Our last print edition featured an in-depth look by freelancer Jasmine Gallup at how Raleigh libraries serve the homeless population. Readers appreciated the reporting:

From Facebook user William Castle:

This was so good—thank you for not only shedding a light on an incredibly vulnerable population, but also highlighting some of the wonderful people in our community who are working to improve lives—in ways both large and small.

From Reddit user Right-Mind2723:

This is so true. I frequently say that [librarians] are the bartenders of books and resources. Our unhoused population spend most of their days in our library. We act as a warming and cooling station. We work very close with our community partners to assist people at their lowest. Each person is different though and that can be hard.

Lena Geller wrote online about a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Hillsborough’s Big Spoon Roasters against a California chili crisp company with a similar name. Readers had a lot to say:

From Reddit user PerpetualEternal:

I think the thing getting lost in this conversation is that the band Spoon should sue all of the people involved, and then the creators of the Tick should turn around and sue them for co-opting their IP’s trademark catchphrase “Spoon!”

This is all so obviously targeted at this one company because they inadvertently got their chili crisp all up in someone’s peanut butter.

From Reddit user welshmchugh:

It is always frustrating to see people getting worked up over trademark enforcement. Seems to happen every few months. The short answer is that if you don’t enforce your trademark, you risk losing it. I understand why it looks bad, but this is what you have to do if you have a trademark and someone is operating under the same name. If they don’t enforce it, there is a chance someone else could take the mark and then sue Big Spoon Roasters forcing them to change their name. No one wants to see two small well-liked local businesses in litigation, but this is why any company (no matter the size) should do a trademark search before settling on a product name.

From Instagram user benay.nc:

Good, unbiased article! I really hope they can just drop this. The world is such a mess; surely a nut butter company and a chili crisp company on opposite sides of the country can coexist.

Chloe Courtney Bohl wrote about a recommendation by Raleigh’s Planning Commission to allow a developer to pay the city $1.5 million instead of building promised affordable housing units near Union Station. The request goes to the city council for final approval in coming weeks. In the meantime, readers have thoughts:

From Bluesky user bsamuels:

Where is the public benefit in this “public/private project” if no affordable units? Ten percent of units affordable at 80 percent of AMI isn’t even a heavy lift—it’s basically median income for renters. And an in lieu fee of just $40,000/unit is a joke.

From Instagram user varani:

Yeah, put all luxury apartments next to the PUBLIC TRANSIT station instead because the optics at Moore Square better not make its way to some rich developers portfolio. This proposal is just passing the buck.

From Instagram user hangrychelsea:

No, they should include affordable housing units as agreed upon. They can still add that 1.5 million to the affordable housing fund though. It’s a drop in the bucket to them.

Comment on this story at [email protected].