General Findings. What findings can be drawn from these seven case studies? First, there seems to be no clear relationship between one aspect of ‘publicness’ and another. In other words, it cannot be said that a privately-owned public space is by definition less accessible, or a privately-managed space automatically more exclusive. In the Netherlands, Proefpark De Punt is a clear example of a space under fully private management that is, if anything, even more inclusive than many government- owned parks: What’s special about this is precisely that there is no gate, so yes, in the evening you get youths hanging around, and at night you get the Bulgarians drinking their whisky until the morning. Well, they are just as welcome as the good citizens. (Interview Proefpark De Punt) Second, there is a significant difference in governance culture between the British and the Dutch cases with regard to the relationship between public and private parties. As mentioned, many British site managers argue that local governments were happy to see new private developments as it represented an improvement of the particular site. In the Dutch cases, local government is often far more wary of handing over responsibilities to the private sector. This can be seen most clearly in the case of the ArenA Boulevard, where the only involvement of the private sector is a very loose and informal form of public-private cooperation. As a local government official put it: Downloaded by [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen] at 04:33 19 November 2013 If you give them too much influence, that means that you cannot really weigh the common good anymore. Well, that is what you just shouldn’t do as a municipality At the end of the day it’s a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune in this country. You have to be reasonable and fair as a municipality, and that would be very hard to maintain It’s an illusion to say in this country private parties pay for it because they like you. That’s not going to happen. There is something in return. (Interview ArenA Boulevard) Consequently, responsibility for public space in the Dutch cases is still very much the responsibility of local government, and exceptions to that rule seem to be a much rarer than in the British context. This might explain why public spaces that are completely privately owned or managed are more difficult to find in the Netherlands than they are in Britain. Discussion: Reflecting on the OMAI Model By applying the model to seven case studies, the study has ...
General Findings. The most important conclusion was that there were considerable data gaps at various levels that needed to be filled in order to successfully characterize and quantify California’s foam insulation high GWP GHG banks and emissions and management options. The following sections provide an outline of our main findings by key areas of research.
General Findings. That the application for rezoning was initially filed with the City on , as required by City Ordinance.
General Findings. 20 A. That the application of VOLUSIA OAKS, LLC was duly and properly filed herein on 21 November 19, 2018 as required by law.
22 B. That all fees and costs which are by law, regulation, or Ordinance required to be 23 borne and paid by the applicant have been paid.
24 C. That the applicant is the CONTRACT PURCHASER of the 78.987+/- acres of 1 contiguous parcels of land which is situated in DeLand, Florida. These parcels of land are described 2 more particularly in the survey and legal description, a true copy of which is attached hereto as
4 D. That the Applicant has complied with the concept plan provision as required by Land 5 Development Regulations Ordinance No. 2013-11, as amended.
6 E. That the Applicant has complied with the "Due Public Notice" requirements of the 7 City Commission, Land Development Regulations Ordinance No. 2013-11, as amended.
8 F. That the owners of the properties, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX 9 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX X. XXXXXXXXX AND XXXXXX X. XXXXXXXX agree 10 with the provisions of the Development Agreement.
General Findings. Respondent is a person as that term is defined in Section 302(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e).
General Findings. Agreements between stakeholders (type of stakeholder, nature and scope of agreement) are very context-specific, depending on national/local socio-cultural milieus, policy environments, economic climate and specific project type and conditions. • Peer review identified some limitations in transnational transferability of model agreements due to specificity of context. These limitations in turn suggest that there are limitations to the scope and success of a ‘best practice’ approach. A potentially more successful approach would be the adaptation of key lessons from elsewhere to particular contexts, based on appropriate contextual analysis of practices in both their place of origin and the place where they are to be adapted. • Peer review also raised many new questions, some of which are interesting in themselves but go beyond the scope of the peer review. Examples include e.g. the relative power of different stakeholders, the principles behind public funding of farming practices, etc. some of these raising interesting political issues. • However, some general principles could be drawn, based on strengths and weaknesses of the peer reviewed models, to be considered when developing stakeholder agreements – some are generic (presented in this section), and others are divided into agreements with private stakeholders and agreements with community stakeholders (see sections 5.2 and 5.3). • Involvement of stakeholders other than the local authority in place-keeping agreements tends to require a change in culture and in perception of responsibility, which may be aided by awareness-raising, education, witnessing of benefits, etc. • Differences between ownership of land and responsibilities over place-keeping need to be identified and clearly established. E.g. public land may belong to the state, but responsibilities for the management and maintenance of such land may be taken on by other stakeholders. In addition, agreements may be facilitated if legal responsibility and practical responsibility are also clearly separated. Following on with the example of state- owned land, this may by law define the public sector (e.g. the municipality) as legally responsible, but specific practical management and maintenance responsibilities may be agreed with other stakeholders. • The clarity of the terms of place-keeping agreements is a strength of any agreement between stakeholders. Lack of clarity may result in poorly maintained spaces and conflict between stakeholders. • Earl...
General Findings. An analysis of enrolment and retention for organizations in Delhi, Jharkhand and Kolkata funded during this reporting period was also done (See Xxxxxxxx XX). The major findings from this are: • A total of 33,436 students have been enrolled in interventions funded through REACH India. This is in contrast to a target of 22,000 students (18,000 via NGO interventions and 4000 through direct enrollment in formal school systems). • A majority of the students enrolled in REACH India-funded interventions are found in the Jharkhand region. • Students are being served through six types of educational interventions, although the majority are enrolled in bridge courses. Among the types of services in which students are enrolled are ECE/Balwadi (7%); Bridge Courses, both residential and non-residential (69.8%); enrollment in formal schooling systems (10.8%); Remediation with In-school children (9.9%); Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) remediation program (1.9%); and AADI-Alternative Education School (AES) (0.6%). • A slight majority (51.1%) of students enrolled in the programs are girls. This pattern is consistent across type of program with the exception of those students in the formal schooling system and AADI-AES program. • Of interest to REACH India are the types of social groups served via the programs. Over 80 percent of the students belong to a scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward classes or to a minority group. An examination within type of grouping reveals that 70.8 percent of those in ECE/Balwadi programs are identified as scheduled tribes. More students in remediation and AADI-AES and SLD programs are from the general population. • A slight majority (51.6%) of children served by REACH-funded interventions are from rural areas. Bridge and ECE/Balwadi programs tend to serve a majority of rural students while direct enrollment, remediation, SLD and AADI-AES programs tend to serve students in urban areas. This may be a reflection of the different needs of the rural and urban areas.
General Findings. Burden of Proof - For the reasons set out below we have concluded that we accept the claimant’s evidence as to the comments which are the subject of allegation 1. That in our view has the following general consequences. Given that finding of fact the obvious inference, and one which we draw, is that what Xx Xxxxx said was true and that, put simply, he did not like Muslims. Given that Xx Xxxxx denies making the comments there is in any event no evidence from which we could in our judgement draw any other inference. As is set out in greater detail below there are a number of specific instances in which Xx Xxxxx has expressed highly critical views of the claimant and had excluded her from some meetings. In our view the fact that we have held that Xx Xxxxx stated that he “did not like Muslims” and the conclusion we have drawn that this was true, is enough to satisfy Stage1 of the Igen v Xxxx test and to transfer the burden to the respondent to demonstrate that those comments and actions were not in any sense whatsoever tainted by that discriminatory attitude. Individual Allegations
General Findings. Chilcotin Study Area 28
General Findings. It was generally observed that the relevant property has not been constructed in compliance with Part B of the Building Regulations 1997 nor the granted Fire Safety Certificates, for various reasons including…
1. Inadequate and/or non-provision of compartmentation between apartments and common areas.
2. Inadequate and/or non-provision of compartmentation between apartments both horizontally and vertically.
3. Inadequate and/or non-provision of fire stopping at required location.
4. Inadequate and/or non-provision of fire rated door sets.
5. Inadequate protection of structural elements.
