text:
The federal budget needs to encourage scientific and medical research in Canada ...Read the full article
This conversation is closed
Peter Leventis from Canada writes: I sent a letter to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance on this very issue just prior to Christmas. On Tuesday, I got back a form letter talking in vague terms what may happen in the budget, none of which suggested an increased investment in scientific research. While I hope that the government improves funding in the upcoming budget for this vital industry (which employs a large number of people who are surprisingly not paid very highly), I will be surprised if they do.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 12:59 AM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Peter Let me ask you a question that has bothered me for some time.
So we do a lot of research and develop and new widget that is the best in the world. Who benefits from this research?
May I suggest that if it the foreign companies that are the main beneficiary of this research and Canada receives damn little.
We have lost or are losing most of our major Canadian owned businesses and the ones who are left have to go outside the country to obtain funding and development even if they do create something.
One company that comes to mind is Westport Innovations in Vancouver who developed a new diesel component and then had to go to the States and partner with Cummins diesel and now a Chinese outfit and also a European company to mfg it and create employment. This is only one example of many. Canada received little to no benefit from the R&D.
We do nothing here with the research successes we have. Sell them to the States or China etc.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 2:59 AM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: When it's good research, yes. Bad research results in junk-science like 'second, third-hand smoke' which in turn creates junk social policy.
Political agendas and propaganda should have nothing whatsoever to do with science.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 8:13 AM EST | Link to Comment
bill williams from Guelph from Canada writes: -
Nothing could be a better first step in addressing the concerns described in this piece than federal money for universities. The stated concerns are valid, but there is a bigger one. University endowment funds and other sources of funding have been devastated by this incipient recession. People with ideas are our future. Stand universities on their feet. If we need special money for medical research, fine, but universities need to properly established. In the midst of financial crisis with enrollments climbing our schools are cutting back, laying off, and they still have no idea, even with all of this austerity, how they are going to make it through next year. At the time when our economy needs to be supercharged with an infusion of more qualified, knowledgeable, and imaginative people, our schools throttle down their ability to provide ANY of that.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 8:20 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Iconoclast from Canada writes: Money on research don't get votes!
- Posted 22/01/09 at 9:58 AM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Already, Canada is not funding the best research. Under the CPC, the proportion of world-class quality research that is being funded has been reduced significantly. Unfortunately, when it comes to research, conservatives don't get it. They don't understand that China and India are rapidly increasing their funding of basic research because it has a proven track record of increasing the standard of living in countries that make those investments. Canada, in contrast, is on the opposite trajectory under Harper. Harper would turn our scientists from independent thinkers producing innovative research into technicians that apply existing knowledge for corporate purposes. This approach completely removes innovation from the equation and, equally importantly, amounts to nothing more than a business subsidy providing dollars for what would otherwise be an essential business expense. PMAC is an excellent example of this type of "research" support. What has PMAC got us? We pay more for drugs and expend patent protection all for the benefit of moving pharmaceutical research from private labs to publicly funded laboratories. In other words, while increasing the profits for multinational pharmaceutical companies, we provide public subsidies in exchange for this privilege of paying more for our drugs.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 10:18 AM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Bobby Dy. Why in this country does everybody feel that it is up to Gov. whereas in many countries it is the large companies that provide research grants etc. for research.
We have many examples here in Canada of companies doing their own research with little or no Gov. money.
If the Gov. wants to do something and get to hell out of the way and let research flourish, they can provide additional incentives through increased tax breaks for research and companies who provide grants for the research.
I know of a medical research project at university that developed some new products. A small Canadian company was formed by the researches and then a large Yank outfit came in and bought the whole thing and moved it to Cal. along with the researchers, except for two who would not move.
We have to do something with the results of the research when it is finished and not flog it to the Yanks or others.
We are stupid
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:14 AM EST | Link to Comment
K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Steve French wrote: "When it's good research, yes. Bad research results in junk-science like 'second, third-hand smoke' which in turn creates junk social policy."
People have to learn to distinguish between how scientific research actually works and how scientific research gets reported by the mass media.
Casual readers, bloggers, and political commentators are never in a position to be able to tell the difference between useful research and meaningless or fringe results. This is because fields of study build up large bodies of knowledge over time, which most people are completely unaware of, and without being able to put a study or result in context it is usually impossible to tell how important it is.
That doesn't stop science reporters from covering a study result with only a brief mention of context, and readers from getting an overblown or under-estimated opinion of the result (most people just subject what they read to their own confirmation bias, and form their opinion of the work accordingly). This is what happens with most claims of 'junk science' -- if the term is being used by somebody who hasn't extensively studied the field they are talking about, then take it with a 25kg bag of salt.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:54 AM EST | Link to Comment
K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Back to the article: A product of research doesn't become a public good (in the economic sense, which is what the editorial is talking about) until after the patent expires -- about 20 years later.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:55 AM EST | Link to Comment
J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Government should require two new things from researchers in exchange for increased money. One is that the government own part of any pattent or product that is created as a result of this reasearch money. A 50% stake does not seem to high to me. Second, that the product must be manufactured in Canada. As a backup, if a researcher does recieve governemt funding then any pattent filed over the next 25 years or so of his or her carreer should be partially owned by the government on a sliding scale. Why should the Candian tax paier spend money on R and D if they never see a direct benifit? If science wants gov. support then it should be willing to contribute the goods to society who paied then to make it happen. Don't like it. Don't ask for Gov. funding.
James Hare
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:59 AM EST | Link to Comment
Mike Keith from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Harper and the cons won't increase funding for science. It's simply against their ideology, it would force them to take serious the harm-reduction strategies fron vancouver and global warming; both things that do not jive with their stone-age ideologies.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 12:20 PM EST | Link to Comment
Daniel Cunningham from Victoria, writes: The Theo-Cons increase funding for scientific research? Ya right like that's going to happen. Not. Just look at their muzzling of scientists in federal departments across the board. If it doesn't fit in with their political agenda then they don't consider it science. I'm amazed that they haven't started closing museums & shutting down archeology departments - I'm sure they wouldn't want people to think for themselves & realize that the earth is older than a couple thousand years like some of their wackjob MPs believe.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 12:32 PM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Some of you idiots are so full of hate for Harper that any brain you had has gone south.
Try and have a discussion without all of the political crap.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 1:06 PM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: K McIntyre from Oshawa: The field is flooded with junk, and this discredits good research and undermines public confidence in science, in particular, social science. People are not the fools government takes them for, we know full well when bad social policy results from garbage 'research' with an obvious agenda.
According to the press, everything is an epidemic, which of course requires swift government intervention in the form of junk social policy.
And they expect taxpayers to be happy about paying for this merry go round?
- Posted 22/01/09 at 1:16 PM EST | Link to Comment
K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: That comes off a bit like a typical anti-science tirade from a right-wing commentator.
What specifically do you mean when you talk about 'junk social policy' from 'junk science'?
- Posted 22/01/09 at 1:23 PM EST | Link to Comment
Mike M from Canada writes: Here's an easy way to stimulate investment in medical research - let people profit from it.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 4:16 PM EST | Link to Comment
Stewart Smith from Canada writes: The public financing of research occurs in all advanced countries. The reason that some juristictions appear to have substantially more funds flowing from industry is that in those countries public money flows in some cases directly to companies that then subcontract portions of the project to universities. This direct funding of research occurs in the US, Europe and Japan. In Canada, direct funding to companies is generally viewed as problematic and the preferred method of supporting company research is through tax credits. Some have argued this is a less effective way of stimulating really new innovations and companies since a tax credit has little value until the company starts to show a profit. (I agree)
The fundamental business case for research to be done through private-public partnerships is a sharing of risk. By its definition research is a high-risk activity ie most research projects do not lead to dramatic economic development. However when a big success occurs the benefits to the region and the country are substantial. As a result, there are clear correlations between research activity and wealth creation. However as some of the above contributors have pointed out, successful research does not guarantee that the economic benefit will stay in the country.
Putting the rest of the pieces in place to hang onto the value developed by research has been a struggle for Canada. Interested readers might check out two exceptional programs at Waterloo and McMaster to train students to transform research success into new companies and products.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 4:54 PM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: little Bear, industry does what is in the short term interests of industry. To paraphrase what someone told me many years ago, if we took that approach, we would have some very elaborate oil lamps as our primary source of light today (i.e., no electricity). Business cannot afford to do nearly what is required for the fundamental research that leads to the next generation of businesses and business products. Basic research dollars invested by government, in contrast, actually generate far more in return to the economy by creating those new businesses and laying the foundation for the next generation of products.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 5:42 PM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Mike M, people do profit and can profit from research. Your comment, though, is one of ideology. It's factually incorrect. If you want to invest in medical research, you can buy up the intellectual property rights as part of the deal and reap the rewards. In practice, people profit plenty from this research once the discovery has been made. Governments invest in the discovery phase because the net needs to be cast widely in order to have a small number of payoffs. This is a pyramid. You need a very broad base of basic research (this requires government support, or, as in the case of RIM, philanthropy) to deliver a small number of next generation therapies, technologies, etc...
The importance of your point, though, is that your statement exemplifies the simple-minded poorly informed state of CPC government. They have the same naive dogmatic understanding of the problem which is exactly why Canada is moving in reverse.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 5:46 PM EST | Link to Comment
Mike M from Canada writes: Bobby Dy - whose ideology is blinding who.
To use one example, the US spends $182.16 per capita on pharmaceutical research and Canada spends $34.85 (these include both public and private monies).
There was a research report by the Canadian Medical Association, entitled 'Funding for Canadian health care research' that discussed this fact.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 6:21 PM EST | Link to Comment
Peter Lucas from langley, Canada writes: I think governments could not build a two-person outhouse efficiently. Government brought Canadians the gazillion dollar gun registry.
So, I think taxpayer funding (governments have no money) of R & D, when projects are chosen by governments is a huge waste of money. Government attempts at encouraging R & D on a broad basis, such as the SRTC program, invite rape and pillage of the taxpayers.
I support stronger intellectual property ownership rules and letting universities raise fees, because I think these measures would lead to better R & D. More government squelches it.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 6:32 PM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: Well, looking at Harper's actual performance in the hard science field, let alone social sciences and the arts, a responsible and reasonable citizen would be derelict in their duty as a citizen to not criticize Harper. Very harshly and strongly. What's your excuse?
- Posted 22/01/09 at 7:37 PM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: 'typical anti-science tirade from a right-wing commentator.'
Right, The public holds social engineering in such high esteem, I know, let's blame the media.
Believe what you want.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 8:01 PM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Orest unlike some of you I think that private enterprize should be funding any research like it does in many other countries. It appear you are still on the teat and need it to survive.
Orest on most every blog and post you make you are bleating and crying about how the Gov. is not changing somebodys dirty nappys.
This country needs to grow up and go after funding and grants from sources other than the tax payers.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 9:53 PM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Mike M Try and keep in mind that on every blogg where Orest and Bobby Dy post they are crying and bleating about Harpo or the Gov. and how they are not giving money away fast enough.
These two have not had an original thought for a long time.
There are those trying to make the point that our Gov. needs to put more money into R&D and making some good points but not these two.
Like trying to reason with two year olds.
Good night. Off to bed.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 9:58 PM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Mike M, why is there so much more investment of private research dollars in the U.S.? It starts with the 10X per capita public spending on research in the U.S. This creates critical mass in terms of highly trained individuals to work in those private laboratories and in terms of public sector scientists who generate IP that private industry such as pharma is interested in investing in. The relative lack of private investment in Canada actually reflects the amount of publicly funded research in Canada. The U.S., I repeat, spends 10X per capita in publicly funded health research and that generates the opportunity for far more private investment.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 10:05 PM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Peter Lucas, you are correct in stating that the more government directs research, the less effective those dollars are. The only investment that the Harper government has made in research has exclusively been targeted. They handed out more money to 6 research institutes than those institutes can absorb and the total ($600 million) vastly exceeded the below inflation increases in the competitive research grants systems (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC). That $600 million will most surely be wasted. Meanwhile, multiple studies have shown that the Canadian health research system through its open grants competition gets the highest quality research for its investment dollar than anywhere else in the world. The talent is here. Let them compete for dollars based on the merits of the research and not allocate dollars based on political motives.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 10:09 PM EST | Link to Comment
Tallulah A from Canada writes: It is obvious few of those in this conversation have any idea what a researcher actually does. The Government does not directly decide what projects get funded it decides what broad areas such as Health or Forestry or Genetics etc.. get money. Research can be done at several levels as well. 1) The first scientists do basic research into how the world works, at this point they have no idea whether the research will is useful for anything at all. 2) The second set of scientists look at what #1 has done and thinks of the idea for a product that could use what #1 found out to do something useful. 3) If what #2 does shows that the product is possible #3 tries to make something like the product to see if it is practical. If it is practical they will patent it and try to find a company who will try to make it a reality, or they might try to start up their own company to do so. Even with all that the vast majority of the products tried by the companies end up with too many side-effects or being too hard to make large scale and end up in the trash. No private company will fund researchers #1 or #2 since the amount of time before any results are shown is enormous. Some private citizens will fund researchers #2 since they are the ones who 'cure cancer' and can get a reputation private citizens can understand. Very rarely will researcher #1 get any money from sources other than government, but as you see without them there would be nothing for researchers #2 and #3 and the private companies to build on. Also the researchers have to: teach the next generation through courses, create/update said courses, run labs, hire students/staff, endlessly write grants so they can continue to pay the people they have hired, keep up to date with recent research in their field, review other researchers papers and grants etc.. They do all this and get paid substainally less than they would in the private sector.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 10:30 PM EST | Link to Comment
Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes.
I maintain the reason for the lack of productivity in Canada can be directly correlated to the lack of high quality research work being done in Canada. In terms of money spent on research as a percentage of our economy, we are one of the LAST countries in the entire OECD. This means our living standards are high based on our past achievements. We're living on borrowed time, we're not moving forward.
We know how to harness our land, our natural resources well, but can we create and invent things? We tried the usual capitalist model. Create incentives and they will come. The incentives in Canada are there. We have TONS of researchers who aren't researching for lack of demand, we have a tax system that basically lets them write off 150% of the cost, yet still, nothing? Perhaps it's time for the government to actual kick start this process with their own money. Perhaps the government needs to be the spark that gets this going. Let's not forget some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were the direct result of government research, in fact this very page you are reading, on the internet, was due to government research. Perhaps we in Canada need to rethink our belief that all it takes is the right incentives and the private sector will do it, because it seems the private sector in Canada is content with just digging, chopping, or fishing, and nothing more.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:42 PM EST | Link to Comment
Peter Lucas from langley, Canada writes: Bobby Dy, I have no doubt that world class talent can be found in Canada. And if Canada decides to fund research with taxpayer dollars, let not the bureaucrats decide which projects to fund. Let any taxpayer funding be done by objective standards - not government policy.
Jimmy K, you advocate governments spend their own money. Governments have no money - they can only spend current or future taxpayer money.
- Posted 22/01/09 at 11:51 PM EST | Link to Comment
Mike M from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Mike M, why is there so much more investment of private research dollars in the U.S.? It starts with the 10X per capita public spending on research in the U.S. This creates critical mass in terms of highly trained individuals to work in those private laboratories and in terms of public sector scientists who generate IP that private industry such as pharma is interested in investing in. The relative lack of private investment in Canada actually reflects the amount of publicly funded research in Canada. The U.S., I repeat, spends 10X per capita in publicly funded health research and that generates the opportunity for far more private investment.
Sorry, but you're mistaken again. It's surprising that you started off talking about the importance of facts versus ideology, yet all your comments contain are ideology and no fact at all. The US does not get anywhere near the public subsidies for research that you are claiming they do.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 12:20 AM EST | Link to Comment
K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Products primarily the result of government-funded research:
- The Internet
- Electronic computers
- Jet engines
- Mass-produced antibiotics
Products primarily the result of privately funded research:
- Airplanes
- Transistors
- Graphical user interfaces for computers
- Light bulbs
- Automobiles
It should be pretty obvious that research and development benefit from both public and private funding.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 12:30 AM EST | Link to Comment
Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Canadians spend about $20/yr/person on federally-funded competitively awarded medical research. A doubling of that amount is trivial in terms of its impact on tax dollars but would make an enormous difference in terms of a critical mass of basic research and attracting private investment in biomedicine in Canada. Toronto, as of last year, at least, was rated the number 3 city in the world to start up biotech. In part, that is because Toronto is one of the few places in this country that trains sufficient numbers of individuals to provide the HQP required to operate these businesses.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 1:03 AM EST | Link to Comment
Peter Lucas from langley, Canada writes: Bobby Dy, if Canada wanted to improve its position in medical research, it could make the rules on ownership of intellectual property stronger. No one wants to risk and work hard unless ownership of the resultant property is secure.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 1:20 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: One of the key problems with Canadian R&D is the lack of follow-through on the 'D'. Too many of the university researchers that I have been involved with are great at the fundamental 'R' side of the equation, but they do not have the industrial/practical experience to perform product development or manufacturability studies.
One solution would be to provide provisions within the funding mechanisms for forcing greater collaboration with non-university researchers such as industrial practitioners and college instructors (as part of a team). Unfortunately the college system, which has very significant physical resources and many of industry experienced professionals, remains a great untapped source of practical 'D' resources in this country.
My firm has suggested this type of collaboration with a university research team in the past but unfortunately our ideas were soundly rejected. Too many university researchers have never worked outside of the very sheltered confines of academia and have absolutely no idea of what it takes to take a concept into reality.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 3:15 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: One interesting success story that supports my previous post is the story of Intergran in the business section ("Gino Palumbo took your questions").
This company used fundamental university metallurgical research and collaborated with an industrial lab (Ontario Hydro) to develop initial applications. Since spinning off this firm has combined the skills of basic research and the practical training of college educated technologists to continually develop new applications and systems for their unique nano-crystalline metal alloys.
This is perhaps a model that more university researchers need to consider. One reason that this type of program is not often pursued to fruition is the lack of opportunities to publish research papers, often in very obscure journals, which are the 'meat & potatoes' of only the university community.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 3:33 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: Private industry does almost no pure R & D - the sort that eventually leads to new products and devices. That is what is done primarily by academics at universities. And it can take a long time for pure research to lead to "practical" results.
For a really good example, see the time lag between the development of nuclear and quantum physics theory - which took a long time, the subsequent invention of the transistor, how long it took after that for transistors to become used in consumer products. I remember when products were marketed on the basis of having 7 instead of 6 transistors. I wonder if you even have a clue what I am talking about.
Now, consider how long it took for integrated circuits to appear after the appearance of discrete transistors. Then remember how long it took for CPUs to reach a practical stage. That was about 80 years.
And none of that would have been possible without the pure theory R & D by the likes of Bohr, Rutherford, Heisenberg, Schroedinger Einstein, Fermi, and all the others.
The development of the transistor would not have been possible without the work of these "eggheads". And the transistor is a good example of applied R & D.
Private industry does mostly applied research and engineering. And most of that "should" be "privately" funded. But in reality, much of that work is directly funded by the taxpayer. By way of assorted contracts for items and services. See, especially, the military side. But many other firms have government contracts.
What you need to explain is the logical, theoretical and practical difference between a direct government grant to research conducted at a university and the research paid for by a contract with the same government for products and services. Do you think that the source of the funds for the two different streams comes from different sources?
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:03 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Steve French: You sound like you would like a return to the good old days of segregation, lynchings and the "uppity ethnics" - like me - kept in their place.
That too was "social engineering". Based on truly junk science.
You're just PO'ed that you aren't on top anymore.
Too bad, so sad.
Whiner and loser that you are.
Where it gets really funny is that you are a classic example of the anti-intellectualism and anti-education of the RRW. After all, educated, thinking people are much harder to manipulate for political purposes.
And R & D requires educated, thinking people who ask all sorts of questions.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:21 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ K McIntyre: Transistors wouldn't exist without the physics theory generated by assorted publicly funded university researchers. In several countries. The very idea and concept of transistors was a direct result of these nuclear and quantum physics theories and their description of reality.
There aren't too many products that aren't - one way or another - a result of some sort of government funding. Not even Edison, or Tesla, were able to operate without it.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:32 AM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: 'Orest Zarowsky'
What on earth are you babbling about?
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:37 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Steve French: I'm "babbling" about your mentality and politics. Your "observations" about junk science are the first, and most important clue to that. Typical RRW claptrap.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:45 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: As opposed to your blind support of Harper and the RRW?
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:47 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: That development part is also closely tied to the lack of venture capital here. Not to mention the lack of interest in such projects by assorted financial institutions here.
As for the example you cited, there are two critical points.
The first, and most important being the "fundamental" research done at the university - which is the primary job of university researchers.
The second being - indirectly - the failure of our financial system to support the development side of the applications of the fundamental research done at universities.
You may also want to consider the point that these innovative new products wouldn't exist without the pure, theoretical research done at the universities.
Another point you may want to address and discuss is how pretty well all of Canada's successful companies are sold off to foreign companies. And, when that happens, the R & D done by them is miraculously transferred out of Canada. See ATI for example.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 7:59 AM EST | Link to Comment
K McIntyre from Oshawa, Canada writes: Orest wrote: "Transistors wouldn't exist without the physics theory generated by assorted publicly funded university researchers. In several countries."
Sure, and similarly, all the innovations on the public funding list indirectly benefits from earlier private efforts.
It's often hard to distinguish what comes from what, because there is no comprehensive list of what university research is privately funded and what is publicly funded. The Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, for instance, is funded by both.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 8:42 AM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: 'I'm "babbling" about your mentality and politics. Your "observations" about junk science are the first'
What politics? What mentality? What anti-intellectualism?
I didn't resort to name-calling, you, and others, did.
My concern is the perceptions of 'The Public' in regards to science and academia.
Maybe an example would actually help but I think I'm wasting my time on this forum of petulant children.
There was a book published in the 90's called 'The Bell Curve' written by several high-standing psychologists (Princeton, Harvard, I can't recall).
From a pure research point of view, this book was pure trash, but apparently it went right to print without any real researchers getting a chance to look at the data.
Would you base social policy on such nonsense?
Why am I saying the book was nonsense?
Enlighten me.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 9:03 AM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Orest I am not and would not vote for Harper and am not a Con supporter but do get very tired of political ranting from either side.
Your last post was the first one that I have ever seen from you that had any substance. It proves that you can do it when jolted.
Keep up the good work.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 10:37 AM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Orest OK now that we have the pissing match out of the way ( I won), I agree with you on the fact that many if not most of Canadian Companies that research and develop anything are sold off to foreigners and the research goes with them.
I personally know of two companies, as I said in my previous posts, that are now located with the research and most of the people in California.
The question is not whether this happens but why?
A study I saw on the G&M several months ago stated that the majority of investors on the TSE were foreigners and I think that is true.
To me, what that seems to tell me is that Canadians are too conservative (don't get excited Orest) and do not like risk. Some time ago I took a little survey of some of my friends (13) and of the bunch there were three of us who invest in Canadian stocks and the rest were in some mutuals and GICs.
A country that relys on foreign investors will not survive
- Posted 23/01/09 at 10:49 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky: I could not even attempt to try to understand the geo-political or global financial reasons why Canada cannot capitalize on government funded R&D. From personal experience at the working level however I, and the leadership of my firm, have essentially given up on trying to collaborate with university researchers because of the reasons that I stated above. We have sought help from the universities (including my alma mater) on several occasions to try and resolve serious manufacturing issues that we were having with new product and manufacturing process developments only to no avail. They were only interested in long-term fundamental research over a multi-year timeline with the motivation of getting publications that would further their academic career. We have had great success with our local college faculty on small projects, however they are funded to allow for non-teaching activities like the universities (they are busy teaching all of the time). Universities only schedule their staff for a couple of courses per semester but we found that the college teachers are teaching much more than this and are not available to work on other projects. It is a pity that we can't even get these two complementary groups to work together in this country to fill-in the gap between 'R' and workable products or process support.
- Posted 23/01/09 at 11:53 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: "Right then - we'll call it a draw.". You: the Black Knight; Me: King Arthur. MP's "The Holy Grail". And you really need to work on that reading comprehension thingy.
As for why our successful companies - and resources - are sold off, that's mainly a political issue, as far as I can tell.
That "open for business" concept. So beloved of the neo-cons - like you demonstrably are - that keep pushing "foreign" investment.
While not taking any steps to encourage the development of a Canadian-based venture capital system that is willing to invest in Canadian companies.
What do you think the odds are that the US would allow the sale to foreign interests of a strategic company like AMD (bought ATI), Intel, TI, HP or any other high tech company? These are all national security and interest firms.
The laws barring the export of the products of these companies to "unfriendly" states are still on the books - and quietly enforced. How much less likely is the sale of these companies?
You say: "A country that relys on foreign investors will not survive", which is exactly right. So, why are you supporting this?
- Posted 24/01/09 at 11:23 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Steve French: And then we had Phillipe Rushton at Western. You may remember him? But the real point about both cases - and others like them - is that they were immediately and throughly trashed and debunked. And, no I wouldn't base social - or any other policy - on such nonsense. But it has been done. Many times. All to maintain the existing power structure.
You should read a book called "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. Very interesting - especially the chapter where he discusses the 1917 US Army IQ tests and the subsequent work done by Yerkes - of Yale - in the mid-twenties - that led to all sorts of interesting immigration policies in the US. And yet, it was shown later that Gould himself was subject apriori bias when interpreting Yerkes's work. You may also be interested in the rest of Gould's books as well.
So far, Steve, you haven't shown in any significant way that you are not a RRW shill. Your conflation of hard science and social science as one category is a good giveaway.
The functional hard science equivalent of your example is the cold fusion debacle in the 90's.
What is interesting is that the examples from the Social sciences that you cite are intended to support and maintain the existing pecking order - as usual.
The hard science debacles are all a result of get rich quick schemes.
Both of which are directly related to RRW "thinking" and ideology.
Your blanket assertions are just another tool in the disinformation kit the likes of Rove deploy.
If you're going to critique the bogus stuff, you had better be more careful with the language you use and the details you provide.
I remain unconvinced that you are anything other than a RRW troll and shill.
- Posted 24/01/09 at 11:54 AM EST | Link to Comment
Steve French from Windsor (Flint, North), Canada writes: That's what I figured.
Just another uneducated partisan big-mouth who can't back up anything.
- Posted 24/01/09 at 11:56 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Steve French: You're a Troll.
- Posted 25/01/09 at 8:26 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: These are the results of P3 as applied to University research. The first clue is that it is the University, not the Prof, that reaps the bulk of the "profit" from any of these consortiums.
The result is that they are not very interested in the downrange nitty-gritty that you have to deal with.
The solution to your production problems that the University administration wants to hear is that you will hire selected Profs, mostly engineers, as consultants. At very fat pay grades.
The core point here is that this is all a direct result of two things.
First, underfunding of the educational system. Mostly for ideological reasons on the right wing end of the spectrum, and short term budgetary reasons by the centrists and left. Long term investments are not something that delivers votes.
Second, the lack of a reasonable and intelligent venture capital and funding system here.
- Posted 25/01/09 at 8:50 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky: Yes, but I can't help but wonder why the funding bodies don't steer some percentage of the grants towards the colleges. If they were allowed to develop capability in R&D I think that would be of great assistance to Canadian industry on shorter term projects, especially if they were to collaborate with universities who are better at the long-term fundamental part of the picture.
- Posted 25/01/09 at 5:51 PM EST | Link to Comment
little Bear from Canada writes: Orest You must be on something as I am certainly not supporting any such thing.
The point is that until Canadians determine that R&D and developing our own, we can expect more of the same.
I get very tired of everything in this country revolving around the Gov. Are we such boobies that we have to remain on the teat for ever.
I keep remembering that Westport Innovations in order to survive had to take their research and go outside of the country as no private companies would provide any funding.
We have damn few major companies left in this country and we are now a subsiduary to most of the major countries and their companies and this trend is increasing.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 1:13 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: I am a Ryerson graduate - when it was still Polytechnical. Community Colleges were never intended to do R & D - they were glorified technical and trade schools.
Having attended U of G in the Marine Biology programme - had to withdraw for health reasons, and having close friends that went to Community College, I can comment on the differences between these institutions.
The most important difference between university, community college and Ryerson - as a polytechnical, which it still is - is the lefvel of theoretical vs practical training. Unioversity is primarily theoretical, community college is primarily practical. And Ryerson is somewhere in the middle.
University teaches why and how the buttons are pushed, but not how to push them. Community colleges do the opposite. Ryerson does the combo thing.
This is why approaching community colleges is not necessarily a good idea. You might want to consider Ryerson as a source of solutions to your process problems.
But this doesn't address the financing and capitalization issue. Nor does it address the fact that pretty well all of our successful companies and individuals end up having to leave Canada to prosper.
If we had a better venture capital system in place, we'd be doing much better. Economically, financially and scientifically.
Why aren't business people like you working to achieve that?
- Posted 26/01/09 at 7:26 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: Uh Huh. Yeah right! Your own posts make it clear that you are a sellout. And an idiot shill for the RRW.
As for "Are we such boobies that we have to remain on the teat for ever." you are being disingenuous at best.
Throughout history, it has been the government that has funded the sciences, arts and social progress. Who do you think paid for the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? One of the most important developments of the 19-th and 20-th Centuries has been the private funding and support of R & D.
But there is a critical caveat to that development. That being that the bulk of private funding for R & D has been applied, as opposed to pure, R & D.
Not even Intel has developed new theoretical research. All they have done is extend the work of academics. It is true that they - and others - have done an excellent job of extending the work of academics. But they haven't come up with new breakthroughs in fundamental physics, chemistry or biology.
Returning to the issue of the "Government teat", how about the following names for you to contemplate - and where they got their funding.
Can you say: Leonardo da Vinci; Michaelangelo; Blaise Pascal; J. S. Bach; G. F. Handel; Mozart; Priestly; Faraday and all the rest of them? And then there are all the recent guys and gals who have won the Nobel prize in assorted science fields. The only ones of note that were entirely privately funded were the Curies.
You haven't got a leg to stand on, bucko.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 8:03 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ little Bear: Why aren't you lobbying your MP and MPP to address these funding issues? As opposed to demanding more tax cuts.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 8:06 AM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: "University teaches why and how the buttons are pushed, but not how to push them. Community colleges do the opposite. Ryerson does the combo thing."
What utter nonsense. I'm a university graduate but I've also graduated from college (and I have a journeyman's trade qualifications to boot). You obviously have no idea of what colleges do or the caliber of their instructors and facilities. My point is that the universities are great at fundamental research but too often lack the practical perspective in terms of putting things in motion on the shop floor. We are missing out because these two groups don't work together more closely.
As for me being in charge of my firm's venture capital and R&D budget; I wish.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 10:31 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: Most Community college course are pretty short on the theory side. A friend of mine went through the electrical program at Humber College. He was less than impressed at the time. He is even less impressed now that he is a professional electrician.
In my field - analytical chemistry - let me assure you that even a 3-year diploma from a Community college doesn't produce very knowledgeable people. And I'm talking about basics here.
There are some exceptions of course. Sheridan's animation course being one. And nursing being another.
So, it depends on which particular programme one goes through at Community college.
You say you wish you were in charge of your company's R & D budget. That was not what I meant.
What I meant was: why aren't you and your bosses and the rest of the business community lobbying the government to create the regulatory and support environment - not just tax incentives - that would enable the development of a decent venture capital environment?
Also, why aren't you guys pushing the MBA schools to require their students to get some technical and scientific training as a graduation requirement?
For that matter, why does the business community in general grossly over-value MBAs while undervaluing technologists, engineers and scientists?
- Posted 26/01/09 at 6:39 PM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest: I would agree that college programs are highly variable, but you should be aware that these programs vary from short certificates all the way to 4-yr degrees now; essentially these programs fill the void left when Ryerson 'transformed' into a university.
We really do need that style of institution (Polytechnic) again in this province. They have them in Quebec (e.g., ETS), BC (BCIT), and Alberta (SAIT/NAIT); they would bridge the gap between technology and science/engineering.
I would say however that having experienced both types of institutions (colleges & universities) that the quality of the instruction at the colleges is far superior, primarily due to the industrial experience of the faculty.
As for the MBA comments, I couldn't agree more. I've seen these idiots come and go and of course do allot of damage in-between. Certainly that MBA 'smartest guys in the room' thinking is now working its magic on the global economic system.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 8:28 PM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: Ryerson became a "University" because businesses here had no clue what a Polytechnical Institute was. And how to "slot" the graduates in the job stream. What is a B. Tech anyways?
It was getting difficult for Ryerson grads to get jobs - all those MBA geniuses in HR and other slots. Not to mention the Community college grads who were basically grunts.
So Ryerson became a "university".
Except that it isn't.
It's still a Polytechnical Institute.
Like Cal Tech or MIT, or Rochester Institute of Technology, but not as famous.
Stupid Canadian business community.
It's not just the lack of a functional venture capital system that is hampering us here.
The level of instruction at all post-secondary institutions varies. And the critical variable is the instructor.
I had both great and dismal insructors / profs at both U of G and Ryerson. I doubt that the case would be different at any Community college. I also think I made it very clear that Community college programmes are varied in quality. Tragically, much more so than at higher levels.
As for you agreeing with me about MBAs, the point you haven't addressed is why you and the rest of the business community are sitting on your thumbs and rotating. Instead of actually doing something about it.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 9:15 PM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Orest: Just what the heII am I supposed to do about this? I'm the QA Manager at as 35 person metal fabrication firm. I certainly don't consider myself the spokesperson the "business community".
When we run into trouble welding and fabricating new alloys and turn to the universities for help we get turned away (despite the fact that they have the analytical capability)...no long term R&D potential. When we turn to the colleges they don't have any available faculty time to take on R&D projects (despite the fact that they have the equipment and industrial experience).
We have been willing to fund the contract R&D work, but we can't wait for 4-yrs for the university to 'study' the issue, we need much faster answers. We would hire in our own expertise but no university in Canada teaches welding engineering, so basically we are left spinning by the system.
P.S. – I also studied at Ryerson in the early 80's (a part-time Metallurgy Cert.), so I'm quite familiar with how it used to operate. It went from being a great Polytech to a mediocre university.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 9:45 PM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: Maybe you should go back to Ryerson - they have a better grasp of these process applications than either the Community colleges or the Universities do.
- Posted 26/01/09 at 11:24 PM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest: Unfortunately Ryerson dropped their Metallurgy program and its expertise many years ago. They used to have good expertise, but no more.
- Posted 27/01/09 at 12:54 AM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: Man, I feel for you. But you business guys really do need to do some more intelligent lobbying. And I still think that your best option remains good old Rye-High. Those lockers in Kerr Hall are especially amusing.
But, there is no reason your company can't hire the "experts" at the University or Ryerson as "consultants".
You just have to be willing to pay them enough cash.
You'd be amazed at what an "appropriate" quantity of cash will get you.
This especially funny because such arrangements are the direct result of the RRW ideologically-based hatred of "eggheads" and science.
It's way too funny how the RRW and business - especially big business - are joined at the hip. With predictable and serious consequences. None of which can be called "positive". But the best part is the whining.
- Posted 27/01/09 at 6:17 PM EST | Link to Comment
The Great Gazoo from Zatox, Canada writes: Orest: I'm deducing from your posts that you have never worked anywhere that had to make money to stay in business (although I'm sure that you will correct me if I'm wrong on that point).
This is one of the major problems when businesses try to work with academics who have no industry work experience. The concept of time and financial pressures to get answers to problems are alien concepts to them.
It is a major 'culture-clash' when industry technical personnel sit across the table from university academics. No university prof should be in those positions without some industrial experience (it makes a much better teacher too).
- Posted 27/01/09 at 6:57 PM EST | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ The Great Gazoo: Your deduction is wrong. I've worked in all sorts of shops. Mostly non-union. I now work for the Provincial government. I can make lots of interesting observations about the differences and similarities between the private and public sector.
Your deductive reasoning needs some remedial work.
The private sector's biggest failure is its short-term thinking. The second most important failure of the private sector is the greed of the senior management and owners.
Oh yeah, FYI: I hit 50 last year. I've been working, one way or another, since I was 16. I have a sneaky suspicion that I may have a few insights.
I agree with you that most profs would benefit from practical experience, but given some of the twits that taught me at Ryerson, that isn't always the case.
I got my B. Tech in Laboratory Science. Graduated in 86.
Maybe what you really need to do is work on that employee training and development thingy. Another place where most Canadian firms fail.
- Posted 27/01/09 at 11:08 PM EST | Link to Comment
Comments are closed
Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader's comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don't break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
What does moderation mean?
The Globe and Mail is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. In our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation we have created two distinct types of forums.
The first type of conversation is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Comments submitted to a semi-moderated conversation pass through a filter that automatically detects inappropriate language or other issues. The comment then appears on the website.
The second type of conversation is fully moderated. In a fully moderated conversation, every comment is reviewed by a Globe and Mail editor before it appears on the site. While we will attempt to publish as many comments as possible there will be occasions where the volume of comments makes it impossible to publish every appropriate submission. Only registered users of the site may contribute to an online conversation and in all cases the policy described in our Editor's note must be followed.
How do I report a comment?
On semi-moderated conversations we encourage our community of readers to assist with the moderation by alerting us any time a published comment violates our stated policy. Please do not alert us if you disagree with a comment, find a spelling error or are bothered by multiple postings. Once you submit a complaint about a comment, a message will be sent immediately to the editors of the site who will determine whether the remark belongs on the site.


text:
"You are not a second class citizen."
As I read the words from Kim, my professor turned mentor and friend, hot tears filled my eyes.
I was in graduate school, and I had sent Kim an e-mail telling her about an incident that had just happened to me.
It was a nice day, and I was walking down Parker Street, one of the main roads on campus, and I was enjoying a nice breeze and sunshine as I walked across the crosswalk to the Counseling Center where I was completing my internship for my counseling program. A car was going by, so I paused in the middle, next to some flowers in the median. A back window rolled down, and out of it, a young man yelled a word at me. Just one word.
Then, the car sped off.
Shaken, I hurried back to the counseling center, shut my office door and cried. I e-mailed Mike, who was my pastor, the lead administrator over the chapel I led worship for, and who had been a go-to in my role in student leadership. He told me not to report it, because nothing would happen. It was just one of many non-empathic responses.
Kim knew I was gay. She had walked through the valley of self-loathing with me when I first came out to her. She urged me to view myself with value. So, it was only natural that she was one of my people I could trust and talk to about this terrifying moment.
During my last semester of my internship, I brought up this instance again during a Counseling Center staff meeting. Through my tears, I was expressing my anger and sadness about how a psychologist that believes in changing a person's sexuality was brought to speak on campus, in chapel – the one I led worship at. I didn't tell them how many of my own therapy sessions I spent preparing for it or how my set list that day focused on God's unconditional love because it was my one way to be vocal. But, I did tell them how hurt I was. How much I longed for social justice to be an issue, because LGBTQ people were experiencing a lot of pain, by the world, and by members of our campus community, and I told them what happened. Members of the staff cried with me, reassured me with a hand on my shoulder, and embraced me as one of their own.
I haven't thought about this whole instance or the feelings I had around it in a while. But last night, I didn't sleep much, and at 2 AM, it played over and over.
It's no coincidence.
I've spent more nights crying in the middle of the night than not lately.
Because I feel like a second class citizen.
We live near the border of another state, my home state. We are expecting again, and planned to use the same hospital and midwife as before. I'm halfway through this pregnancy. But now we have to embark on finding a new midwife and new hospital – all because of a new law that, after talking with our lawyer, has the potential to cause us a litigation nightmare just to secure our names on our child's birth certificate.
"So, just have the baby in your own state."
"Just use the local hospital."
"It's not that big of a deal."
Maybe it sounds over the top to say I've cried about this so much. Maybe it sounds like pregnancy hormones. That's the excuse I used when I could barely speak through my crying when I called my midwife's office last week.
But it's so much more than that.
It's the fact that me, my wife, and our children aren't treated like other families. It's the fact that even though we thankfully have marriage equality, we are still not seen as equals. It's the fact that so many people want to make sure they assert to us and others like us, that we are, indeed, second class citizens.
UpWorthy posted a nifty video about religious freedom bills. It makes some really solid points from a philosophy professor. But, after I watched it yesterday, I thought of our own experiences.
Like when we went to a local jeweler for our wedding rings, and they "mistakenly" never ordered them. Or how after we did order from another online company, a different jeweler botched our rings when they engraved them, and the woman who was working the store when we came to pick them up told us "it's not a big deal."
I also thought about how we have had to call places ahead of time – "We are gay. Is that going to be an issue?"
Can you imagine?
Calling the place you want to stay for your honeymoon just to make sure that you won't get kicked out when you get there? Or calling a pediatrician's office to see if they will still see your child? Or telling your financial advisor – so you can make sure that you are treated fairly? Or making sure the hospital you go to is progressive so that no one will try to keep your spouse from you?
I've thought about the many times I was treated differently after people found out – like the entire group that refused to go to my baby shower, the faculty member that stumbled all over himself and has since ignored me after I said the words "my wife," and the many former friends and family I have lost or had significant wounds from.
No wonder I have suffered from depression and anxiety for much of my life. No wonder the slumps and feelings of panic still return from time to time.
In the quiet of the middle of the night, I felt hot tears hit my face. A tiny hand kept reaching over to touch my hair and to put her arm around me. She had woken up very upset, and now was trying to go back to sleep in the security only her moms can give. I thought about how much she deserves to have her emotional needs tuned into. How much she deserves to be loved fully. How much she deserves to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect. Which was quite the feat when you have toddler feet jabbing into your back and pregnant belly.
Surely, God looks on us and thinks the same.
Grief is such a difficult and long process. And it's just one part of our process for justice – which is also long and difficult. I'm still figuring out the pieces and where I am.
I'm still figuring out where my citizenship belongs. But my hunch is, it's inside of love. And real love has no second class citizens.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Previous Section
|Back to Table of Contents
|Lords Hansard Home Page
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I entirely support the points that have been made. The Government have already generously made clear their concerns about using churches, and the provisions are now being looked at again. In the same way, I hope that this issue on village halls and church halls will be shown the same or a greater generosity of spirit. That would enable village life not to die but to live, which we most certainly need.
Lord Borrie: I might feel sympathy with the amendment, but I am not sure that it is necessary. Surely we can all agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but Clause 54 refers to what regulations "may" do in terms of imposing a fee for applications. If the Government are generously disposed towards the amendment in the process of argument here and no doubt elsewhere, when the regulations come to be made they may well do what she wants. Rather than having the provision inflexibly in the Bill, those particular places might in all circumstances be completely exempt.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, puts his finger on a point that has preoccupied the Committee since we started our proceedings, which is that without the benefit of knowing what is in the regulations, we have to try to put provisions into the main body of the Bill. Those who tabled the amendment need make no apology to the Committee for having put the idea forward. However, they could be satisfied, as he hinted, if the Minister gave an undertaking that when the regulations were published they would contain provisions of the kind asked for in the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: When a government are allowed to make regulations, the idea that they will not
Baroness Blackstone: We already license events at premises of the type covered in the amendment, but the Bill should make the application process simpler. Further, the new system of temporary event notices should make it even easier to organise small community events. I tell the right reverend Prelate that we are already taking action that will help to make the sort of events that enhance village life rather easier.
We license the premises now and have done so for many years because they can be a source of nuisance for local residents when, for instance, discos are put on for young people in the area. They sometimes give rise to issues of crime and disorder and may have implications for public safety and the protection of children from harm.
The Bill continues the current scope of the licensing regime, but should make obtaining a licence easier. The real issue is the level of any licensing fee that is to be paid. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, the Bill provides for the level of the fee to be set in regulations. It would be a very common occurrence in such Bills for regulation to deal with that sort of detail.
I hope that I can reassure the Committee that we are considering the issue, not only because we want to be popular, although that is always a nice bonus, but because we want to respond to some concerns.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Does the Minister envisage that the regulations will allow different fees for different types of village halls in different areas? Communities vary a great deal, certainly in the part of rural Wales where I live and which I represented for a number of years in another place. Some village halls cater for minute communities, and raising substantial sums of money simply to pay the fee for such an occasion could well cripple them.
Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Lord had been in his place earlier, he would have heard me set out in great detail what the Government intend to do about fees. I will not repeat all that I said on what the different fees might be. If he hangs on a moment, I might give him the answer for which he hopes.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set a reduced or, indeed, nil fee for categories of premises in the regulations. We are looking at the position of all the premises types covered by the amendment, with a view to trying to minimise the financial burden so far as we can. That may well involve waiving the fee altogether, although various issues obviously need to be considered.
The Government are committed to minimising the burden on such premises. We will make our position clear in due course. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply. I was particularly interested in her reference to the possibility of there being a nil fee in certain circumstances. I will suggest a perfect example in which a nil fee could be appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly emphasised the fact that there are different types of village halls in different areas, and some are more able to fund their activities than others. We must bear in mind that in many of our villages today, the village hall is all that is left in terms of a place in the community in which people can meet. The fact that so many pubs are closing in villages means that village halls are of paramount importance for sustaining community rural life.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee who supported the amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I hear exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said: that perhaps it is not entirely necessary to raise this matter in terms of the amount of the fee, in view of the Minister's response to the previous amendment. However, this helpful debate has shown support among Members of the Committee for the importance of considering different types of premises that will attract a fee. The village hall is a classic and extremely important example of the type of premises that must surely come within that nil fee category. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 257:
The noble Baroness said: I put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who is unfortunately unable to attend the House today, and I have agreed to speak on his behalf.
The amendment probes an interesting point. All applications in the Bill require a fee for which regulations will, we understand, provide. However, there appears to be one exception: that is, applications under Clause 50 for the review of premises licences. Will the Minister explain why that exception has been made?
I believe that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in the amendment was to draw attention to the fact that an exception has been made that might encourage interested parties to call for a review on any pretext. That is only a suggestion; I should not want to accuse anyone of maliciously applying for a review on anything other than a valid basis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for drawing our attention to the point. When an exception is made, it is only fair to ask for some illumination of the reasons that lie behind it. The review of an application will result in some expense, and that expense must be met. Is it so unfair to ask those who demanded the review to meet that expense? I am only probing the issue and look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, fees will be set at a level that will allow licensing authorities to recover the costs of the licensing functions. However, we would not want fees to be extended to apply to applications for review, as the amendment would provide, because that may act as a disincentive to local residents to apply for a review where they feel that that is necessary on the grounds of the licensing objectives. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question. Also, it would not be reasonable to make the responsible authorities that ask for a review pay a fee essentially to fulfil their statutory duties. Applications for review, and any representations made on those applications, would be subject to the same requirements of relevance as other applications under the Bill.
Let me reassure the Committee that fees will be set at a level which will allow all licensing authorities to recover their costs, including the cost of a review. The system will be self-financing and there will be no potential for deficit for council tax payers to pick up. I hope that with that explanation, the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow: Have I understood the situation correctly? If the local pub down the road applies, I can ask for a review of that licence, however irresponsible that request may be. That need not necessarily be vexatious; that is pretty hard to prove. I could ensure that the pub owner ran to considerable expense to counter a situation that may turn out to be not vexatious but on the verge of being a vexatious objection. Why should he be forced to run to expense without any possibility of getting that back? I ask the Government to consider that. I thought of that point during the Minister's answer and I am trying to be helpful.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page


text:
Reports have it that there is uneasy calm in the political landscape of Kogi State as James Abiodun Faleke and Mr. Mohammed Audu were invited by operatives of the Directorate of State Security in Abuja.
Supporters of the two politicians were apprehensive on the fate of their principals.
Faleke, a second-term House of Reps member was the running mate to the late Prince Abubakar Audu. The late Prince Audu died before the governorship election was "concluded" in the state.
In view of the alleged legal vacuity of the scenario, Faleke has been consistently affirming that he was the right owner of the mandate given to him and the late Prince Abubakar Audu. He argued that the election of November 21, 2015 was concluded and that a winner had emerged.
But contrary to Faleke's position
INEC made the National Working Committee of the APC to present a new candidate, Yahaya Adoza Bello as replacement to the late Prince Abubakar Audu on the strength that the Agassa-born business mogul came second in the party's governorship primaries.
Faleke kicked and dragged INEC to a Federal High Court in Abuja with the hope of stopping the supplementary poll in the state.
Having emerged the Governor-Elect, all efforts by Yahaya Bello to woo Hon. Faleke to his side has proven abortive, as the latter has gone to the Election Petitions Tribunal to challenge the victory of Bello.
Also, it was alleged that many support groups in the state are threatening violence if Faleke was not declared winner of the election, a situation which might have prompted the DSS to invite him for questioning as the January 27 inauguration date draws by.
An inside source told Vanguard that Faleke arrived at the Headquarters of the security organization at about 10.00am on Saturday morning and has not been released as at the time of filing this report.
Director of Media and Publicity of Audu/Faleke Campaign Organization, Hon. Duro Meseko confirmed the invitation, saying the the campaign organization is yet to come to terms with the invitation at what he called, "a critical period in the struggle for the Lugard House through constitutional means."


text:
Sandhan Valley
Sandhan Valley, situated in the western ghats of Sahyadris, is located on the west side of beautiful Bhandardhara region near Samrad village (3000ft Approx), is one of the greatest canyons in the Sahyadri mountain ranges. It is a combination of a canyon and a valley. Located in the Nagar district, near the famous fort Ratangad, Sandhan valley is undoubtedly The Valley of Suspense. Walking through the narrow streak of valley with 300 ft rock walls on both the sides is a lifetime experience. Descending full Sandhan valley is always a memorable outing and the overnight stay under the sparkling sky, is a sweet cherry on the cake!!
Itinerary of the event:
Day 0: Friday, 27th Jan 17
We leave by Last Kasara Local.
Time Table -
10:50 pm: CST
10:57 pm: Byculla
11:05 pm: Dadar
11:13 pm: Kurla
11:18 pm: Ghatkopar
11:34 pm: Thane
11:57 pm: Dombivali
12:07 am: Kalyan
01:18 am: Kasara
It is advised to board the second last compartment of the train from your respective stations so that we can meet in the compartment itself.
Day 1: Saturday, 28th Jan 17
Reach Samrad by Private vehicle
Introductions and start trekking.
Getting wet in next 15 mins is compulsory. So dress accordingly.
Lunch Midway
05:30 pm – Reach at base, dinner, campfire, stay
Day 2: Sunday, 29th Jan 17
Wake Up early
Finish morning refreshments
Start descend towards Dehne
Lunch and proceed to Asangaon by local vehicles
Reach Mumbai by Local train by 08:00 pm (depending upon the railway mega blocks)
The Cost of the Trek is INR 1700/-
Things to Carry:
A bottle of water (atleast 2 Ltrs),
Plates , Glass and Spoon
Towel, a napkin, Extra Pair of clothes
Sleeping Bag or Proper Bedding
Camera, Cap, etc. (Optional)
Sunscreen Lotion, Cap, Skarf
A good trekking shoes, extra pair of socks
A haversack to put in all the things to be carried….so that one has ones hands free while trekking. Pleases do not carry sling bags or Jholas.
Please avoid wearing Gold and other ornaments.
Pack Breakfast and Dinner on day 1,
Breakfast and Lunch on day 2,
Rappelling Charges,
Equipment and Expertise.
Mineral water, Softdrinks etc.
Anything other than above mentioned inclusions
Terms & Conditions - http://trekmatesindia.com/terms/
Rules & Regulations - http://trekmatesindia.com/rr/
FAQs at - http://trekmatesindia.com/faqs/
For registrations & More details, contact us at
email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.com
8422 888 006 | 007 | 008
Trek Mates India
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/trekmatesindia/
Twitter - https://twitter.com/trekmates
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/trekmatesindia/


text:
Games Middle East Technology News 2016
Dubai is a remarkable destination that is a traveler hotspot and a vital business center, offering many charms, quality hotels, shopping and fine dining. In a very small area, Dubai embraces a wide range of scenery. The traveler can experience everything from sand dunes and stony mountains to luscious green parks and sandy seashore in a single day. Now Dubai achieves one more milestone or include one more fact into Dubai technology facts by hosting a Games Middle East 2016 (or Games 16 Dubai).
Dubai tech blog: The Middle East's premier gaming festival, Games Middle East; the region's biggest gaming event, will be held in Dubai from 22/Sep/2016 to 24/Sep/2016 at World Trade Centre, where visitors can get a practical survey at the latest in mobile, console, PC or even table-top gaming and many other thing related to new technology in Dubai and technology in UAE.
Games Middle East's organizers say there will be demo and previews of Dubai technology facts and new games, showcases and contest from the Middle East and global gaming industry, including industry whoppers such as Sony PlayStation, 2K, Konami (with Pre Evolution Soccer 2017), Ubisoft (with Watch Dogs 2).
The Games Middle East festival will also host an official leg of Capcom's worldwide Street Fighter Pro Tour tournament.
Read more about Capcom Pro TOUR (CPT): Here
Fans can analysis worldwide trends, including the latest game design and development from Middle East's regional and international experts, and also the latest in technological revolution, including virtual reality, and much more.
It is a big opportunity for visitors and fans to observe games well before their release, participate in tournaments and competitions, connect some of the popular composers and voice talent from their favorite titles and also enjoy entertainment and other fun activities.
Ben Caddy, chief executive of organizers The Alliance, says "Last year's festival enchant more than 15,000 devotees of all ages and backgrounds and with more diverse and even better content on display, our vision is to set a new touchstone for Games Middle East."
"As the gaming business grows and adapts with localization and development in various formats, including console, mobile, PC and table top, we are extremely eager to see what's next ourselves and to share that with the community here in the Middle East."
- Visit www.games-me.com in coming week for Ticket information, activities, exhibitors and guest announcements.


text:
Flexible solutions with Cloud
You can shape it to meet your immediate needs. You can stretch and scale it for future growth and demand. And you can pay for only what you need. Which is why Cloud solutions are enticing. They offer any business the security and agility usually enjoyed by large enterprises.
Problem is, the word Cloud is loosely used.
Ask ten people what it means and you'll get 10 different answers (none of them wrong). Does that mean Cloud is right for you? Maybe. Unlike other providers that may steer you towards the Cloud whether you need it or not, we ask the tough questions.
We'll listen and analyze your needs.
If the Cloud benefits justify the expense, we'll recommend Cloud. One thing is certain, however – if your needs are mission critical, Cloud may be right for you.
Experts at Cloud Computing
RTS provides complete cloud computing services, consulting and support to organizations of all sizes in and around Baltimore, MD. We want to help you take full advantage of all the great things cloud computing has to offer while helping you avoid some of the pitfalls. If you are wanting to implement more cloud solutions into your business to reduce costs but would like a professional organization to help you get there, you have come to the right place. Contact us today to see how we can help you get more out of the cloud.


text:
Yesterday was Christmas. Yesterday it snowed. My family had a lovely day and last weekend we saw my mom's side of the family, which was great. Since I've started this journey, I've gotten nothing but support from my family. I've learned so much over the past year about the environment and about appreciating my family. All of them, make me want to do better. Be more creative, to work harder to do things even though they're less convenient and to just generally carry on even though I don't think it makes much difference, which is the hardest thing for me to do.
This weekend was full of upcycling and crafting while keeping the environment in mind.
We made reindeer ornaments out of corks.
And bottle cap ornaments…out of bottle caps, which we had to cram seven people into a bottle cap size circle to go into the bottom bottle cap. We haven't exactly finished that.
Everyone, even the guys, were totally on board with these crafts, which is interesting because when my aunt and I try to get them to do stuff at home it doesn't work out quite as well. But there they were like Martin Stuarts!
I got a solder from my grandma and an awesome upcycling books book from my aunt.
My great aunt made me a lamp from a glass coke bottle that she found in the lake and popcorn bucket from the theater (I don't think it was used).
And she made adorable bird feeders for my mom and aunt made from terracotta and old license plates.
My mom got me cruise control added to my car, which is a gift that keeps on giving and a 'keep it green' shirt and more love than one could ever hope for.
I appreciate all the effort my family goes into caring about the things that I care about.


text:
Nearly a quarter of a century after race classification was scrapped in South Africa race has become the only game in town, with Springbok rugby its latest victim.
The national rugby team is but one example of the destructive impact on the South African society by the obsession with race of the leaders of the country's governing alliance. For now it, however, offers one of the most clearly defined examples of the toxic nature of 'neo-racism' in post-apartheid South Africa.
Dominance of obsession with race
How dominant the obsession with race has become in some circles, is illustrated by the statement issued by governing alliance partner Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) after news broke of Heyneke Meyer's resignation as Springbok coach.
In the COSATU statement of just under 500 words, consisting of nine paragraphs, no fewer than seven references are made to the issue of race in one way or another. There is not a single word about his abilities as coach, something about which we have our own doubts, or about the strategic or coaching abilities, experience of rugby or other skills a future coach should have.
It is all about the racial composition of rugby's structures in the country – from players, clubs, "white and black" sport facilities, administrators and even "referees of the game" dressed up as "transformation". Not a word is said about reforms aimed at improved results on the playing field.
Another disturbing reason for concern coming through in the COSATU statement is how they translate their right to an opinion into one of a right to intimidate through a sustained campaign against the leadership and funders of rugby.
Transformation vs reform
In a previous piece on the subject of the Springbok team as a 'national asset' we argued that rugby is in need of reform from the bottom up, starting at school level, to ensure that the national team will become truly reflective of the potential of all the talent in the country. Transformation for the sake of transformation alone will not do the trick.
Transformation should and will be the result of reforms, utilising the skills and experience in the existing reality.
If one analyses the existing reality, the picture that emerges is that there are around 40 private or semi-private schools, which over the past two decades have produced most of the Springboks.
Yes, that is too narrow a base, and yes, most of the pupils in those schools – but not all – are white. That does not mean that the national and other senior teams in the country are not selected on merit, maybe not in terms of basic talent, but certainly from the pool of players available.
If you then look through a racial lens at the teams elected, and are honest, you have to admit that there are also white players who are disadvantaged by the way the system operates at present.
And it is not only South Africa that has a reform battle on this front, as an article on the state of rugby in England recently highlighted.
Not just a rugby problem
In an article last week, titled Who is entitled to determine the race of a person?, Sara Gon of the South African Institute of Race Relations relates how race classification in terms of the Population Registration Act of 1950 in South Africa was scrapped in 1991 as negotiations for a political settlement in the country got underway.
In a Let's Think piece a while ago we pointed out how very few, if any, South Africans can claim absolute purity in terms of ethnic origin.
In a letter published in Business Day last month, Jeff Rudin, the ANC's parliamentary researcher on the labour committee responsible for the Employment Equity Act (EEA) of 1998, writes how apartheid-style racial classifications were deliberately left out of the Act. He argues that parliament has since allowed regulations to be introduced under the Act that are directly in conflict with the Act itself and the Constitution.
Rudin refers to the Constitutional Court case brought by coloured employees against the Department of Correctional Services in the Western Cape. The Department promoted black employees over them by using the criterion of national demographics, which has no grounding in law and is discriminatory, they claim.That there are official statistics on the number of African and coloured prison officials is in itself an egregious violation of the law, Rudin writes.
This argument can be extended to just about the whole field of so-called affirmative action as practised at present.
Real reform, and eventually complete transformation in South Africa, should shift its focus to grass-roots level on all fronts. Real reform will come from fixing a broken education and skills development sector and ensuring equality of opportunity based on individual potential and drive to develop that God-given potential.
The big irony of the drive by the 'neo-racists' in terms of the Springbok team is that without the ground-up drive, the national team will see a dramatic drop in its competitiveness in the international arena. This will, in turn, play right into the hands of the traditional old time racists to claim "the blacks buggered it up".
A friend, acting as consultant to companies struggling with Black Economic Empowerment Certification, told me last week about racial tick boxes on the forms supplied. Typically there are boxes for White, Black, Coloured, Asian and then Other.
If 'Other' is chosen, it is mostly followed with a line designated as Specify. Many clients have a problem with identifying themselves as belonging to a particular race – particularly those born from 'racially mixed marriages'. In such cases my friend's advice is to write: "Who knows".
The sooner the "who knows" becomes a "who cares", the sooner South Africa as a united country will achieve its full potential on all fronts.
by Piet Coetzer
Also read: How SA slept through the BEE revolution
Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook


text:
Windows 7 sales scream ahead of Vista launch
Microsoft really onto a good thing this time....
By: Steve Dougherty | Software News | Posted: Nov 6, 2009 4:18 am
Comment | Email to a Friend | Font Size: AA
Already it is clear that Windows 7 is leaps and bounds ahead of Vista, not just by design, but by market success, too.
Not only has the fresh OS from Microsoft recently outsold the UK's own Harry Potter, but we now learn via the NPD groups' weekly tracking service that W7 software unit sales in the U.S. alone have increased by a whopping 234% over that of Vista's first days of sales.
For full details, check out the announcement from the NPD Group here.
Related Tags
Got an opinion on this news? Post a comment below!


text:
2008 campaign, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, far left, Howard Dean 1984 video, Iraq, Phillip de Vellis, Presidential Campaign, progressives
Following the same "Anyone But Hillary" strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough. The sniping against Hillary from her friends has gone on for years. Now that she'd an older "boomer," she seems to be fair game. Unfortunately, we live in a time where you have to get what you want — no substitutions! — or you can't possibly be satisfied.
That's the case with Hillary. She might be a great candidate and a great president, but she's not the perfect candidate. Nevermind if she has to lead a very diverse population: those who want the perfect candidate suffer from acute myopia. They dodn't care if anyone else is unhappy as long as they have the candidate they want.
Keep in mind, as parents, business owners, community leaders, we created those selfish automatons by always giving them what they want and not teaching the art of compromise, or even the basic principles of democratic government. Now we have to pay the price they set for their selfishness.
Here's a short blog post from the Hillary Clinton Quarterly about this topic:
Following the same "Anyone But Hillary" strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough.
If we consider the declared candidates and non-candidates like Elizabeth Warren, when they say Hillary has "too much baggage," they don't just mean the various Clinton scandals. They mean her policies, her votes, her personal beliefs, the track record of political inclusion that sometimes requires compromise with the opposition. They literally can't stomach her and will do anything to stop her.
Eight years have changed Barack Obama's political game, but many of his supporters from 2008 have not. Remember that "1984" anti-Hillary ad? Presumably, the President would not approve of such an outrageous attack on the former First Lady, but he did back in 2008. The ad was not just about a policy disagreement. It was a personal attack on Hillary the person and everything she believed in.
Here is the ad again in case you need a refresher:
There's a connection between the "1984 video" and the current far left campaign to smear Hillary. Blue State Digital, the company that employed the person who created the anti-Hillary "1984 video," was founded by a group of anti-war activists who worked on the Howard Dean 2004 campaign.
As previously noted on the company's web site:
"The partners of Blue State Digital – Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Clay Johnson, Joe Rospars and Ben Self – started the company immediately after working for Howard Dean's presidential campaign in 2004. Since then, the company has grown to 22 employees with offices in Boston and Washington, D.C. and works with over 40 clients – including Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) campaign, Gov. Tom Vilsack's (D-Iowa) PAC — Heartland PAC, the AFL-CIO, the DNC and the Democratic Governors Association."
Although the company released a statement distancing itself from the video's creator, Phillip de Vellis, clearly there was an anti-Hillary Clinton, anti-war fervor within the company that fed into de Vellis' warped view of then-Senator Clinton as "Big Brother." Ultimately, the company — and Barack Obama — were responsible for their role as "enablers" of de Vellis and for encouraging and promoting such extreme anti-war positions.
A viewing of the 1984 video would suggest that de Vellis takes himself and his views very seriously. However, in a comic understatement, his reaction after being fired by Blue State Digital was that the incident "changed the trajectory of my career."
And, in an apparent effort to rebuild the bridges that were quickly burning behind him, he offered his support to Hillary Clinton and vowed to vote for her if she won the nomination.
Perhaps playing seer for this controversy, Blue State Digital co-founder Clay Johnson said in a round-table discussion entitled "Net Politics: the Internet Can Make You President" — "The thing that scares the crap out of me are the camera phone and YouTube. They are going to be the death of a candidate. "
Or a video producer.
Our advice here at HCQ is to keep an eye on what the far left Democrats (so-called progressives) are doing to keep Hillary out of the White House. In 2008 they helped defeat her in the Democratic primaries. In 2015 they're still trying to destroy her political career.


text:
Searching for a New Home?
Welcome to Edward Petrossian's premier real estate website
serving Portland, OR.
Are you thinking of buying a home in the Portland, OR area?
Finding the right home can be a difficult process but no matter what you are looking for, as an experienced Portland, OR real estate agent I can provide you with the resources you need to make the home buying process simpler, from specific Portland, OR neighborhood information, to tools to estimate your mortgage payments, and buyer resources and articles that will help you through the home buying process.
Thinking about selling real estate in the Portland, OR area?
No matter which market you're in, you can use the marketing programs and experience of a qualified Portland, OR real estate agent like me to help sell your home quickly and at the right price. Learn more about my service, see information about recent home sales in Portland, OR, or contact me to get started today!
Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about the Portland, OR real estate market, or buying or selling a home in Portland, OR.
Thank you!
History of My Listings and Sales in RMLS
Request More Info
My Home Tracker
- Save your favorite homes
- Get new property alerts
- Share with friends and family
Home ValuesFind and compare local neighborhood home values


text:
Retail Space for Lease at Fashion Place
Murray, Utah
Comprised of more than 900,000 square feet of retail space, Fashion Place serves the affluent residents of the Salt Lake City area with the largest mix of first-to-market stores and restaurants in Utah. The shopping center is anchored by Nordstrom and the state's first Crate & Barrel, which stand alongside 150 retailers and an expanded food court that includes popular options such as The Cheesecake Factory and Red Rock Brewing Company.
The center is located in the vibrant, desirable community of Salt Lake Valley and is easily accessible from the nearby freeway from Interstates 15 and 215. High real estate values and local recreational activities draw an affluent demographic year-round. Retailers also benefit from exposure to visitors of eight area resorts.
Key Tenants
Key Tenants
Trade Area Demographics
Trade Area Demographics
Our trade areas are based on geographically-contiguous zip codes. Typically, 70–80% of a center's shoppers come from the property's trade area. We based this area definition on 1,000+ zip codes gathered during a series of Customer Intercept Surveys (CIS.)
Lease Plan
Lease Plan
We invite you to explore the leasing footprint and tenant mix at this property. Get in touch to learn more about leasing opportunities.
Retail Leasing
Contact our leasing specialist to explore retail leasing opportunities. From property management services to marketing, our team has the tools to promote ongoing success.
Pop-Up Retail Leasing & Emerging Brands
Pop-up store leasing allows online retailers to develop brick-and-mortar strategies by offering a physical presence with flexible lease terms depending on the brand's goals. We can help you identify markets, properties and spaces to simplify the transition from online to offline.
Eat / Drink
Whether you are interested in leasing space for a full-service restaurant or a quick-service franchise, our Eat / Drink specialists can help grow your business.
Kiosks, Carts & Specialty Leasing
We offer specialty leasing options that range from customizable kiosks to Retail Merchandising Units (RMUs) that position your business in common areas with high foot traffic. Contact our specialist to learn more.
We know how to market your brand to build awareness and expand your reach. Get in touch today to learn how our advertising capabilities can meet your needs.
Filming at Our Properties
Filming at Our Properties
Scouting for a movie or TV show? One of our scenic properties could play the part of your next filming location.
Media Inquiries
Media Inquiries
If you are a member of the media, you may reach out to our public relations team and a response will be provided as quickly as possible. Please understand that media information is listed for the sole purpose of providing assistance to members of the press.