to carry a premium price, consumers reassess it.

That reassessment is already visible in the market data: carbonated soft drink dollar sales can rise even as volume falls. It is also visible in household behavior: shoppers wait for sales, buy fewer cases, switch brands, choose private label or leave soda off the list entirely.

Why the backlash may last

The danger for soda companies is that price-driven behavior can become habit.

A family that stops buying two 12-packs a week may discover that no one misses the second one. A parent who switches children to water may decide not to go back. A shopper who tries private-label cola may decide the savings outweigh the taste difference. A diabetic or pre-diabetic consumer who cuts soda for health reasons may become a permanent lost customer.

That is why the current moment is bigger than a temporary complaint about grocery prices. Soda companies are testing the upper limit of brand loyalty in a market where consumers have more choices, more health information and less patience for price increases.

The companies are not blind to this. PepsiCo’s move toward promotions, smaller packs and new products reflects an effort to regain value-conscious consumers. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are also expanding zero-sugar products, functional beverages and other categories that fit changing consumer preferences. PepsiCo’s 2025 annual report, for example, highlighted Pepsi Prebiotic Cola, its Celsius partnership and its acquisition activity involving brands such as poppi.

But innovation does not erase the core problem. If the traditional 12-pack becomes too expensive, the household routine changes.

What shoppers can do now

For consumers, the next step is to treat soda like any other high-inflation grocery item: compare the unit price, not just the package price.

A $11.99 12-pack is about 8.3 cents per fluid ounce before any promotion. A $6 sale price is about 4.2 cents per fluid ounce. A $4.74 private-label 12-pack is about 3.3 cents per fluid ounce. Those differences add up quickly for households that buy soda regularly.

Shoppers can also watch promotion cycles, compare stores, consider private-label alternatives and avoid deals that require buying more than they actually need. For families cutting sugar or costs, replacing some soda with water, sparkling water or unsweetened tea can reduce both the grocery bill and added sugar intake.

The broader call to action is for consumers to pay attention to the business model behind the price. If shoppers reward only the deepest discounts, companies and retailers will notice. If shoppers continue buying at $10 or $12 per 12-pack, those prices are more likely to stick.

Soda did not disappear — the bargain did

Americans have not stopped liking soda. They have stopped seeing it as a bargain.

The sharp rise in 12-pack prices, the weakening of old promotions, the growth of private-label alternatives, the long-term shift toward water and the health concerns surrounding sugary drinks have all converged. The result is a soda aisle that looks familiar but behaves differently. The cans are the same size, the logos are the same color and the brands still carry decades of loyalty. But the value proposition has changed.

The industry’s own numbers show the shift: revenue can rise while volume falls. That is the essence of the price-over-volume strategy. For beverage companies, it has helped protect profits. For consumers, it has turned a once-easy grocery purchase into a decision.

The takeaway for shoppers is simple: the best way to push back is to make the math matter. Compare unit prices, buy only when the deal is real, consider alternatives and remember that every skipped 12-pack is a vote in the marketplace. Soda companies raised prices because they believed consumers would keep paying. The next chapter will depend on how many Americans decide they will not.

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

True Cost of Tap Water
https://t.co/ok6ikuwYnc
💧 Utility costs are becoming a major driver of rising housing prices, especially in rapidly growing regions where water and sewer infrastructure are under intense pressure.
🏠 In some developments, water and sewer connection fees now consume up to 10% of an affordable home’s total budget before construction even begins.
📈 Connection fees have skyrocketed in recent years, jumping from around $600 to $7,000 in places like Liberty, North Carolina, while the Tri River system serving Lee and Chatham counties charges roughly $15,000 per connection.
🚰 These fees pay for decades of existing infrastructure investment, including pipelines, treatment facilities, maintenance, staffing, and future system capacity.
🏛️ Federal support for wastewater infrastructure has dramatically declined, dropping from roughly 90% funding in the 1970s to only 5–10% today, shifting the financial burden onto local governments and residents.
💵 Chatham County faces an estimated $2 billion cost for its long-term water balance plan through 2050, highlighting the enormous expense of sustaining future population growth.
⚡ Water towers are more than storage tanks — they function as energy systems that rely on expensive electricity to pump water uphill and maintain steady water pressure for homes and businesses.
🧪 Water treatment is a highly technical process involving specialized chemicals, instrumentation, and trained operators to safely process millions of gallons of water every day.
🌊 Wastewater treatment expansion is heavily regulated, requiring utilities to increase capacity without increasing pollution discharged into rivers, even as population growth dramatically raises water volume.
📊 The average person uses about 40–50 gallons of water daily, but scaling that demand across thousands of new residents requires massive infrastructure investments.
🏙️ Smaller towns like Pittsboro, historically lacked the treatment capacity and staffing needed to keep up with rapid growth and tightening environmental regulations.
⚠️ Pittsboro’s utility system struggled with years of underinvestment, environmental violations, and complex PFAS contamination challenges before regional collaboration emerged as a solution.
🏗️ Expanding a major treatment plant is enormously expensive — Sanford’s expansion from 12 million to 30 million gallons per day is projected to cost roughly $400 million.
🤝 The Tri River regional partnership between Sanford, Lee County, and Chatham County was created to share infrastructure costs, resources, and long-term planning responsibilities.
🌍 Regional leaders adopted the philosophy that water is a shared public resource rather than something individual municipalities should “hoard” from neighboring communities.
💡 By pooling resources, communities can divide fixed infrastructure costs, reduce ratepayer burdens, and strengthen their ability to secure state and federal grants.
🏭 Large-scale regional infrastructure also supports advanced manufacturing sites and economic development projects that create thousands of jobs across the region.
🔧 Regional planning allows utilities to install oversized infrastructure now — such as larger pipelines — to avoid costly future excavation and repeated construction disruptions.
📅 The discussion emphasizes that population growth and rising utility demands are unavoidable, but proactive long-term planning is a deliberate choice communities must make.
🔮 The core takeaway is that future housing affordability and economic growth will depend heavily on whether communities invest wisely in regional infrastructure solutions today.

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.15.26 https://t.co/vxmYf9dJAV

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.15.26 https://t.co/BqjSE2W9Tt

[Dante @DanteTheDon]

Was not ready for Eric Church to deliver the best commencement speech I’ve ever heard.

Six guitar strings. Six pillars of a life.

Faith. Family. Spouse. Ambition. Community. You.

Tune them when you’re whole, not just when you’re broken.

Watch the whole thing.

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

A new push to build Special Olympics Chatham County will get a public boost Saturday, May 16, when local organizers host a charity Texas Hold ’Em tournament at The Mod, using cards, food and friendly competition to raise money and awareness for athletes and families who have long wanted more local opportunities close to home.

The tournament is being promoted as both a fundraiser and a community introduction for Special Olympics Chatham County. Heather Johnson, the mother of Special Olympics athlete Trevor Johnson, joined Kathy Wasson, volunteer and outreach coordinator for Second Bloom of Chatham County and one of the new local coordinators for Special Olympics Chatham County, to explain the event during an our conversation at The Mod.

https://t.co/S4NkEYNMDv

[NWS Fairbanks @NWSFairbanks]

☀️ Today in Utqiagvik (the northernmost city in the United States), the sun rose above the horizon at 2:57 AM and won’t set again for 84 straight days or until August 2nd! Here's a look at a timelapse showing the sunset and sunrise this morning. #akwx

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.7.26 https://t.co/VDG7fsJhsX

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

Despite being down 4 starters and their head coach, Northwood secured a massive 8-5 win against Union Pines. Goalie James Flanagan (headed to UMass Lowell) made 18 saves, and Grayson Cox scored 4 goals. @AsheeboR38 reports that big players stepped up when it mattered most!

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

ChathamNC Sports Roundup - 5.1.26 https://t.co/vd7lqJXpOW

[Chatham Journal @chathamjournal]

A planned large-scale data center in southeastern Chatham County has moved from the planning table to the courthouse, as Eco TIP West LLC sues Chatham County over a temporary moratorium that halted data center and cryptocurrency mining approvals while county leaders study how to regulate the fast-growing industry.

The lawsuit, filed in Chatham County Superior Court, challenges the county’s February 11 decision to impose a 12-month pause on data centers, data processing facilities, cryptocurrency mining operations and related uses in unincorporated Chatham County. The dispute now places one of Chatham County’s most important economic development corridors — Triangle Innovation Point in Moncure — at the center of a broader North Carolina fight over artificial intelligence infrastructure, water use, electricity demand, local zoning authority and private development rights.

https://t.co/MCZdJ7XA3j