The Racist Origins and Painful Legacy of Atlanta's Zoning
I'm going to start this post off with a few disclaimers:
A good amount of my information comes from The Color of Law, by Richard Rothstein. I tried to find as many direct sources for the relevant topics brought up in the book as I could, but they weren't always readily availible. I highly encourage you to read the book itself if you want more details and his sources.
While I am going to try to use Atlanta-specific information as much as possible, there are some things that I can only provide evidence for in general, not to mention that I have to discuss this with the wider national historical context as well since Atlanta was but one part of a massive racist horror show.
I am by no means claiming to be an expert on this material. It's just what I have the most supporting information already at had for. Again, if you want to read more details from someone who spent much more time researching than I have, pick up a copy of The Color of Law.
I am by no means claiming that fixing zoning will be the end-all-be-all of segregation legacy, nor that it will singularly solve disparities for minority populations compared to white populations within the city. Undoing the sheer scale of bullshit put in place to codify segregation and racial suppression as it manifests today is an undertaking requiring effort on par with something like the Green New Deal (coincidentally, there can be quite a lot of overlap in with a GND, and that's why climate and social justice are so often packaged with various versions of a GND). Fixing the legacy of racist zoning's impacts is just one part to an incredibly complex system, but it's still one worthy of doing. Gotta start somewhere, right?
Alright, on to the main content... Buckleupkiddos,we'regoingforafuckinride!
Why the Fuck are you Talking About Zoning Right Now‽
The country is, to use an incredible amount of understatement, in a bit of a pickle right now. We're in the midst of a global pandemic that's surging, and resurging within our borders. We're reeling at a seemingly never ending parade of tragedy and failure of composure from the very police forces sworn to protect us. We're dealing with an ever escalating push back and response from a federal government that is attempting to label protesters as terrorists. We've had impeachments, assassinations of foreign political operatives, the emboldenment of out-and-loud racists, foreign bounties on our military, historic Supreme Court decisions, and record stock market crashes. We're staring down the barrel of a depression, and there's a looming climate catastrophe that's been burning in the background of all of this. So why, in the middle of all of this, am I bringing up zoning of all things? How could that possibly be relevant to any of this? Well... as it turns out... quite a bit. See, zoning is one of those core functions of government, generally on the local level but not always, that just kinda exists. It's a long, boring, complicated mess of legal code that just doesn't come up all that often in our every day discussions (unless you're a nerd like me who keeps trying to shove it into every conversation... ahem...). No matter how innocuous or intangible or boring zoning may feel, though, it actually has massive ramifications for how our build environment is shaped. That is literally its job, after all: codifying what is and isn't allowed to be built, where, and how. That build environment then has massive ramifications on a whole pile of social, economic, and environmental issues. A good zoning code balances public desires for safety, health, and environmental protections, while also helping to ensure various amenities are provided, ideally outweighing any downsides of development with benefits to the community at large. Unfortunately, most zoning systems fail at this balance, often focusing on the wrong components as perceived negatives when they're actually benefits, while codifying build requirements that actively make things worse for the communities around them. A bad zoning code can make housing more expensive, make it harder to meet climate and environmental goals, make the general population more sickly, impede the ability of persons to generate generational wealth, and horrendously damage the tax base, making it harder to fund public projects. As it turns out, most of these issues trace back to a few core ideas of the initial model zoning systems, and were originally put in as features of the codes. The intent at the time was mainly focused on creating a few specific negative outcomes, with many of the others having taken decades to fully manifest and be recognized. Yet, the original structure of the codes remain, bureaucratic momentum and an incomplete understanding of justice keeping them in place, dragging out the problems for years and years and years. So what were those features, and what specific negative outcomes were they trying to achieve?
Setting the Stage for Segregation
First, we have to step back, and take a bit of a historical run up to provide proper context. In 1877, Reconstruction ended. Federal troops, who had defeated the Confederacy, packed up and left the south after 12 years of postbellum occupation (14 if you include overlap years of occupation before the war's end). Reconstruction, though certainly not perfect, had been a time of relative empowerment for black Americans. Backed by federal troops, integration and political power was actually in reach. It wasn't 40-acres and a mule, but it was an incredible leap forward as the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were enforced in about as blunt a way as possible: at the muzzle of a rifle. That all came to a painful and tragic end with the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, who had promised southern Democrats the end of occupation in exchange for electoral support. Almost immediately, black Americans suffered a bloody, violent resurgence of oppression, with segregation becoming standard practice, and enforced both at the hands of local law enforcement and mobs of white Americans. Worse yet, as Jim Crow laws and their efforts anchored themselves across the south, previously diverse and inclusive (relatively speaking) parts of the country began to follow suit. All over, towns and cities undertook the effort of removing, or isolating their black populations, using similar tactics learned from the southern states. Like a cancer, segregation spread far and wide, becoming more and more recognized and acceptable. By 1913, freshly elected president Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet approved the implementation of segregation in federal offices, marking about as drastic a change in federal priority as you could take over the course of three and a half decades. It is in this atmosphere of invigorated racist bullshit that zoning rises within the policy consciousness.
The Original Sin of Zoning
As a concept, zoning ordinances within the U.S. were rather new, with the 1908 Los Angeles municipal zoning ordinances being the first of their kind. The LA laws were a formalizing of existing nuisance laws, meant to create separations of land use and buffers between the harmful effects of industries and residences. Though specific business classifications (such as unnecessary prohibition of laundries, which were predominantly owned by Chinese immigrants at the time, in certain areas) did come with racial issues, they were quite tame by the standards of the time, as we're about to see. Prior to the rise of zoning as a popular government effort, it was fairly rare to see actual legal code dedicated towards segregation, instead focusing efforts on government-endorsed vigilantism and governments not enforcing equality laws already in place. This began to change, however. In 1910, a few years before the federal government would make official its office segregation, and two years after the LA zoning system was established, Baltimore became the first city in the nation, (as stated by the New York Times), to create an explicit law mandating the segregation of city areas. The city ordinance dictated that blacks could not buy homes on blocks where whites were the majority, and vice versa. The law was... horribly broken, and judges had to grapple with the complex, integrated reality of the city, trying to adjudicate who could and couldn't live where, or buy property where, creating an incredible mess of legal issues across the city. The practical problems with the law did not stop other cities from copying the effort, though. Invigorated by Baltimore's example, Birmingham, Dade County (Miami), Charleston, Dallas, Louisville, New Orleans, Oklahoma City, Richmond, St. Louis, and others all made their own version of racial segregaition mandates within landuse. Amungst this list was, in fact, the City of Atlanta, whose ordinance virtually copied the Baltimore law, with the added provision that a person of one color occupying a house in a mixed block could object to one of another color moving next door. Unlike the initial LA zoning laws, the systems put in place following Baltimore's example were specifically racially focused, with more familiar zoning laws taking shape in the years to come. These initial racist laws would persist until the 1917 Supreme Court decision that such laws were unconstitutional in Buchanan v. Warley. However... the decision was based around the freedom of individuals to buy and sell property to whomever they wished, rather than a denunciation of segregation within law itself. Many cities simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling, and moved ahead with their segregationist laws, while others claimed that slight variations in the ordinances, such as the difference between block level and larger zoning styles, meant they didn't have to follow the ruling. The City of Atlanta was, once again, one of these cities. In The Atlanta Zone Plan: Report Outlining a Tentative Zone Plan for Atlanta (1922), written by Robert H. Whitten as a consultant for the the City Planning Commission, explicit residential districts were outlined by racial makeup, with R1 as "white residence district", R2 as "colored residence district", and R3 as "undetermined race district". It was nice enough to allow servants' quarters remain open to either race. The plan justifies this by saying:
the above race zoning is essential in the interest of the public peace, order and security and will promote the welfare and prosperity of both the white and colored race.
Additionally, Whitten defended his zoning plan in professional publications by saying that "[e]stablishing colored residence districts has removed one of the most potent causes of race conflict." This, he added, was "a sufficient justification for race zoning.... A reasonable segregation is normal, inevitable and desirable." Here is a map of the proposed zoning system within the then city limits. You can get an idea of just how limited housing areas for blacks were, just how much of the city was to be dedicated to single family housing compared to apartments, and how relegated commercial uses would be. Incidentally enough, this is where the City of Atlanta begins to see a zoning code similar to modern codes. We'll get to that in a moment. For now, note how closely this map matches some of the racial demographics of the city today, oh, and (just coincidentally I'm sure) how the largest 'Colored District' in the city was to be essentially bordered on three sides by industrial areas. Other zoning maps from the same time would go further with encroaching industrial zones, limiting colored areas, and limiting apartment areas. CanIjusttakeamomenttosayhowmuchIfuckinglovetheAtlantaHistoryCenteranditsarchives?Okay,movingon. At the same time that Atlanta was ignoring its constitutional duty to not segregate its people, the federal government was stepping into the zoning game. In 1921, then Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover organized an Advisory Committee on Zoning to develop a manual explaining why every municipality should develop a zoning ordinance, with an eventual goal of developing model legislation that could be easily adopted. This committee had such members as Frederick Law Olmsted, who argued in 1918 that not only were certain housing types "coincident with racial divisions", and, since it was undesirable to "force the mingling of people who are not yet ready to mingle", great care should be take not to mix housing types, and Irving B. Hiett, who was the president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, an organization who would produce a code of realtor ethics stating that "A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood... members of any race or nationality... detrimental to property values" just a few years later. By 1922, the committee had developed A Zoning Primer, which argued that zoning was required to preserve property values, and which was widely distributed across the country. The policies would push out wide and far across the nation, following the federal government's example.
Pretending as if Racist Plans Aren't
In 1924, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the City of Atlanta zoning code due to its racial components. Despite this, the underlying plan and map developed with segregation in mind, would act as the basis for future plans. Indeed, there are many overlaps with the 1922 plan, and even zoning designations today. Keep Whitten's and the Zoning Commission's mentalities concerning the importance of racial segregation when looking back through the rest of the initial Atlanta zoning proposal. It provides leading anecdotes (without apparent supporting evidence beyond some photographs that don't really seem to match the narrative) of the dangers of mixing small stores, and low-rise multi-family housing with lower densities, primarily focusing on the perceived loss of value of adjacent properties, while framing the persons who make such developments as greedy speculators only out for a quick buck (rather than look at the economic benefit to the store owner, the new access to the store that surrounding areas get, and the housing relief the apartment dwellers experience). Still without apparent evidence, the proposal makes sweeping, generalized statements about the need to preserve neighborhoods' character, and preserve property values. It proposes to do this by dividing the city into use, height, area, and race categories, with each mixing with the others to dictate specific allowances. The racial categories were removed, yet the remainder of the plan's suggestions would persist. Even in 1917 it was understood that density was a major component of affordability. Special City Plan Adviser for the City Plan Commission of Cleveland Ohio Robert H. Whitten's essay The Zoning of Residence Sections, where Olmsted argued the merits of preventing the mixing of people and their racially pre-dis-positioned housing preferences, outright states:
We want to distribute the population as much as practicable, but at the same time we do not wish to force people who for business or other reasons need to live close to the central business sections either to pay very high rents or to go to much less convenient locations. As a city reaches metropolitan size, the demand for housing space near the central area becomes so great that the only way to make that location available to any but the wealthy is to permit a more intensive utilization of the land. Were it not for the ability to pile one dwelling on top of another, rents would be prohibitive in these central locations for the great mass of the people.
Even while expounding on the virtues of low-density housing, Whitten takes effort to acknowledge the economic need for multi-family housing to maintain affordability. Yeah, it's done in a condescending way where he can only imagine a case where being adjacent to the central business district is a legitimate reason for housing density, but he at least still accepts it as reality. Yet, dwelling house districts, from which apartment houses would be excluded, were to include the larger portion of the area of Atlanta, and were to primarily be made up of the largest area class, requiring at least 5000 sqft per family of lot area. The code outright targets 2-3 story buildings with families living over a store (generally which they would operate) as being undesirable, and thus is explicitly designed to prevent such outcomes. All of these things drove up the per-house price, requiring a family to pay for a significant amount of land, as well as an individual house, in the majority of the city's residential area. In the maps I linked above, you can see just how few areas were allowed to have apartments compared to the wider single-family zones. The federal zoning primer includes similar sentiments, telling an anecdote of how an apartment house built next to a home would destroy values by becoming 'a giant airless hive, housing human beings like crowded bees', as well as lumping 'sporadic stores' in with 'factories or junk yards' as a contributing factor of blight within a residential neighborhood. It's important to note that none of these codes tried to make improvements to living conditions through legislation like building codes, which could have helped prevent the squalor conditions that were so readily associated with apartments, and which had been present in the U.S. since at least 1859, in Baltimore, choosing instead to essentially quarantine apartments to prevent their spread into single family areas. As I laid out above, these are all value judgements made by people who viewed the mixing of races as something to avoid, as something that itself would contribute to a loss of property values (rather than recognize that self-fulfilling white panic, was the actual source of value drop, and that the constrained black populations were willing to pay higher prices because there were so few homes they could even get into, actually raising prices), and even made racial connections to types of housing to keep separated. But, because of the insistence of the courts, their policies were forced to take on an air of race neutrality. Thus, explicit race-based zoning was stripped from the codes, and the far more familiar forms of space and use based zoning were established. Those forms just so happen to harshly restrict the kinds of housing openly accepted as being affordable to the masses, and, in particular, the demographics of people who were least economically able to choose elsewhere. As the federal zoning primer said: Zoning Is Legal This is not to say that exclusionary zoning was not without its legal challenges, of course. In the 1926 Supreme Court case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, the court upheld the constitutionality of exclusionary zoning, using as part of its opinion the argument that "very often the apartment house is a mere parasite", and that, if allowed to mix with single-family houses, "come very near to being nuisances". The case was brought to the Supreme Court as an appeal to a U.S. District Court of Ohio ruling against the constitutionality of exclusionary zoning, stating that "the blighting of property values and the congesting of the population, whenever the colored or certain foreign races invade a residential section, are so well known as to be within the judicial cognizance." Essentially, while the Supreme Court decided that exclusionary zoning was based on inherit issues with mixing building types (even though 1) the issues aren't inherit, and 2) the exclusion argument is based on a slippery slope fallacy), the District Court had (correctly) identified an underlying racial motivation for preventing mixing.
When the Pretending Becomes More Overt
Were all else equal, we might be able to ignore the initial racial components of exclusionary zoning, and merely call the resulting codes classist (the reality is that racism and classism were/are tightly intertwined, with each giving perceived justification to the other), but things weren't equal. The median household income for a black family in 1947 (the earliest year I could actually find data) was just 51% of a white household (it was only up to ~63% in 2018). Even though modern discussion around apartments tends to bemoan the 'luxury' branding, and how accurate it may or may not be, the hard reality is that living in an apartment is cheaper than buying a house, at least in the immediate. For lower income people, it's pretty much the only option. For poor, and thus disproportionately black, people, the primary need for housing affordability was in the form of apartment buildings and residential density, even if that was only desired as a stepping stone. But that's not what the zoning system provided. Overwhelmingly, the city's land was designated for single family homes. Large lots, and individual homes drive up the per-unit costs of housing, locking poorer people out of being able to buy into neighborhoods. Worse yet would be the zoning systems of suburban and smaller towns, which would eliminate the ability to build apartments all together, essentially locking lower income, and thus disproportionately black, persons from being able to relocate there at all. This lead to crowding in the limited apartments, and, since the building codes hadn't been adequately updated to actually prevent it, the very slum conditions used as a justification for preventing apartments in the first place became self-fulfilling. Of course, not all black people were so poor that they couldn't afford to buy a single-family home, and quite a few did look to leave the limited availability of apartments. They were not met well, and indeed, in the years following the installation of exclusionary zoning systems, the federal government would essentially codify black exclusion from single-family neighborhoods, with cities clinging to the federal policies as justification for blocking black and integrated housing. Property (particularly home) mortgages used to be very, very different than how we think of them today, which locked many people out of the ability to get them. High-interest rates, huge down-payments, interest-only payments, and short (5-7 year) payback periods. These terms kept middle and low class persons (of all races) from being able to afford to buy property. As part of the New Deal, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation was established. The loan system was restructured to be closer to the lower rates, lower down-payments, overall payment, and long-term periods we're more familiar with today. Additionally, many existing mortgages were bought and restructured to save property owners from foreclosure. In the process of this, though, HOLC wanted an inventory of risk across the nation, so it could manage these new loan terms without crippling itself financially. This is where the kinda okay policy stopped. The risk inventory was carried out by local real estate agencies, who had national ethics codes and local policies for their agents to explicitly consider race when evaluating risk. So much so that they were actually under direction to maintain community segregation when otherwise selling properties. The inventory took the form of color-coded maps, where red sections on the map represented high-risk (don't loan people money / bail them out here). Many, many of these red areas were based on racial prejudice, with even wealthy / middle class integrated or black communities being rated far worse than equivalent income white areas. Here is a database of maps across the U.S., overlaid against modern areas. Here's a fun game: compare the Redlining Map for Atlanta to the initial racial zoning map! No it's not a 1-1 match, but it gets awfully close, particularly if you start to include initially designated areas for apartment buildings. This entire mess was made even worse with the establishment of the Federal Housing Authority, which was intended to insure private bank loans to first-time home buyers. Even though the FHA had its own auditing system separate from the HOLC, it still had direct segregation and whites-only policies. Additionally the FHA very specifically did not insure mortgages within urban centers. This meant that both HOLC and FHA services were denied to nearly the same areas: black or integrated neighborhoods, most often in urban centers. The FHA justified its racial rules by claiming that black people ruined property values. This was actually backwards, as the limited options available to black people meant that black and integrated properties were in high demand, and thus could be sold at a much higher price. What did happen, though, was 'block-busting'. So, because the FHA (and other organizations) continuously sold the idea that black people ruined property values, as well as the base-level racism, this left white neighborhoods vulnerable to manipulation. Speculators would buy up properties in blocks on the border of black / integrated and white areas, and then rent / sell them to black people. These speculators would also hire black people to walk around white neighborhoods asking about home sales, and looking like they lived there. Then the speculators would go around warning white property owners that their housing values would tank with all the black people moving in, and make stupidly low offers, buying out white properties well below the actual value (this is where the FHA was getting its data). Then the speculators would turn around and, because there were so few other options, sell the same properties above their actual value to black people at bad rates. This drove up costs for black people who otherwise just wanted a home, and the high prices contributed to perpetuating poverty and again creating self-fulfilling slum conditions. Many cities, private lenders, and other government agencies (like Veterans Affairs) anchored their lending and development approval processes on the FHA backing of home loans, which meant that blacks were barred from even the opportunity to really leave parts of the city within which they lived. It's worth reiterating that the HOLC and FHA policies were targeted directly at owning private homes, working off of a national policy that private homes were less communist than apartments. No, I'm not kidding. The U.S. Department of Labor distributed pamphlets entitled We Own Our Own Home to schoolchildren stating that it was a "patriotic duty" to cease renting, and to buy a house. Millions of posters were printed, and hung in factories and other businesses, while newspaper ads were run throughout the country. This national housing direction propped up single-family residences, and the infrastructure to support them, while leaving pretty much everything else to languish. Then there were the racial covenants, where individual properties were made unavailable to black people by deed restrictions, and which were often implimented on neighborhood scales. Then there was the New-Deal, where the Civilian Conservation Corps abided by local segregation policies for its camps and worker housing, further entrenching local segregation. Then there was the issue of cities targeting black and low-income areas overwhelmingly with zoning variances for industry and toxic waste disposal sites, exposing those persons to much higher quantities of toxins and pollutants. Then there was public housing which eliminated mixed-income tenants, was often explicitly segregated, often resisted adding housing for black people, and, when they did add housing open to blacks, located overwhelmingly in already black and poor neighborhoods, effectively concentrating poverty and increasing segregation. Then there were Interstate Highways, which were explicitly used for 'slum clearing' in many cities (including defining slum based on racial makeup rather than socioeconomic status of the persons living there), which were massive transportation subsidies to the very same segregated low-density suburbs already built with federal loan backing while public transportation languished, and which were actually used as physical barriers between parts of the city. Frankly, the list kinda just keeps going, and so I'm not going to try and fit it all. Seriously, go read the Color of Law for more explicit details. My main point with all of these is that, when you combine the initial versions of the zoning codes, the opinions of the people who made them, and the wider reactions and policies that came after the codes proved not to 100% segregate black people from white people, it becomes clear that a major component of the zoning system was established not actually to prevent health or value issues, but rather to maintain the separation of races.
That was a lot of words...
Right, so here's the summary:
After a decade of relative progress, the federal government abandons Reconstruction
Almost immediately, communities, including previously inclusive ones, begin to force their black populations out in a renewed effort of segregation
At first this is done outside of the law, but eventually cities get the idea to literally codify segregation through ordinances
That codified segregation was struck down in the Supreme Court, so cities are forced to find a proxy method of enforcing segregation
Cities used the separating of mixed-use developments and multi-family apartment buildings to create racial segregation through the proxy of economic segregation
When this doesn't work 100%, the federal government established home mortgage support systems that directly excluded black people, preventing them from buying into single-family neighborhoods even if they could afford it
There was a lot of other shit that happened to basically show that zoning was not the unbiased system it was pretending to be
Persistence of bad policy
Even though many of the explicitly racist policies have been removed or overturned, and what progress there has been in raising the wealth of black persons has helped with some racial mixing, it's clear that the proxy methods for discrimination persist to this day, with visible segregaition outcomes. Even when we do see integration, it is often in the form of wealthy white people moving into the limited new developments allowed in previously majority black areas (AKA 'Gentrification'). Today, Atlanta is still overwhelmingly zoned for low-density, single-family residential, even if some of those zones allow up to Accessory Dwelling Units (such density, much urban). Lot sizes in much of the city are still mandated to be quite large, and height planes still overly limit the number of stories buildings can be. What apartment buildings are allowed are constrained by cumbersome parking requirements (both codified and required by private lenders), and property setbacks. Mixed uses are often restrained on individual properties, requiring a specific zoning designation to be allowed. Even the city's plan for handling future growth still relegates nearly 75% of the area to relatively low-density housing as 'conservation' areas. Metro-wide, not nearly as many homes are being built as were pre-recession. While home prices are increasing back to pre-recessionary levels, housing inventory in metro Atlanta is constrained – partially due to a lag in residential construction. Prior to the recession, it was not uncommon for residential building permits to exceed 5,000 per month (in some cases, reaching over 7,000). After May 2007, the region experienced a steep decline in residential building permits, which persisted into early 2012, when the region began seeing modest increases. Though residential permits have trended upward since 2012, they have yet to reach pre-recessional levels, hovering instead between 2,000 and 3,000 permits per month. Because of this, all counties in metro Atlanta are experiencing the a decline in housing inventory. One of the main summary points of that report was: "Home prices rising significantly – faster than wages – due in large part to dwindling supply"ARC Regional Snapshot: Affordable Housing While the metro itself has been pretty easy to build new housing within (atleast from 2000 to 2015) compared to other metros, the parts of the city and close-in suburbs tend to be the hardest within which to add new supplly (of the 10 hardest zipcodes to build, the top 3 were partially in the city, and another three were in or partly in the city). Indeed, inflation-adjusted housing prices are rising quite quickly in the Atlanta Metro, even including months during this pandemic. Prices are looking to pass pre-2008 peak in 2023ish. Only, this time, vacancy rates for both renters and homeowners have been nearly at all-time lows for the metro (Source: Census Bureau). Many of the most intense price increases happening within the core city. At the same time, affordable housing initiatives are proving to be far too few to handle the rising costs, with recent 'Inclusionary Zoning' rules, as well as the wider public housing program failing to close the need. We're talking programs considering themselves successful at a few thousand units, when the demand for affordable housing (let alone total housing) is in the hundreds of thousands. The simple reality is that the racism of our past is leading to an over-all affordability crisis today. While, as usual, the hardest hit are African Americans, this affordability crisis has far reaching impacts across the demographic spectrum, including poor whites, and, particularly, poor Latino populations as well, locking out a wide variety of people who would otherwise want to live in the kinds of dense, walkable, urban areas the City of Atlanta uniquely offers within the metro. Not only that, but the very types of low-density developments so widely codified across the city and nation do not generate enough economic activity to actually pay for the infrastructure needed to support them, propped up by piles of hidden subsidies, all resulting in cities being effectively bankrupt. (Here's another real-world example) Even some of the most 'wealthy' of towns are having to seriously reconsider their historic development patterns to close out financial gaps. In Atlanta, this leads to things like a massive backlog of maintenance issues that even recent bonds and tax increases can't fully handle. Again, policies of a racist past are hurting everyone today. Undoing those policies, and transitioning back to tried-and-true development styles would greatly help fix financial issues. Additionally, as we work to overcome challenges with climate as a whole, we need to be seriously looking at our build environments, and just how much low-density development contributes to emissions compared to higher-density parts of the metro, and even the city itself. At the same time, moving away from cars would help reduce respiratory issues for poor and minority persons who are disproportionately affected by road-pollution, and generally moving to cleaner industries while cleaning up legacy pollution sites can help undo the years of inequality through industrial exposure..
Okay, so what do we do?
We need to have a hard discussion about zoning policies: their origins, their purposes, and their effects. We need to be prepared to recognize when policies were built on hate, and where they have lead to harm, just as much as we need to be ready to recognize that not every aspect of the zoning system is bad. We need to be willing to change, and be proactive about fixing the failings of previous generations. Ideally for the net benefit of all of us. As part of this discussion, though, we are going to have to really, truly consider what 'character' of this city are valuable. What are tangible goals, what are the potential negative outcomes, and what can be done to mitigate those outcomes, ideally while actually adding to the 'character' of the city. Again, we needs to be willing to change here. Not everything wrapped under the broad umbrella of 'character' is actually worth keeping, particularly given how I could probably copy and paste some of the 'neighborhood character' arguments from the initial racial zoning codes into places like NextDoor or Facebook or even here on Reddit without anyone suspecting they are nearly 100 years old.
Almost 100 rollbacks/changes to environmental rules and regulations!!!! 64 completed & 34 yet to come.....SCARY!!!
If you care about our future generations, it is truly unbelievable what the EPA, the Interior Department, the National Park Service and other parts of government are doing to revise, weaken, and rollback so many of the gains our country has made in advancing clean air, clean water, global warming, emissions, & other environmental protections! After reading about the 64 completed rollbacks & 34 still in progress, we fear for the future of our coming generations as well as the health of our planet!!!! Here’s a listing of the 98 rollbacks/changes that will affect us all….. Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!! -------------------------------- •Air pollution and emissions Completed 1. Weakened Obama-era fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for passenger cars and light trucks. E.P.A. and Transportation Department 2. Revoked California’s power to set stricter tailpipe emissions standards than the federal government. E.P.A. 3. Withdrew the legal justification for an Obama-era rule that limited mercury emissions from coal power plants. E.P.A. 4. Replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a new version that would let states set their own rules. Executive Order; E.P.A. 5. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. E.P.A. 6. Revised and partially repealed an Obama-era rule limiting methane emissions on public lands, including intentional venting and flaring from drilling operations. Interior Department 7. Loosened a Clinton-era rule designed to limit toxic emissions from major industrial polluters. E.P.A. 8. Revised a program designed to safeguard communities from increases in pollution from new power plants to make it easier for facilities to avoid emissions regulations. E.P.A. 9. Amended rules that govern how refineries monitor pollution in surrounding communities. E.P.A. 10. Weakened an Obama-era rule meant to reduce air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. E.P.A. 11. Weakened oversight of some state plans for reducing air pollution in national parks. E.P.A. 12. Relaxed air pollution regulations for a handful of plants that burn waste coal for electricity. E.P.A. 13. Repealed rules meant to reduce leaking and venting of powerful greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons from large refrigeration and air conditioning systems. E.P.A. 14. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the social cost of carbon that rule-makers used to estimate the long-term economic benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Executive Order 15. Withdrew guidance directing federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. But several district courts have ruled that emissions must be included in such reviews. Executive Order; Council on Environmental Quality 16. Revoked an Obama executive order that set a goal of cutting the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over 10 years. Executive Order 17. Repealed a requirement that state and regional authorities track tailpipe emissions from vehicles on federal highways. Transportation Department 18. Lifted a summertime ban on the use of E15, a gasoline blend made of 15 percent ethanol. (Burning gasoline with a higher concentration of ethanol in hot conditions increases smog.) E.P.A. 19. Changed rules to allow states and the E.P.A. to take longer to develop and approve plans aimed at cutting methane emissions from existing landfills. E.P.A. In Progress 20. Submitted notice of intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. (The process of withdrawing cannot be completed until November 2020.) Executive Order 21. Proposed relaxing Obama-era requirements that companies monitor and repair methane leaks at oil and gas facilities. E.P.A. 22. Proposed eliminating Obama-era restrictions that, in effect, required newly built coal power plants to capture carbon dioxide emissions. E.P.A. 23. Proposed revisions to standards for carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants. Executive Order; E.P.A. 24. Began a review of emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions. One outcome of that review: In February 2020, E.P.A. reversed a requirement that Texas follow emissions rules during certain malfunction events. E.P.A. 25. Opened for comment a proposal limiting the ability of individuals and communities to challenge E.P.A.-issued pollution permits before a panel of agency judges. E.P.A. 26. Delayed issuing a rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft. (The E.P.A. acknowledged it is legally required to issue the rule, but has not done so yet. The delay is being challenged by environmental groups.) E.P.A. 27. Proposed limiting pesticide application buffer zones that are intended to protect farmworkers and bystanders from accidental exposure. E.P.A. --------------------------------------- •Drilling and Extraction Completed 28. Made significant cuts to the borders of two national monuments in Utah and recommended border and resource-management changes to several more. Presidential Proclamation; Interior Department 29. Lifted ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress; Interior Department | Read more » 30. Rescinded water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. Interior Department 31. Scrapped a proposed rule that required mines to prove they could pay to clean up future pollution. E.P.A. 32. Withdrew a requirement that Gulf oil rig owners prove they can cover the costs of removing rigs once they stop producing. Interior Department 33. Approved construction of the Dakota Access pipeline less than a mile from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation after the Army Corps of Engineers had said it would explore alternative routes. (A court has since ruled the agency must investigate how the pipeline is impacting the environment and local tribes, but it can continue to operate in the meantime.) Executive Order; Army 34. Changed how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers the indirect effects of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews of pipelines. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 35. Revoked an Obama-era executive order designed to preserve ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters in favor of a policy focused on energy production and economic growth. Executive Order 36. Permitted the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The practice, which can kill marine life and disrupt fisheries, was blocked under the Obama administration. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 37. Loosened offshore drilling safety regulations implemented by the Obama after following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, including reduced testing requirements for blowout prevention systems. Interior Department 38. Lifted an Obama-era freeze on new coal leases on public lands. In April 2019, a judge ruled that the Interior Department could not begin selling new leases without completing an environmental review. In February, the agency published an assessment that concluded restarting federal coal leasing would have little environmental impact. Executive Order; Interior Department IN PROGRESS 39. Proposed opening most of America’s coastal waters to offshore oil and gas drilling but delayed the plan after a federal judge ruled that Mr. Trump’s reversal of an Obama-era ban on drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans was unlawful. Interior Department 40. Repealed an Obama-era rule governing royalties for oil, gas and coal leases on federal lands, which replaced a 1980s rule that critics said allowed companies to underpay the federal government. A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s repeal. The Interior Department is reviewing the decision. Interior Department 41. Proposed revising regulations on offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic that were developed after a 2013 accident. The Interior Department previously said it was “considering full rescission or revision of this rule.” Executive Order; Interior Department 42. Proposed “streamlining” the approval process for drilling for oil and gas in national forests. Agriculture Department; Interior Department | Read more » 43. Recommended shrinking three marine protected areas or opening them to commercial fishing. Executive Order; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 44. Proposed opening more land in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve for oil drilling. The Obama administration had designated about half of the reserve as a conservation area. Interior Department 45. Proposed lifting a Clinton-era policy that banned logging and road construction in Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Interior Department 46. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline rejected by President Barack Obama, but a federal judge blocked the project from going forward without an adequate environmental review process. Mr. Trump later attempted to sidestep the ruling by issuing a presidential permit. Initial construction has started, but the project remains tied up in court. Executive Order; State Department ------------------------------------ •Infrastructure and Planning Completed 47. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects that required the government to account for sea level rise and other climate change effects. Executive Order 48. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects. Executive Order 49. Revoked a directive for federal agencies to minimize impacts on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources when approving development projects. Executive Order 50. Revoked an Obama executive order promoting climate resilience in the northern Bering Sea region of Alaska, which withdrew local waters from oil and gas leasing and established a tribal advisory council to consult on local environmental issues. Executive Order 51. Reversed an update to the Bureau of Land Management’s public land-use planning process. Congress 52. Withdrew an Obama-era order to consider climate change in the management of natural resources in national parks. National Park Service 53. Restricted most Interior Department environmental studies to one year in length and a maximum of 150 pages, citing a need to reduce paperwork. Interior Department 54. Withdrew a number of Obama-era Interior Department climate change and conservation policies that the agency said could “burden the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources.” Interior Department 55. Eliminated the use of an Obama-era planning system designed to minimize harm from oil and gas activity on sensitive landscapes, such as national parks. Interior Department 56. Withdrew Obama-era policies designed to maintain or, ideally, improve natural resources affected by federal projects. Interior Department In Progress 57. Proposed plans to speed up the environmental review process for Forest Service projects. Agriculture Department ------------------------------------ •Animals Completed 58. Changed the way the Endangered Species Act is applied, making it more difficult to protect wildlife from long-term threats posed by climate change. Interior Department 59. Relaxed environmental protections for salmon and smelt in California’s Central Valley in order to free up water for farmers. Executive Order; Interior Department | Read more » 60. Overturned a ban on the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands. Interior Department 61. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. Congress 62. Amended fishing regulations to loosen restrictions on the harvest of a number of species. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 63. Proposed revising limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that can be unintentionally killed or injured with sword-fishing nets on the West Coast. (The Obama-era rules were initially withdrawn by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but were later finalized following a court order. The agency has said it plans to revise the limits.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 64. Loosened fishing restrictions intended to reduce bycatch of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 65. Rolled back a roughly 40-year-old interpretation of a policy aimed at protecting migratory birds, potentially running afoul of treaties with Canada and Mexico. Interior Department 66. Overturned a ban on using parts of migratory birds in handicrafts made by Alaskan Natives. Interior Department In Progress 67. Opened nine million acres of Western land to oil and gas drilling by weakening habitat protections for the sage grouse, an imperiled bird. An Idaho District Court injunction temporarily blocked the measure. Interior Department 68. Proposed ending an Obama-era rule that barred using bait to lure and kill grizzly bears, among other sport hunting practices that many people consider extreme, on some public lands in Alaska. National Park Service; Interior Department | Read more » ------------------------------------ •Toxic substances and safety Completed 69. Rejected a proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to developmental disabilities in children. (Several states have banned its use and the main manufacturer of the pesticide in 2020 stopped producing the product because of shrinking demand.) E.P.A. 70. Narrowed the scope of a 2016 law mandating safety assessments for potentially toxic chemicals like dry-cleaning solvents. The E.P.A. said it would focus on direct exposure and exclude indirect exposure such as from air or water contamination. In November, a court of appeals ruled the agency must widen its scope to consider full exposure risks. E.P.A. 71. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for “high hazard” trains hauling flammable liquids like oil and ethanol. Transportation Department 72. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct comprised of heavy metals, from the “hazardous waste” list. E.P.A. 73. Ended an Occupational Safety and Health Administration program to reduce risks of workers developing the lung disease silicosis. In February released guidance to include silica in OSHA's National Emphasis Program, a worker safety program. Labor Department 74. Rolled back most of the requirements of a 2017 rule aimed at improving safety at sites that use hazardous chemicals that was instituted after a chemical plant exploded in Texas. E.P.A. In progress 75. Proposed changing safety rules to allow for rail transport of the highly flammable liquefied natural gas. Transportation Department | Read more » 76. Announced a review of an Obama-era rule lowering coal dust limits in mines. The head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration said there were no immediate plans to change the dust limit but has extended a public comment period until 2022. Labor Department ------------------------------------ •Water Pollution Completed 77. Scaled back pollution protections for certain tributaries and wetlands that were regulated under the Clean Water Act by the Obama administration. E.P.A.; Army 78. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams. Congress 79. Withdrew a proposed rule aimed at reducing pollutants, including air pollution, at sewage treatment plants. E.P.A. 80. Withdrew a proposed rule requiring groundwater protections for certain uranium mines. Recently, the administration’s Nuclear Fuel Working Group proposed opening up 1,500 acres outside the Grand Canyon to nuclear production. E.P.A. In progress 81. Attempted to weaken federal rules regulating the disposal and storage of coal ash waste from power plants, but a court determined the rules were already insufficient. Proposed a new rule to allow coal ash impoundments of a type previously deemed unsafe a pathway to proving safety. E.P.A. 82. Proposed a rule exempting certain types of power plants from parts of an E.P.A. rule limiting toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways. E.P.A. 83. Proposed weakenning a portion of the Clean Water Act to make it easier for the E.P.A. to issue permits for federal projects over state objections if the projects don't meet local water quality standards, including for pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities. Executive Order; E.P.A. 84. Proposed extending the lifespan of unlined coal ash holding areas, which can spill their contents because they lack a protective underlay. E.P.A. 85. Proposed a regulation limiting the scope of an Obama-era rule under which companies had to prove that large deposits of recycled coal ash would not harm the environment. E.P.A. 86. Proposed a new rule allowing the federal government to issue permits for coal ash waste in Indian Country and some states without review if the disposal site is in compliance with federal regulations. E.P.A. | Read more » 87. Proposed doubling the time allowed to remove lead pipes from water systems with high levels of lead. E.P.A. ------------------------------------ •Other Completed 88. Repealed an Obama-era regulation that would have nearly doubled the number of light bulbs subject to energy-efficiency standards starting in January 2020. The E.P.A. also blocked the next phase of efficiency standards for general-purpose bulbs already subject to regulation. Energy Department 89. Changed a 25-year-old policy to allow coastal replenishment projects to use sand from protected ecosystems. Interior Department 90. Limited funding of environmental and community development projects through corporate settlements of federal lawsuits. Justice Department 91. Stopped payments to the Green Climate Fund, a United Nations program to help poorer countries reduce carbon emissions. Executive Order 92. Reversed restrictions on the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks desgined to cut down on litter, despite a Park Service report that the effort worked. Interior Department In progress 93. Proposed a sweeping overhaul of the National Environmental Policy Act that would limit the scope of environmental concerns federal agencies need to take into account when constructing public infrastructure projects, such as roads, pipelines and telecommunications networks. Council on Environmental Quality 94. Proposed limiting the studies used by the E.P.A. for rulemaking to only those that make data publicly available. (Scientists widely criticized the proposal, saying it would effectively block the agency from considering landmark research that relies on confidential health data.) E.P.A. 95. Proposed changes to the way cost-benefit analyses are conducted under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes. E.P.A. 96. Proposed withdrawing efficiency standards for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters designed to reduce energy use. Energy Department 97. Created a product category that would allow some dishwashers to be exempt from energy efficiency standards. Energy Department 98. Initially withdrew, and then delayed, a proposed rule that would inform car owners about fuel-efficient replacement tires. (The Transportation Department has scheduled a new rulemaking notice for 2020.) Transportation Department
Hey all, My landlord keeps forcing rules on me. Eg, make sure to make my bed every morning or open the windows so the plants can breathe. I never asked for plants at my place but she enters my room and keeps them there anyways. She gets angry if I don't clean my own room which I am renting. I put some scallions for them to grow and me to consume and she gets angry cause it isn't "womanly". She even hired someone to look at me during weekends cause she doesn't trust me. What can I do about this? I live with her and don't have a lock on my door. I did sign a contract where she gets authority to enter my room. However, she keeps making rules or making me do stuff. I don't wish to do so. What can I do about this? I have to live with her because I've paid a lot of money for deposit (1000$) and last month (1100$). State: Washington, Eastside My contract: 1.Delivery of Possession. Lessor shall deliver possession of the demised premises to Lessee on the date hereinabove mentioned as the date on which this lease has commenced. 2.Rent. Lessee agrees to pay, without demand, to Lessor as rent for the demised premises the sum of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00) per month in advance on the 1st day of each calendar month beginning September 1st, 2016 through December 31st, 2016. Last month’s rent deposit of One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00) is due on September 1st, 2016. Rent shall be paid to the address shown at below or at such other place as Lessor may designate. 3.Form of Payment. Lessee agrees to pay rent each month in the form of one personal check, OR one cashier’s check, OR cash. 4.Late Payments. For any rent payment not made by the date due, Lessee shall pay a late fee in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100). Rent is late after the 1st day of the month and lessor has the right to serve immediate eviction notice if rent is past due. 5.Returned Checks. If, for any reason, a check used by Lessee to pay Lessor is returned without having been paid, Lessee shall pay a charge of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) as additional rent AND take whatever other consequences there might be in making a late payment. After the second time a Lessee’s check is returned, Lessee must thereafter secure a cashier’s check or money order for payment of rent. 6.Security Deposit. On execution of this lease, Lessee deposits with Lessor One Thousand Dollars ($1000.00) of which Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($850.00) is refundable, receipt of which is acknowledged by Lessor, as security for the faithful performance by Lessee of the terms hereof. This amount shall be deposited by the Landlord in a trust account, maintained by the Landlord for the purpose of holding such security deposits for tenants of the Landlord, in an accredited financial institution or licensed escrow agent located in Washington state. At the commencement of this lease, Lessor shall give Lessee a written checklist or statement specifically describing the condition and cleanliness of, and existing damages to the demised premises and furnishings, including, but not limited to, walls, floors, countertops, carpets, drapes, furniture, and appliances. The checklist or statement shall be signed and dated by Lessor and Lessee, and Lessee shall be provided with a copy of the same. Within fourteen (14) days of the termination of this lease and vacation of demised premises by Lessee, Lessor shall give a full and specific statement of the basis for retaining any of the deposit, together with the payment of any refund due to Lessee under the terms and conditions of this lease, after deducting amounts permitted by law, and shall mail or deliver the same to Lessee at the address furnished by Lessee. 7.Quiet Enjoyment. Lessor covenants that on paying the rent and performing the covenants herein contained, Lessee shall peacefully and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the demised premises for the agreed term. 8.Use of Premises. The demised premises shall be used and occupied by Lessee exclusively as a private single person residence, and neither the demised premises nor any part thereof shall be used at any time during the term of this lease by Lessee for carrying on any business, profession, or trade of any kind, or for any purpose other than as a private single person residence. Lessee shall comply with all the sanitary laws, ordinances, rules, and orders of appropriate governmental authorities affecting the cleanliness, occupancy, and preservation of the demised premises, and the sidewalks connected thereto, during the term of this lease. Lessee shall not intentionally or negligently destroy, deface damage, impair, or remove any part of the structure or demised premises, or the appurtenances thereto, or permit any member of Lessee's family, invitee, licensee, or any person acting under Lessee's control to do so. 9.Number of Occupants. Lessee agrees that the demised premises shall not be occupied by more than 1 person, consisting of 1 adult and 0 children under the age of N/A years, without the written consent of Lessor. 10.Smoking. : Lessee agrees that NO SMOKING or any odor substance will be permitted on the premises at any time without the written consent of the lessor. Any violation of this will result in a fine and immediate eviction if necessary. 11.Condition of Premises. Lessee has examined the demised premises, including the grounds and all buildings and improvements, and stipulates that they are, at the time of this lease, in good order, repair, and in safe, clean, and tenantable condition, except for those mentioned in the checklist earlier (if any). 12.Door Code. Lessee shall be given a personalized door code to the demised premises, 1mailbox, key[s]. 13.Locks. Lessee agrees not to change locks on any door or mailbox without first obtaining Lessor’s written permission. Having obtained written permission, Lessee agrees to pay for changing the locks and to provide Lessor with one duplicate key per lock. 14.Lockout. If Lessee becomes locked out of the demised premises after management’s regular stated business hours, Lessee shall be required to secure a private locksmith to regain entry at Lessee’s sole expense. 15.Parking. One (1) parking spot is reserved for Lessee. The reserved spot is marked one hundred seven (107) and is at owner’s risk. No bailment or bailee custody is intended. Lessor is not responsible for, nor does Lessor assume any liability for damages caused by fire, theft, casualty or any other cause whatsoever with respect to any car or its contents. Snow removal is the responsibility of the car owner. 16.Assignment and Subletting. Without the prior written consent of Lessor, Lessee shall not assign this lease, or sublet or grant any concession or license to use the demised premises or any part thereof. A consent by Lessor to one assignment, subletting, concession, or license shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, concession, or license. An assignment, subletting, concession, or license without the prior written consent of Lessor, or an assignment or subletting by operation of law, shall be void and shall, at Lessor’s option, terminate this lease. 17.Alterations and Improvements. Lessee shall make no alterations to the buildings on the demised premises or construct any building or make other improvements on the demised premises without the prior written consent of Lessor. All alterations, changes, and improvements built, constructed, or placed on the demised premises by Lessee, shall, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between Lessor and Lessee, be the property of Lessor and shall remain on the demised premises at the expiration or earlier termination of this lease. 18.Damage to Premises. Lessee shall give Lessor immediate notice in case of fire or other damage to the demised premises or any part thereof. If such damage is not due to Lessee’s negligence or willful act or that of Lessee’s employee, family, agent, or visitor, the demised premises shall be promptly repaired by Lessor and there shall be an abatement of rent corresponding with the time during which, and the extent to which, the demised premises may have been un-tenantable; but, if the demised premises should be damaged other than by Lessee’s negligence or willful act or that of Lessee’s employee, family, agent, or visitor, to the extent that Lessor shall decide not to rebuild or repair, the term of this lease shall end and the rent shall be prorated up to the time of the damage. 19.Dangerous Materials. Lessee shall not keep or have on the demised premises any article or thing of a dangerous, inflammable, or explosive character that might unreasonably increase the danger of fire on the demised premises or that might be considered hazardous or extra hazardous by any responsible insurance company. 20.Utilities. Utilities are included in the rent each month. 21.Maintenance and Repair. Lessee shall, at Lessee’s sole expense, keep and maintain the demised premises and appurtenances in a good and sanitary condition and repair during the term of this lease and any renewal thereof. In particular, Lessee shall keep the fixtures in the house, or on or about the demised premises, in good order and repair; keep the furnace clean; keep the electric bells in order; keep the walks free from dirt and debris; and, at Lessee’s sole expense, shall make all required repairs to the plumbing, range, heating, apparatus, and electric fixtures whenever damage thereto shall have resulted from Lessee’s misuse, waste, or neglect or that of Lessee’s employee, family, agent, or visitor. Major maintenance and repair of the demised premises, not due to Lessee’s misuse, waste, or neglect or that of Lessee’s employee, family, agent, or visitor, shall be the responsibility of Lessor. Lessee agrees that no signs shall be placed or painting done on or about the demised premises by Lessee or at Lessee’s direction without the prior written consent of Lessor. Lessor shall not be liable for any hazards resulting out of Lessee’s willful acts or negligence. 22.Painting. Lessor reserves the right to determine when the demised premises shall be painted, unless there is any law to the contrary. 23.Insurance. Lessor has obtained insurance to cover fire damage to the building itself and liability insurance to cover certain personal injuries occurring as a result of property defects or Lessor’s negligence. Lessor’s insurance does not cover Lessee’s possessions or Lessee’s negligence. Lessee should obtain a lessee’s insurance policy to cover damage or loss of personal possessions, as well as losses resulting from Lessee’s negligence. 24.Condominiums. To the extent that this lease applies to condominiums, Lessee acknowledges that the demised premises is part of a condominium unit, and therefore Lessee’s use and occupancy of the demised premises is subject at all times to the terms of provisions, covenants and restrictions of the declaration of the condominium ownership covering the building and all applicable rules, regulations and by-laws of the condominium association as amended or added to from time to time (collectively “Condominium Documents”), copies of which have been provided to Lessee. The failure of Lessee to perform or observe any of the duties and obligations applicable to Lessee under the Condominium Documents shall constitute a default under this lease. Lessee shall indemnify Lessor and hold Lessor harmless from any damages, direct or indirect, as a result of such non-performance by Lessee. 25.Pets. Pets shall not be allowed on the premises by the Lessee. The Lessee agrees to live with two (2) cats owned by the Lessor. 26.Right of Inspection. Lessor and Lessor’s agents shall have the right at all reasonable times during the term of this lease and any renewal thereof to enter the demised premises for the purpose of inspecting the demised premises and all building and improvements thereon. 27.Display of Signs. During the last 30 days of this lease, Lessor or Lessor’s shall have the privilege of displaying the usual “For Sale,” or “For Rent,” or “Vacancy” signs on the demised premises and of showing the property to prospective purchasers, lessees, tenants or mortgagees during reasonable hours. 28.Rules and Regulations. Lessor’s existing rules and regulations, if any, shall be signed by Lessee, attached to this agreement and incorporated into it. Lessor may adopt other rules and regulations at a later time provided that they have a legitimate purpose, do not modify Lessee’s rights substantially and do not become effective without notice of at least thirty (30) days. 29.Subordination of Lease. This lease and Lessee’s leasehold interest hereunder are and shall be subject, subordinate, and inferior to any liens or encumbrances now or hereafter placed on the demised premises by Lessor, all advances made under any such liens or encumbrances, the interest payable on any such liens or encumbrances, and any and all renewals or extensions of such liens or encumbrances. 30.Holdover by Lessee. This lease shall be deemed expired at the end of the term specified in this lease and should Lessee remain in possession of the demised premises with the consent of Lessor after the natural expiration of this lease, a new month-to-month tenancy shall be created between Lessor and Lessee which shall be subject to all the terms and conditions hereof but shall be terminated on 30 days’ written notice served by either Lessor or Lessee on the other party. 31.Surrender of Premises. At the expiration of the lease term, Lessee shall quit and surrender the demised premises in as good state and condition as it was at the commencement of this lease, reasonable use and wear thereof and damages by the elements excepted. 32.Default. If any default is made in the payment of rent, or any part thereof, at the times hereinbefore specified, or if any default is made in the performance of or compliance with any other term or condition hereof, this lease, at the option of Lessor and to the extent permitted by law, shall terminate and be forfeited, and Lessor may re-enter the demised premises and remove all persons therefrom to the extent permitted by law. 33.Abandonment. If at any time during the term of this lease, Lessee abandons the demised premises or any part thereof, Lessor may, at Lessor’s option, enter the demised premises by any means without being liable for any prosecution therefor, and without becoming liable to Lessee for damages or for any payment of any kind whatever, and may, at Lessor’s discretion, as the agent of Lessee, re-let the demised premises, or any part thereof, for the whole or any part of the then unexpired term, and may receive and collect all rent payable by virtue of such re-letting, and, at Lessor’s option, may hold Lessee liable for any difference between the rent that would have been payable under this lease during the balance of the unexpired term, if this lease had continued in force, and the net rent for such period realized by Lessor by means of such re-letting. If Lessor’s right of re-entry is exercised following abandonment of the demised premises by Lessee, then Lessor may consider any personal property belonging to Lessee and left on the demised premises to also have been abandoned, in which case Lessor may dispose of all such personal property in any manner Lessor shall deem proper and is hereby relieved of all liability for doing so. 34.Binding Effect. The covenants and conditions herein contained shall apply to and bind the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of the parties hereto, and all covenants are to be construed as conditions of this lease. 35.Other Disclosures (if any). Parking Includes One (1) outdoor reserved open space marked one hundred seven (107). A maximum of 2 automobiles per condominium are allowed. Lessor, under no circumstances, is liable for damage to automobiles or property therin. Visitors must park on the street, or in marked Visitor spots. 36.Severability. If any portion of this lease shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds that any provision of this lease is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become valid and enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written, construed and enforced as so limited. 37.Entire Agreement. Lessee has read this lease. All promises made by Lessor and all agreements between Lessor and Lessee are contained in this lease. This lease may be amended only by a written amendment signed by both parties. 38.Liability. Lessor shall not be liable for any loss, expense or damage to any person or property, unless it is due to Lessor’s negligence. Lessee is responsible for all acts or negligence of Lessee’s family, employees, guests or invitees. 39.Ordinances and Statutes. Lessee shall comply with all statutes, ordinances and requirements of all municipal, state and federal authorities now in force, and which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the use of the demised premises. 40.Notices. All notices pursuant to this agreement shall be in writing. 41.Paragraph Headings. The paragraph headings are for convenience only. 42.Choice of Law. This lease shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and all disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of Washington. 43.Disclosure on Fire and Safety. Lessor shall provide a written notice, as required by law, to Lessee disclosing fire safety and protection information. RULES I AGREED TO: (I am okay with these rules but not the fact I cannot enjoy my own room) Please take your shoes off at the front door. 2.) Dishes on the dry rack must be put away after drying. Do not let them accumulate. 3.) Use a chopping block. Do not use the counter to cut on. 4.) Keep the fridge clean. Throw away any spoiled foods. 5.) Take out the trash and recycle three times a week. On Sunday’s, Friday’s, and Wednesday’s (or as needed). Replace garbage bag liner and recycle bag under sink. 6.) Squeegie shower after showering. 7.) Wash sheets and towels once a week.
Stock up on snacks and practice your fake calling-out-of-work cough: Public impeachment hearings will begin next week. (Unless your job is televising the impeachment hearings, in which case, please go to work, we need this.)
House intelligence committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced the schedule earlier today: Bill Taylor, the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent will testify Wednesday. Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday.
The House intelligence committee also released the transcript of Taylor’s closed-door deposition. Taylor described the President’s extortion scheme in damning terms: “That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation" of Trump’s political enemies.
How’s the new Republican defense shaping up?
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham claimed last night that the newly released transcripts show “that [the president] did nothing wrong and there was no quid pro quo.” Some GOP senators have been shifting away from the “no quid pro quo” line, in light of senior officials admitting that there was for sure a quid pro quo, but the White House is bravely standing by its old friend, outright lies.
House Republicans may add Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to the House Intelligence Committee. Jordan is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, and an ardent Trump defender. Note: It’s basically unheard of for parties to shuffle committee members around like this, especially on the intelligence committee, which is meant to be the least partisan committee in the House.
Bottom line: Republicans remain in disarray, and they won’t have an easier time getting it together after the hearings begin. Check out today’s impeachment Q&A livestream for a deeper look at the latest developments, and their significance.
Look No Further Than The Crooked Media
The Flint Water Crisis dominated national headlines when it came to light in 2016 and focused national attention on the hazards of lead poisoning. Newark, NJ faces a similar crisis today. But Flint and Newark are only the tip of the iceberg of an epidemic of lead poisoning facing urban communities across the country. This week on America Dissected, host Dr. Abdul El-Sayed visits Flint to speak with Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician and researcher who uncovered the Water Crisis to understand how Flint’s history shaped the government failures that led to the crisis—and how distrust can devastate public health for poor, marginalized communities all across the United States.
Be Smarter
Congratulations to everyone who voted, canvassed, donated, and made phone calls: Democrats pulled off major victories in yesterday’s elections. Here are the biggest takeaways: Democrat Andy Beshear won the Kentucky’s governor race, defeating incumbent Gov. Matt Bevin (R-KY). That’s a rough outcome for President Trump, who threw his weight behind the deeply unpopular Bevin, and told voters that a loss would reflect poorly on him personally. Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement that, “The President just about dragged Gov. Matt Bevin across the finish line,” a sentence that’s like an optical illusion: somehow every side of it is the most humiliating. Bevin has requested a recanvass of the vote, and Republicans in the state legislature have floated the possibility of trying to overturn the results, because that’s how Republicans roll these days. Yesterday’s election may have reminded you of one other widely detested Kentuckian who’s up for reelection soon. It’s an absolutely beautiful day to Get Mitch → Virginia Democrats won control of both the House of Delegates and State Senate, consolidating control of the state’s government for the first time since 1994. This means they can now pass gun control legislation, implement a $15 minimum wage, and finally pass the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Some particularly satisfying wins include:
Juli Briskman, whose bosses fired her after she flipped off Trump’s motorcade near his golf course, was elected to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, where she will oversee that very Trump golf course.
Shelly Simonds, who lost a 2017 delegate race that came down to a random drawing of a name from a bowl, handily beat the Republican incumbent under the state's new, fairer maps.
New York City passed a ballot measure to adopt rank-choice voting, which helps assure that candidates with the most overall support win. A cool night for democracy all around.
A new Trump administration rule would allow foster-care agencies to turn away prospective parents because they are gay or trans. The rule would remove the language protecting LBGTQ people from discrimination in programs funded by Department of Health and Human Services grants, and is broad enough to allow programs to discriminate more widely on the basis of religion. If implemented, foster care agencies could turn down prospective parents who are gay, trans, or not Christian, as well as refuse to take in LGBTQ youth. LGBTQ parents and prospective parents are likelier to adopt or foster children than heterosexual parents. There are 400,000 children in the U.S. foster care system, and the proposed change could keep many of them from finding permanent homes.
What A Sponsor!
Former Under Armour Execs are making the best jeans of 2019. How? by using a proprietary fabric consisting of Italian milled denim infused with the same stuff used in football uniforms and yoga pants. Our athletic stretch denim keeps up with you on-the-go from the office, to the bar, and everywhere in between. The kicker? By dealing directly with the customer you can get your hands on these jeans for a killer price.
Is That Hope I Feel?
In relieving contrast to that last item, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration “conscience rule” that would allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide care for religious reasons. The rule, which was set to take effect later this month, would have allowed providers to refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations, and other necessary medical procedures on religious or moral grounds. New York Attorney General Letitia James argued that it illegally put the personal views of health-care workers above the needs of patients, and could make state-run health facilities unable to provide effective care. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan declared the rule unconstitutional.
Canada violated international law when it dumped more than 100 shipping containers of garbage disguised as plastics in the Philippines
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot)
Canada broke international rules when it dumped more than 100 shipping containers of garbage disguised as plastics for recycling into the Philippines six years ago, a Victoria-based environmental law firm says. The containers should have been shipped back to Canada within 30 days of the Canadian government being made aware of them under the convention, Ho said. Canada's failure to take responsibility for the waste is another violation of the convention, Ho said, noting the law forbids the country of origin from transferring the obligation to properly manage the hazardous waste to the country importing it. Canada amended the regulations in 2016 so that now it applies the convention as long as the country receiving the goods believes they are hazardous, even if Canada does not. Ca, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and the EcoWaste Coalition in the Philippines, sent the legal opinion to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this week and urged him to finally order his officials to bring the containers back to Canada for disposal. Caroline Theriault, director of communications for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, said Wednesday that Canada is aware of the 2016 court decision and "Is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue."
Canada violated international law by dumping garbage in the Philippines: lawyers
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 63%. (I'm a bot)
Canada broke international rules when it dumped more than 100 shipping containers of garbage disguised as plastics for recycling into the Philippines six years ago, a Victoria-based environmental law firm says. The containers should have been shipped back to Canada within 30 days of the Canadian government being made aware of them under the convention, Ho said. Canada's failure to take responsibility for the waste is another violation of the convention, Ho said, noting the law forbids the country of origin from transferring the obligation to properly manage the hazardous waste to the country importing it. Canada amended the regulations in 2016 so that now it applies the convention as long as the country receiving the goods believes they are hazardous, even if Canada does not. Ca, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and the EcoWaste Coalition in the Philippines, sent the legal opinion to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau this week and urged him to finally order his officials to bring the containers back to Canada for disposal. Caroline Theriault, director of communications for Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, said Wednesday that Canada is aware of the 2016 court decision and "Is strongly committed to collaborating with the Philippines government to resolve this issue."
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Topkeywords: Canada#1Convention#2waste#3Philippines#4containers#5 Post found in /worldnews and /JustBadNews. NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco. They contain nicotine, a chemical derived from tobacco and other plants.
Plain English was never a deterrent, though, to regulators on an empire-expanding mission. The Food and Drug Administration this week rolled out new regulations on e-cigarettes based on a 2009 law giving the agency power over products that “contain tobacco.”
That law, we’re duty-bound to add, was practically written by Philip Morris (now called Altria).
Plain English also does not authorize inclusion of e-cigarettes under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the deal struck between the cigarette industry and 46 states that settled a bunch of lawsuits by imposing a government-run cartel to jack up the price of cigarettes (in the name of curbing consumption, naturally) and distribute the excess profits to the states and a handful of now-plutocrat trial lawyers.
To this day, e-cigarettes enjoy a considerable retail price advantage over products covered by the MSA. If you don’t think this fact plays a role in the move to regulate e-cigarettes, Donald Trump has some inaugural ball tickets to sell you.
Lovers of freedom and enemies of regulatory overkill do not exaggerate when they say FDA rules are designed to murder numerous small manufacturers and thousands of “vape” shops that account for about half the electronic-cigarette business.
E-cigarettes, let’s remember, operate by heating a solution containing nicotine, rather than burning tobacco. These small operators are unlikely to afford the estimated million-dollar cost of submitting each and every existing product and product variation for retroactive consideration by the FDA, as required by the law. Their trade group, the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, estimates that 99% of existing products therefore will exit the market during the two-year phase-in of the prohibitory new rules.
While government is laying waste to this small-business sector, expect to hear a great deal about how e-cigarettes represent unknown dangers, how they induce youngsters to smoke who wouldn’t otherwise smoke, how they aren’t really useful for smokers trying to quit or curb their usage.
As the redoubtable Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine puts it, “The FDA’s regulatory scheme, in other words, privileges the most dangerous nicotine delivery devices (conventional cigarettes) while threatening to eliminate much safer alternatives and blocking the introduction of even better products.”
In time, what remains of the market will be consolidated in the hands of Big Tobacco companies that already dabble in e-cigarettes, i.e., Altria and Reynolds. Then expect to hear more about the benefits of e-cigs: a British study finds them 95% safer than traditional smokes; their market consists largely of smokers trying to cut down their risks.
At this point, unless we miss our guess, loud will become talk of the need to “level the playing field” with the MSA-covered brands—i.e., to bring e-cigs under the government-sponsored cartel (in the name of suppressing nicotine addiction of course) before they undercut the states’ $23 billion annual haul from Marlboro, Winston, Newport, etc.
All this will serve what purpose? To placate anti-smoking groups that have already shown themselves willing to be satisfied with “victories” over Big Tobacco that amount to big wet kisses to Big Tobacco? To assuage the need of politicians to pose as enemies of smoking while simultaneously receiving most of the profits of smoking?
Unasked will be the question: Has our nicotine prohibition gone too far now that we are trying to ban products that never caused the health problems that prompted the original smoking crackdown? Nicotine is not alcohol or even pot, which is legal in many places. Nicotine is more like caffeine or aspirin—an excellent drug, with few serious side effects (though mildly addictive) and many fine properties: It relieves bad feelings, improves concentration, calms the nerves.
Is the real problem here that many organized activists have made careers out of opposing smoking (or redistributing the revenues of smoking)? To desist would be to deprive themselves of a leverage point that can continue to pay personal and political dividends. Like an army formed to oppose a real enemy, when the war is over, instead of disbanding, it turns to plundering the people it was supposed to protect.
In the latest issue of the Yale Journal of Regulation, Case Western’s Jonathan Adler and several co-authors describe the e-cig fight in terms of classic “Baptist” and “bootlegger” coalition, in which do-gooders and self-interested parties cooperate to impose regulation that mostly benefits the self-interested parties—in this case, Big Tobacco.
Their theory perhaps needs to be updated for when the do-gooders degenerate into do-gooders manqué, existing only to prettify the market manipulations that politicians undertake on behalf of big business. What’s more, if you don’t think such activities play a role in the U.S. economy’s poor performance in recent years, Hillary Clinton has an entire economic agenda to sell you.”
After lobbying Congress since 2002 to enact the TCA to ban new low risk smokefree tobacco products and require FDA approval of expensive PMTAs, and after lobbying FDA since 2010 to impose the Deeming Regulation, Altria now claims “FDA’s proposed pathways to bringing new products to market may hinder rather than support innovation, leading to the reverse of Congress’ intention. In some ways, FDA’s proposed pathways subject innovative new products to a more strict approach than cigarettes.” http://www.richmond.com/opinion/their-opinion/guest-columnists/article_d8ddb511-ab86-564c-8534-3acd01fb11fa.html
Former US SG Antonia Novella praises FDA’s Vapor Deeming Ban, falsely insinuates vaping causes cancer, falsely claims nicotine “substantially harms your blood vessels, heart, and lungs,” falsely claims “many experts fear e-cigarettes may represent a gateway to the use of traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products,” and “if we are going to continue the quest to lower tobacco usage in adolescents, then we must curtail the use of e-cigarettes as well.” http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-fda-cut-through-smokeless-screen-front-burner-08172016-20160817-story.html
Obama’s Military War on Vaping
US Navy report urges banning lifesaving vapor products, calls vaping an “unacceptable risk to Navy personnel, facilities, submarines, ships, vessels and aircraft”, cites a dozen e-cig battery explosions, fails to cite any health benefits for smokers who switch to vaping. https://www.navytimes.com/articles/navy-weighs-e-cigarette-ban-amid-safety-concerns
Sacramento Bee claims ad by anti vaping groups advocating Prop 56 to tax tobacco/vapor products is mostly accurate, but ad deceitfully conflates deadly cigarettes with all other tobacco products (including lifesaving vapor products), falsely insinuates that vaping imposes healthcare costs on taxpayers and that taxing it is a “user fee” http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/california-elections/poligraph/article96051702.html
2013 study found a higher percentage of people in the UK (58%) correctly believed e-cigs are a lot less harmful than cigarettes than in Australia (35%), where nicotine containing e-cigs were banned in 2008 and have been demonized by health agencies. http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/08/08/ntr.ntw137.full
John Kiernan invites comments on health benefits/risks of vaping from 21 so-called experts, but only 8 of them (Jed Rose, Brad Rodu, Riccardo Polosa, Jason Downing, Brian Carter, Jonathan Foulds, Jeff Stier, Peter Killeen) consistently presented accurate and objective information. In sharp contrast, 9 of the so-called experts (Robert Tarran, Laura Crotty Alexander, Robert Jackler, Lena Matthias, Larry Cohen, Larry Williams, Matt Myers, Aruni Bhatgagar, Laurent Huber) protected cigarettes by grossly misrepresenting the evidence on vaping and/or by advocating anti vaping policies. https://wallethub.com/blog/is-vaping-bad-for-you/23907/#
FDA’s “The Facts on the FDA’s New Tobacco Rule” repeats false and misleading claims about health risks of vapor products, fails to acknowledge the rule bans the sale of all vapor product sales to adults and destroys 10,000 small vapor businesses, touts Big Pharma drugs as the only effective way to quit smoking, falsely claims purpose of rule is to protect children and public health. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm506676.htm
CDC advocates smokeless tobacco usage bans by deceitfully conflating very low risk smokeless tobacco with deadly cigarettes, criticizing smokeless tobacco companies because sports or sporting events accounted for .4% of smokeless tobacco industry advertising/promotional expenditures in 2013, promotes WHO policy to ban all tobacco advertising (in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution), claims athletes who use smokeless tobacco at sporting events are “unpaid advertisements”. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwvolumes/65/wmm6532a3.htm#T1_down
Big Pharma & DHHS funded NRT hawk Michael Fiore deceitfully praises Obama Administration for huge decline in cigarette smoking (that was largely due to vaping) and to “tobacco-control interventions at the federal, state, nonprofit, and private-sector levels”, the TCA, ACA, AARA, HITECHA and Obama DHHS appointees Corr, Frieden, Zeller and Koh (who lobbied FDA to ban e-cigs since 2009 and lobbied for vaping bans by lying about the lifesaving products) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1607850#t=articlehttp://www.ctri.wisc.edu/NEJM-Smoking-Decline-Obama.htm
Big Pharma funded CTFK’s Matt Myers (who has lobbied FDA to ban vapor products since 2009) touts Fiore’s praising of Obama Administration for cigarette smoking decline (that was primarily due to vaping), which Obama’s FDA unlawfully banned e-cigs in 2009 and has falsely claimed (since then) that e-cigs are target marketed to youth, are addicting nonsmoking teens, may be as harmful as cigarettes to users and nonusers, and haven’t helped smokers quit smoking. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/2016_08_17_nejm
CDC finds trace levels of caffeine in some coffee flavored e-liquids, warns about unknowns to confuse and scare, fails to compare to far more harmful cigarette smoke, promotes state/local laws banning and testing for traces of caffeine in vapor products. http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/08/12/ntr.ntw192.abstract?papetoc
NCI awards $20.1 million to ITC project (including $8.8 million to Geoff Fong) to misrepresent scientific evidence on vaping and anti-vaping laws; OICR’s press release announcing Fong’s grant inaccurately called vaping “smoking e-cigarettes” (which was changed to “using e-cigarettes” after criticism), claims e-cigs “may” be less harmful than cigarettes and help smokers quit smoking (despite clear evidence vaping is far less harmful than smoking and has helped millions of smokers quit), and “may expose nonusers to nicotine consumption, which could lead to tobacco use” (despite no evidence of that occurring after seven years and thousands of the same fear mongering allegations) https://news.oicr.on.ca/2016/08/oicrs-geoff-fong-receives-major-funding-to-examine-e-cigarettes-and-the-impact-of-public-health-policy/
Regulator Watch: Reasoned Research – $8.8 Million E-cig Study Explained (NCI funded ITC study to tout FDA vapovaping prohibition policies as scientifically sound, as no one else funded by DHHS has criticized FDA’s vapor bans and anti-vaping propaganda) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-wvfSd3CE4&feature=youtu.be
Big Pharma funded AAP (which has lied about and lobbied to ban e-cigs since 2009) activist Rachel Dawkins and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital protect cigarettes, commit public health malpractice by claiming “Parents should also consider vaping just as dangerous as smoking cigarettes when talking to their teens,” and by making many other false and misleading fear mongering claims about vaping https://www.hopkinsallchildrens.org/ach-news/general-news/the-dangers-of-e-cigarettes?
Utah Hospital Association CEO Greg Bell falsely claims “one still ingests plenty of harmful chemicals by vaping”, claims “e-cigs may be a gateway to cigarettes” by citing a study that found no evidence e-cigs are gateways to cigarettes, lobbies for vapor taxes (all of which protect the financial interests of the healthcare industry that relies on increasing revenue from treating sick smokers, now costing $200 Billion/year in the US). http://beta.deseretnews.com/article/865660504/If-tobacco-were-new-wed-never-let-it-be-sold.html
Royal College of Medicine invites Snus and Vapor prohibitionists and propagandists Simon Chapman and Martin McKee to lie about THR, vaping, tobacco companies, etc. at intollerent and nonsensical prohibition (i.e. end-game) conference Sept 16 in London. https://www.rsm.ac.uk/events/epg03?utm
JAMA Internal Medicine promotes Finnish study finding some Fins living closer to a tobacco retailer were slightly less likely to quit smoking (than other Fins living further from a retailer), activist authors propose reducing number of retailers (based on one study finding a slight association, but nothing causal) http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2543750
JAMA Vaping prohibitionist and drink tax activist Thomas Farley (who is now Philadelphia Health Cmsnr) advocates tobacco retailer and flavoring bans, unconstitutional tobacco advertising and display bans, unconstitutional plain packaging laws; falsely accuses tobacco industry of target marketing to youth http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2543746
The only solution to the post-Brexit Irish border is Chapter 3 (Article 21), Protocol 10 and Protocol 11 of the EEA Agreement
@http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86807 If the increasingly impotent politicians wanted any guidance as to how to deal with the nightmare of a post-Brexit Irish border, all they have to do is look at the EEA Agreement. Right from day one, this has been staring them in the face. (http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf) In particular, they should be looking at Chapter 3 (Article 21) and then Protocol 10 on the simplification of border controls and formalities, and Protocol 11 on mutual assistance in customs matters. (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol10.pdf) and (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol11.pdf) As one might imagine, though, these are the provisions which form the regulatory basis for trade between Norway and Sweden, a border which is relatively free-flowing but not entirely frictionless. Truckers can find that clearance during busy periods can take as long as an hour and a half to get their loads cleared. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561) As a result, numerous voices have argued that, for all its advantages, the so-called "Norway option" would not provide an entirely adequate solution for a border-free Ireland. But what the pundits fail almost completely to understand are two things. Firstly, the nature of the EEA agreement is that it is infinitely flexible. Neither the Agreement nor the Protocols set out the finite details of the arrangements and such as are agreed can be changed through established mechanisms via the EEA Joint Committee. These changes can be introduced either as specific amendments to the EEA Agreement of via EEA relevant legislation promulgated by the EU and adopted into the EEA acquis. There is no technical limit to the number of changes, nor the frequency, permitting a process on ongoing development. Secondly, and having regard to the first point, the Norwegian land border with Sweden – which has been continually under scrutiny as the possible model – is considered to be unfinished business. With technological and procedural enhancements planned over the next ten years, the movement of goods is expected to be even smoother than it is at present. Many of the limitations on freedom arise from policy differences between Norway and the EU, and especially in relation to VAT, duties on alcohol, tobacco and vehicles, and from minor differences in the rules relating to the import of medicines, waste , explosives, fireworks and hazardous substances. However, with online registration of controlled imports, with prior issue of transit permits, it is anticipated that as much as vehicle traffic through existing customs posts will be reduced by as much as 70 percent within five years. Goods which require physical checks can be routed to sites away from the borders, where they can be cleared. One exception would be animal and plant material but this problem is much reduced because of the adoption of the "official controls" on foods of animal origin – and the plant equivalent - removing the need for border inspections for produce from EEA states. The take-home point from all this, therefore, is that while the Sweden-Norway border, as it stands, is an example of what can be achieved under the EEA regime, it is not the definitive model and would have to be copied exactly if applied to Ireland. Any Irish border arrangement would come out of a bespoke agreement which would take into account the special needs of the island and, even then, would be amenable to continuing development and improvement. But, like Norway, where the Union Customs Code was adopted and entered into force in October-November 2013, while its substantive provisions starting to applying in May 2016, the UK would also continue with the UCC. One special feature that could be adopted, though, is the border agency cooperation system. In 1960 and 1969 respectively, Norway signed agreements with Swedish and Finnish authorities, This allows a division of labour where the national border authorities of each country are allowed to provide services and exercise legal powers not only on behalf of their home state, but that of their neighbouring states as well. When goods are exported from Norway, either a Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian customs office may take care of all paperwork related to exportation from Norway and importation into the before mentioned countries. This is also the case when goods are imported into Norway. As a result it is unnecessary to establish customs offices and deploy customs officers on both sides of the border. It is decided through bilateral negotiations which country or countries will manage a border post, as well as the allocation of costs. Thus, if trucks do have to stop, it is only at one customs checkpoint. Then, each country's enforcement personnel have the right to operate up to 16km (10 miles) into each other's territory, with mobile inspection units operating within the zone. Altogether, a "bespoke" EEA system, melded with the latest technology, would resolve all the underlying problems in Ireland, with the border as near invisible as makes no difference. Controls would be applied, but there would no barriers to traffic at the borders. The problems, therefore, are neither technical nor procedural, but political. They stem entirely from Mrs May's decision to take us out of the Single Market (EEA). And, despite the blathering of the masses, the customs union is completely irrelevant. Within the EEA, tariffs and quotas disappear. A separate deal on ROO can also be accommodated within the agreement, and we retain our AEO approvals. Turning it round, there is no solution to the Irish problem without the UK's participation in the EEA Agreement. The barrier, then, is Mrs May. Either she has to change her mind or she has to go. Given that she does not change her mind, possibly the time for her to go is after the 29 March 2019, when we actually leave the EU. Then, under a new premier, the UK could use the transition period to negotiate with Efta, with a view to rejoining, and with all the EEA contracting parties with a view to rejoining the EEA. If both coincide with the end or the transition period – which is the status quo option – then we will have administrative continuity and disruption will be minimised. On that basis, the Efta/EEA option is not deal – merely delayed. And if we follow the principles of Flexcit, the current proposed transition becomes a transition to a transition. However, we cannot rule out negotiations during the transition period on reform of the EEA, to incorporate co-decision on rule-making, as Delors originally proposed. Any solution though, will require a vastly improved level of competence on the UK side, together with a far better appreciation of how the EEA Agreement is structured and how it works. Moreover, the mantras have to be ditched, and people need to understand that the EEA is, for the moment, the only game in town.
The only solution to the post-Brexit Irish border is Chapter 3 (Article 21), Protocol 10 and Protocol 11 of the EEA Agreement
@http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86807 If the increasingly impotent politicians wanted any guidance as to how to deal with the nightmare of a post-Brexit Irish border, all they have to do is look at the EEA Agreement. Right from day one, this has been staring them in the face. (http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf) In particular, they should be looking at Chapter 3 (Article 21) and then Protocol 10 on the simplification of border controls and formalities, and Protocol 11 on mutual assistance in customs matters. (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol10.pdf) and (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol11.pdf) As one might imagine, though, these are the provisions which form the regulatory basis for trade between Norway and Sweden, a border which is relatively free-flowing but not entirely frictionless. Truckers can find that clearance during busy periods can take as long as an hour and a half to get their loads cleared. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561) As a result, numerous voices have argued that, for all its advantages, the so-called "Norway option" would not provide an entirely adequate solution for a border-free Ireland. But what the pundits fail almost completely to understand are two things. Firstly, the nature of the EEA agreement is that it is infinitely flexible. Neither the Agreement nor the Protocols set out the finite details of the arrangements and such as are agreed can be changed through established mechanisms via the EEA Joint Committee. These changes can be introduced either as specific amendments to the EEA Agreement of via EEA relevant legislation promulgated by the EU and adopted into the EEA acquis. There is no technical limit to the number of changes, nor the frequency, permitting a process on ongoing development. Secondly, and having regard to the first point, the Norwegian land border with Sweden – which has been continually under scrutiny as the possible model – is considered to be unfinished business. With technological and procedural enhancements planned over the next ten years, the movement of goods is expected to be even smoother than it is at present. Many of the limitations on freedom arise from policy differences between Norway and the EU, and especially in relation to VAT, duties on alcohol, tobacco and vehicles, and from minor differences in the rules relating to the import of medicines, waste , explosives, fireworks and hazardous substances. However, with online registration of controlled imports, with prior issue of transit permits, it is anticipated that as much as vehicle traffic through existing customs posts will be reduced by as much as 70 percent within five years. Goods which require physical checks can be routed to sites away from the borders, where they can be cleared. One exception would be animal and plant material but this problem is much reduced because of the adoption of the "official controls" on foods of animal origin – and the plant equivalent - removing the need for border inspections for produce from EEA states. The take-home point from all this, therefore, is that while the Sweden-Norway border, as it stands, is an example of what can be achieved under the EEA regime, it is not the definitive model and would have to be copied exactly if applied to Ireland. Any Irish border arrangement would come out of a bespoke agreement which would take into account the special needs of the island and, even then, would be amenable to continuing development and improvement. But, like Norway, where the Union Customs Code was adopted and entered into force in October-November 2013, while its substantive provisions starting to applying in May 2016, the UK would also continue with the UCC. One special feature that could be adopted, though, is the border agency cooperation system. In 1960 and 1969 respectively, Norway signed agreements with Swedish and Finnish authorities, This allows a division of labour where the national border authorities of each country are allowed to provide services and exercise legal powers not only on behalf of their home state, but that of their neighbouring states as well. When goods are exported from Norway, either a Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian customs office may take care of all paperwork related to exportation from Norway and importation into the before mentioned countries. This is also the case when goods are imported into Norway. As a result it is unnecessary to establish customs offices and deploy customs officers on both sides of the border. It is decided through bilateral negotiations which country or countries will manage a border post, as well as the allocation of costs. Thus, if trucks do have to stop, it is only at one customs checkpoint. Then, each country's enforcement personnel have the right to operate up to 16km (10 miles) into each other's territory, with mobile inspection units operating within the zone. Altogether, a "bespoke" EEA system, melded with the latest technology, would resolve all the underlying problems in Ireland, with the border as near invisible as makes no difference. Controls would be applied, but there would no barriers to traffic at the borders. The problems, therefore, are neither technical nor procedural, but political. They stem entirely from Mrs May's decision to take us out of the Single Market (EEA). And, despite the blathering of the masses, the customs union is completely irrelevant. Within the EEA, tariffs and quotas disappear. A separate deal on ROO can also be accommodated within the agreement, and we retain our AEO approvals. Turning it round, there is no solution to the Irish problem without the UK's participation in the EEA Agreement. The barrier, then, is Mrs May. Either she has to change her mind or she has to go. Given that she does not change her mind, possibly the time for her to go is after the 29 March 2019, when we actually leave the EU. Then, under a new premier, the UK could use the transition period to negotiate with Efta, with a view to rejoining, and with all the EEA contracting parties with a view to rejoining the EEA. If both coincide with the end or the transition period – which is the status quo option – then we will have administrative continuity and disruption will be minimised. On that basis, the Efta/EEA option is not deal – merely delayed. And if we follow the principles of Flexcit, the current proposed transition becomes a transition to a transition. However, we cannot rule out negotiations during the transition period on reform of the EEA, to incorporate co-decision on rule-making, as Delors originally proposed. Any solution though, will require a vastly improved level of competence on the UK side, together with a far better appreciation of how the EEA Agreement is structured and how it works. Moreover, the mantras have to be ditched, and people need to understand that the EEA is, for the moment, the only game in town.
The only solution to the post-Brexit Irish border is Chapter 3 (Article 21), Protocol 10 and Protocol 11 of the EEA Agreement
@http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86807 If the increasingly impotent politicians wanted any guidance as to how to deal with the nightmare of a post-Brexit Irish border, all they have to do is look at the EEA Agreement. Right from day one, this has been staring them in the face. (http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main%20Text%20of%20the%20Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf) In particular, they should be looking at Chapter 3 (Article 21) and then Protocol 10 on the simplification of border controls and formalities, and Protocol 11 on mutual assistance in customs matters. (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol10.pdf) and (http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Protocols%20to%20the%20Agreement/protocol11.pdf) As one might imagine, though, these are the provisions which form the regulatory basis for trade between Norway and Sweden, a border which is relatively free-flowing but not entirely frictionless. Truckers can find that clearance during busy periods can take as long as an hour and a half to get their loads cleared. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41412561) As a result, numerous voices have argued that, for all its advantages, the so-called "Norway option" would not provide an entirely adequate solution for a border-free Ireland. But what the pundits fail almost completely to understand are two things. Firstly, the nature of the EEA agreement is that it is infinitely flexible. Neither the Agreement nor the Protocols set out the finite details of the arrangements and such as are agreed can be changed through established mechanisms via the EEA Joint Committee. These changes can be introduced either as specific amendments to the EEA Agreement of via EEA relevant legislation promulgated by the EU and adopted into the EEA acquis. There is no technical limit to the number of changes, nor the frequency, permitting a process on ongoing development. Secondly, and having regard to the first point, the Norwegian land border with Sweden – which has been continually under scrutiny as the possible model – is considered to be unfinished business. With technological and procedural enhancements planned over the next ten years, the movement of goods is expected to be even smoother than it is at present. Many of the limitations on freedom arise from policy differences between Norway and the EU, and especially in relation to VAT, duties on alcohol, tobacco and vehicles, and from minor differences in the rules relating to the import of medicines, waste , explosives, fireworks and hazardous substances. However, with online registration of controlled imports, with prior issue of transit permits, it is anticipated that as much as vehicle traffic through existing customs posts will be reduced by as much as 70 percent within five years. Goods which require physical checks can be routed to sites away from the borders, where they can be cleared. One exception would be animal and plant material but this problem is much reduced because of the adoption of the "official controls" on foods of animal origin – and the plant equivalent - removing the need for border inspections for produce from EEA states. The take-home point from all this, therefore, is that while the Sweden-Norway border, as it stands, is an example of what can be achieved under the EEA regime, it is not the definitive model and would have to be copied exactly if applied to Ireland. Any Irish border arrangement would come out of a bespoke agreement which would take into account the special needs of the island and, even then, would be amenable to continuing development and improvement. But, like Norway, where the Union Customs Code was adopted and entered into force in October-November 2013, while its substantive provisions starting to applying in May 2016, the UK would also continue with the UCC. One special feature that could be adopted, though, is the border agency cooperation system. In 1960 and 1969 respectively, Norway signed agreements with Swedish and Finnish authorities, This allows a division of labour where the national border authorities of each country are allowed to provide services and exercise legal powers not only on behalf of their home state, but that of their neighbouring states as well. When goods are exported from Norway, either a Swedish, Finnish or Norwegian customs office may take care of all paperwork related to exportation from Norway and importation into the before mentioned countries. This is also the case when goods are imported into Norway. As a result it is unnecessary to establish customs offices and deploy customs officers on both sides of the border. It is decided through bilateral negotiations which country or countries will manage a border post, as well as the allocation of costs. Thus, if trucks do have to stop, it is only at one customs checkpoint. Then, each country's enforcement personnel have the right to operate up to 16km (10 miles) into each other's territory, with mobile inspection units operating within the zone. Altogether, a "bespoke" EEA system, melded with the latest technology, would resolve all the underlying problems in Ireland, with the border as near invisible as makes no difference. Controls would be applied, but there would no barriers to traffic at the borders. The problems, therefore, are neither technical nor procedural, but political. They stem entirely from Mrs May's decision to take us out of the Single Market (EEA). And, despite the blathering of the masses, the customs union is completely irrelevant. Within the EEA, tariffs and quotas disappear. A separate deal on ROO can also be accommodated within the agreement, and we retain our AEO approvals. Turning it round, there is no solution to the Irish problem without the UK's participation in the EEA Agreement. The barrier, then, is Mrs May. Either she has to change her mind or she has to go. Given that she does not change her mind, possibly the time for her to go is after the 29 March 2019, when we actually leave the EU. Then, under a new premier, the UK could use the transition period to negotiate with Efta, with a view to rejoining, and with all the EEA contracting parties with a view to rejoining the EEA. If both coincide with the end or the transition period – which is the status quo option – then we will have administrative continuity and disruption will be minimised. On that basis, the Efta/EEA option is not deal – merely delayed. And if we follow the principles of Flexcit, the current proposed transition becomes a transition to a transition. However, we cannot rule out negotiations during the transition period on reform of the EEA, to incorporate co-decision on rule-making, as Delors originally proposed. Any solution though, will require a vastly improved level of competence on the UK side, together with a far better appreciation of how the EEA Agreement is structured and how it works. Moreover, the mantras have to be ditched, and people need to understand that the EEA is, for the moment, the only game in town.
hazardous waste management rules 2016 amendment video
The Amendment is brought under rule 5 of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 in which the department of Industry in the State shall ensure earmarking or allocation of industrial space or shed for recycling, pre-processing and other utilisation of hazardous or other waste in the existing and upcoming industrial park, estate and industrial clusters. The salient features of Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Trans boundary Movement) Rules, 2016 include the following:- The ambit of the Rules has been expanded by including ‘Other Waste’. Waste Management hierarchy in the sequence of priority of prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, recovery, co-processing; and safe disposal has been incorporated. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has amended the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 vide notification dated 01 March 2019. Some of the salient features of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management& Transboundary Movement) Amendment Rules, 2019 are as follows: Solid plastic waste has been prohibited from import … Home » Press Releases » Amendment in Hazardous Waste (Management& Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. Press Releases . Amendment in Hazardous Waste (Management& Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. Date : 2019/03/06: Document: Amendment in Hazardous Waste (Management& Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 74.53 kb Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi – 110 003 INDIA. Important ... Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, to include other wastes such as Waste tyre, paper waste, metal scrap, used electronic items, etc. As per the CPCB esmates in 2010latest stascs, about 7.66 million tonnes per year of hazardous In order to strengthen the implementation of environmentally sound management of hazardous waste in the country, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has amended the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 vide notification G.S.R. G.S.R. XX (E), dated 01 March 2019. Context: In order to strengthen the implementation of environmentally sound management of hazardous waste in the country, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has amended the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The amendment has been done keeping into consideration the “Ease of Doing Business” and boosting “Make in India” initiative by simplifying the procedures under the Rules, while at the same time upholding ... The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 have clearly laid down the procedure for the management of hazardous and other wastes. The duties of the persons in charge of these wastes in a particular industry as well as the State Government’s Departments of Industry and Labour are clearly demarcated. 1. Short title and commencement. - (1) These rules may be called the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Application. - These rules shall apply to the management of hazardous and other wastes Bio-Medical Waste Management (Amendment) Rules, 2018 Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016 Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness And Response) Rules, 1996
hazardous waste management rules 2016 amendment top
