- Carrollwood, Fla. residents have fought the long arm of
Walmart and won…for now. Following months of heated debate and fighting over a proposed Walmart
Neighborhood Market and Wawa convenience store, the project was denied by
Hillsborough County commissioners in a 6-0 vote during a meeting Wednesday
morning. Walmart attempted to salvage its plans by reminding the commission
that the vote was not a "popularity contest," but the commissioners
issued their opinion on the grounds that the proposal does not comply with
future land use elements. While the issue could end up in the legal system if
Walmart continues to fight the decision, for now the proposal to rezone the
property at Floyd Road and North Dale Mabry from a mixed use that includes
17,000 feet of retail to 48,000 square feet of retail is down for the count. An
overflow crowd of residents attended the meeting, many of them part of a
grassroots effort that began last spring when news of the proposed project went
public. Homeowners formed the group 813 CARE (Carrollwood against Re-Zoning)
and when their efforts were rewarded by the commissioners, those in attendance
applauded enthusiastically. "Just to know the commissioners heard us and
they understand that it wasn't just about an emotional ‘No,' it was about there
are very valid reasons why this is incompatible use for our neighborhood, so
they listened,” said Leah Wooten, president of the Cedar Hollow Condo
Association. Despite the vote, Walmart said it remains committed to the site. Prior
to the meeting, the Hillsborough County Planning Commission recommended
the county commissioners approve the project, which would consist of a
45,000-square-foot Walmart Neighborhood Market and 6,100-square-foot Wawa store
and gas pumps. Traffic and property value concerns are the primary rallying
cries for those opposing the project and from the sound of it, they may not
want to let go of those issues just yet………
- The impossible just might be possible in Hollywood. A
movie that had more than five people buy tickets to see it may not get an
unnecessary, unwanted sequel just because that’s what the movie industry does
these days. Even more amazing, this film is based on a popular series of novels
AND it has a bonafide A-lister in its starring role. That movie would be “Jack
Reacher,” the film fronted by the ever-insane Tom Cruise and based on a series of
novels by British author Lee Child.
While the film is still showing in theaters around the world, rumors are
already swirling that there will be no sequel unless the project reaches the
$250 million mark, something that can only happen if it does
better-than-expected business in the Far East, where it has yet to
open. Since opening last month, “Reacher” has been solid but
unspectacular, bringing in $154 million worldwide, more than enough to earn
back its $60 million production budget and marketing costs. However, for a
movie that opened during the Christmas season and was pitched as a blockbuster,
that total is anything but impressive and Paramount Pictures appears to be drawing
a line in the sand when it comes to a sequel. Trying to explain why “Reacher”
hasn’t been a runaway hit isn't as difficult as it might seem; fans of the
novels have been extremely critical of Cruise’s casting in the role of reacher,
who stands 6-foot-5 and sports a massive 50-inch chest in the books. Because
the diminutive actor is nearly a foot shorter than the “real” Reacher and while
in good shape, can’t match the hero’s impressive physique, many fans simply
don’t buy his portrayal of a former military police officer turned vigilante
who wanders across America as a drifter. Whether “Reacher” earns a sequel with
a late-game earnings burst or not, Cruise will next be seen on the silver
screen in “Oblivion,” a sci-fi flick from “Tron: Legacy” director Joseph Kosinski……..
- There will always be one. The one, of course, being the
overly litigious kook who is looking to sue anything that moves both to try and
win money they don’t deserve and get some attention in the process. Following
that logic, it’s actually surprising that it took this long for someone to sue
the San Antonio Spurs for allegedly
violating the state of Florida’s deceptive and fair trade practices law. As a
brief refresher course, Spurs coach Gregg Popovich sent Tim Duncan, Tony
Parker, Manu Ginobili and Danny Green back to San Antonio prior to a Nov. 29
game against the Miami Heat. Popovich took heat from the league and from fans
for resting his best players for a nationally televised game, but his
voluntarily depleted squad actually led most of the game before falling 105-101
to the Heat. Commissioner David Stern drastically overreacted by fining the
team $250,000, but he’s not the only person who wants a piece of the Spurs’ ass
for the decision to sit four of their best players. Attorney Larry McGuinness
is ticked off as well and he has filed d a class-action suit in Miami-Dade
County, alleging that the Spurs "intentionally and surreptitiously"
sent their best players home without the knowledge of the league, the team and
the fans attending the game. McGuinness claims that he, as well as other fans,
"suffered economic damages" as a result of paying a premium price for
a ticket that shouldn't cost more. It’s a feeble argument because players
aren't guaranteed to play at any time and although teams charge fans more to
attend games versus better teams, the Spurs were extremely competitive and
nearly won the game. Who is McGuinness – or anyone else for that matter – to
say which players comprise the best version of the Spurs and give them the best
chance to win? Furthermore, Popovich’s goal is to lead his team to a
championship, not make McGuinness happy. If resting three future Hall of Famers
for the fourth game their team has played in a span of five nights sets the
Spurs up better for a title run, then the coach is doing his job whether McGuinness
agrees or not. "It was like going to Morton's Steakhouse and paying $63
for porterhouse and they bring out cube steak," McGuinness whined. "That's
exactly what happened here." Not really, fool, but nice try……….
- The days of ducking blame are over, soot. For too long
now, soot has not received enough criticism for its role in global warming.
That should begin to change now that professor Piers Forster from the School of Earth
and Environment at the University of Leeds and his research team have unearthed
the ugly truth. Forster and his crime carried out a detailed analysis of the
case of soot versus the environment and emerged confident that a major effort in
reduction could potentially gain the world several decades of environmental
relief. Soon, known as black carbon by scientists, could have as much as twice
the direct
warming effect it was previously thought to have. Soot is believed to have a
warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter, approximately two-thirds
the warming effect of carbon dioxide. However, the study points out that the
chances of curtailing soot emissions could be easier than reducing carbon
dioxide emissions. “There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by cutting
soot emissions, but it is not straightforward,” Forster said. “Reducing
emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer,
as there are tandem health and climate benefits. If we did everything we could
to reduce these emissions, we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less
warming—or a couple of decades of respite.” The study followed up on previous
research indicating underestimation of some regions’ soot emissions and pointed
out that an estimated 7.5 million tons were emitted in 2000 alone. The biggest
offenders, no surprisingly, were Europe, North America and Latin America, which
combined to account for about 70 percent of soot emissions. Residential fires
contribute heavily to soot emissions in Asian and African nations. Soot affects
global warming because the small, dark particles comprising it directly heat
the atmosphere by absorbing incoming and scattered heat from the sun and can
also promote the formation of clouds that can have warming effects or fall on
the surface of snow and ice, promoting warming and increasing melting by
reducing light reflection. Cutting back on soot may not be a full solution, but
this study suggests it could be a valuable tool in the battle………
- Who hasn’t wondered where the captain who presided over
one of the biggest maritime disasters in recent memory is hiding these days? It’s
been one year since the Costa Concordia cruise liner crashed in Giglio, Italy, with the
audio recordings of captain Francesco Schettino arguing with rescue
coordinators about staying on the boat and trying to help in the aftermath of
the crash providing nonstop fodder for critics for 12 months and counting.
Stories of him eating fine cuisine right before the crash and looking to flee
the boat immediately after it began to sink have become critical fodder as
well, but Schettino insist he doesn’t feel the least bit guilty about what
happened that fateful night or about his reaction. He understands why some
people "hate" him, but has no regrets about how he responded to he
shipwreck that left 32 people dead. As survivors and victims' families gathered
over the weekend for the unveiling of memorials to those who perished, Schettino
was not on hand. He remained at home near Naples, where he lives under some
court restrictions as he faces multiple charges of manslaughter, causing the
wreck and abandoning ship. Laying low would be advisable for someone in his
position, but Schettino wants everyone to know that if they believe he did not
try to help the situation after he took the ship off course during a sail-by
salute of the coast, they’re wrong. “Everybody believes that I was escaping
from the sinking ship,” he said. “(I) tried to make an effort to make sure that
I was the last one to leave the ship — from the sinking side." Schettino
also believes other people should share the blame for the accident. He even
argued that Costa Cruises told him before the wreck that he needed to share
some authority with his well-qualified, lower-ranking officers who felt he was
"breathing too much down their necks." Somehow, being told to share
authority now means shoving blame off of himself and onto those same
subordinates. On the charges that he fled the ship with many passengers on
board, Schettino contended that the ship was simply too large to know for sure…….
No comments:
Post a Comment