Miles Benjamin (born 11 May 1988 in Solihull, West Midlands, England) is a retired rugby union player who played at Wing for the Leicester Tigers & the Worcester Warriors in the English Aviva Premiership. He also played several other sports in his youth, representing the West Midlands at athletics and water polo, and Warwickshire at cricket. He received the Bache memorial prize for sportsman of the year from his school, King Edward's School, Birmingham.

Club career

Worcester Warriors

Benjamin was signed by the Worcester Warriors Academy. After suffering a fractured fibula at the Middlesex Sevens in August 2006, Benjamin returned to full fitness with the help of the Worcester Warriors physios after a year out, returning in the 2007 Middlesex Sevens tournament. Cousin, Marissa Dzotsi, who helped him through it all and was by his side and watched him play a great game. Miles plays centre and wing.

His debut first-team start was against London Irish in the EDF Energy Cup, where he scored a try. His debut Premiership appearance was as a substitute against Leicester Tigers at Welford Road. He scored his first Premiership try against Newcastle Falcons in January 2008. He finished the season as the club's leading try-scorer with 15 and fourth in the Guinness Premiership charts with nine. Benjamin was jointly awarded the Young Player of the Year prize at Worcester's end of 2007–08 season awards. He was on the losing side in the final of the 2007–08 European Challenge Cup.

In November 2009, Benjamin agreed a two-year deal which will keep him at Worcester Warriors until 2012. Despite suffering relegation during the 2009–10 Guinness Premiership, Benjamin stayed with the club.

Leicester Tigers

Benjamin signed a deal with Leicester Tigers for the 2012/2013 season. In his first game for the tigers, in an 'A' League match at Northampton he suffered a serious neck injury which ruled him out for the rest of the 2012/2013 season. He finally made his 1st XV debut in October '13 against Ulster. His first scores for the tigers were in a Heineken Cup match against Montpellier where he scored a brace. He scored his first Premiership try for Leicester on 5 January in a 27–27 draw against Bath.  He announced his retirement on 24 March 2016 due to a longstanding injury.

International career
Benjamin played for the England Under-19 team at the 2007 IRB Under-19 World Championships. He also represented the England under-20 team at the 2008 IRB Under-20 World Cup, finishing as runners up.

He made his debut for the England Saxons against Ireland Wolfhounds in January 2010. He scored his first try at this level a week later, against Italy A.

Post retirement career

In 2019, Benjamin joined the employment team of law firm Lewis Silkin LLP.

References

External links
Worcester profile
England profile
Premiership profile

1988 births
Living people
English rugby union players
Worcester Warriors players
Rugby union wings
Black British sportsmen
People educated at King Edward's School, Birmingham
Birmingham & Solihull R.F.C. players
Leicester Tigers players


Merville (; West Flemish: Mergem) is a commune in the Nord department and Hauts-de-France region of northern France. The town lies 13 kilometres north of Béthune, and 30 kilometres west of Lille.

History

Industry
Located at the convergence of a canal system and a canalised river, Merville supported an extensive boat-building industry, with many different shipyards and chandlers located in the town. The industry went into decline in the post-war era and is today virtually extinct.

First World War

During the course of the First World War the village was completely destroyed.  The 6th Jat Light Infantry were billeted here in 1915. The Merville Communal Cemetery and Extension is also located here.

Notable buildings

The parish church of St Peter in Merville is a very large capacity parish church, whose dimensions make it a prominent landmark, visible at considerable distances from the town. Merville is a parish of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Lille.

The diocesan seminary of the Lille diocese was formerly located in Merville. It is also a very large structure, built on four storeys around a central cloister, with large chapel and refectory, and accommodation for over 200 staff and students. With decreasing numbers of vocations the seminary closed in 1970. The extensive buildings were briefly occupied by a community of religious sisters, and then became the Lille diocese's retreat and conference centre, a role in which it is still employed today.

The main town square is dominated by the town hall (Hôtel de Ville), which is built in the Flemish Renaissance style. It incorporates a very tall clock tower, with a working public clock.

Heraldry

Population

Climate
Climate in this area has mild differences between highs and lows, and there is adequate rainfall year-round.  The Köppen Climate Classification subtype for this climate is "Cfb" (Marine West Coast Climate/Oceanic climate).

Le Sart
Le Sart is a small village located about 2 km west of Merville. It forms part of the Merville commune, and is connected to the town by a regular bus service. It has a small parish church dedicated to Notre Dame des Affligés (Our Lady of the Afflicted).

See also
Communes of the Nord department
Cuisine and specialties of Nord-Pas-de-Calais

References

Communes of Nord (French department)
French Flanders


James William Mould (December 8, 1870 – February 21, 1944) was a politician in Alberta, Canada and a municipal councillor in Edmonton.

Early life

Mould was born in Kent on December 8, 1870. His family immigrated to Canada in 1872, taking up residence in Winnipeg, where Mould attended North Ward School. He apprenticed as a plumber with Plaxton Brothers in Winnipeg, where he worked until 1889. In 1901, he started his own business, Winnipeg Plumbing & Heating Company. It joined with three other firms in 1904 to form Standard Plumbing & Heating Company, which had offices in Winnipeg and Edmonton. In 1905, he moved to Edmonton, and became manager of the Edmonton office in April 1906.

In 1895 he married Margaret Lefley, with whom he would have seven children.

Political career

Mould sought election to the Edmonton City Council in the 1909 municipal election. He finished third of ten candidates, and became one of four elected to a two-year term. He did not seek re-election at its conclusion.

Personal life and death

Mould was active with the Masons, the Baptist Church, and the Liberal Party of Canada.

James William Mould died in 1944.

References

Edmonton Public Library biography of James Hyndman
City of Edmonton biography of James Hyndman

1870 births
1944 deaths
Edmonton city councillors
People from Kent
English emigrants to Canada
Canadian Baptists


Holmesdale, also known as the Vale of Holmesdale, is a valley in South-East England that falls between the hill ranges of the North Downs and the Greensand Ridge of the Weald, in the counties of Kent and Surrey. It stretches from Folkestone on the Kent coast, through Ashford, Harrietsham, Maidstone, Riverhead/Sevenoaks, Westerham, Oxted, Godstone, Redhill, Reigate, Dorking, Gomshall, and Guildford – west of which it is also called by the local name of "Puttenham Vale" – as it continues through the village of Puttenham, to the market town of Farnham.

Geology
Holmesdale is part of the Weald Basin and Weald-Artois Anticline. The valley is bordered on its north side by the chalk escarpment of the North Downs, and on its south side by the dip slope of the Greensand Ridge.

The valley's composition is primarily Gault Clay and Upper Greensand, with Lower Chalk wash at the foot of the Downs along its north edge and eroded Lower Greensand at its south edge also forming part of the valley floor in places. The vale gently ascends and descends several times along its length, with higher elevations near Lenham and Westerham (in Kent), and Wotton (in Surrey) acting as drainage divides for the valley's several drainage basins and rivers.

Rivers
The valley is part of the drainage basins of the rivers Stour and Medway; and the Thames tributaries the Darent and Mole.

Transport
The M25 motorway runs westward along Holmesdale after descending through the North Downs near Sevenoaks (Junction 5), before ascending up the downs again at Reigate (Junction 8). The A25 road connects the towns and villages in Holmesdale from Wrotham Heath to Shere, alternating between running in the valley and running along the Greensand Ridge. At Shere the A25 ascends the downs, passing over the top at Newlands Corner, to run north of the downs to Guildford.

The North Downs railway line runs along the valley from Redhill to Gomshall.

Usage of the term
Local businesses, schools, and clubs use the valley's name, for example the Holmesdale Building Society in Reigate; The Holmesdale School in Snodland; and the Holmesdale Natural History Club, founded in 1857, which runs a museum of the same name in Reigate.

See also

Geology of Kent
Geology of Surrey
 Greensand Ridge
 North Downs
 Vale of Kent
 Weald

References

Valleys of Kent
Valleys of Surrey


Wang Li (; born 1974 in Beijing, China) is a pianist. He began his piano studies under his father, Wang Yanqiao, a composer In China, and was accepted to study at the Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing at the age of 6.  His studies later continued in Japan under Hiroko Edo, and in France at the Conservatoire national superiere de musique in Paris, under Brigitte Engerer.  He went on to study in Canada at The Glenn Gould School of the Royal Conservatory of Music, where he was a student of James Anagnoson.  He currently resides in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Wang was awarded both the 2nd prize and Best Concerto Prize at the AXA Dublin International Piano Competition in May 2003.  He was also a first prize winner in Brazil's Arts Livre Competition, a Gold Medalist in the First Canadian Chopin Competition (as well as receiving a special prize for both best Mazurka and best Polonaise), a Silver Medalist in the 9th Southern Missouri International Piano Competition, 3rd prize in the 37th Maria Canals International Piano Competition in Barcelona, and a finalist at the Liszt Competition in Budapest.

His playing has been broadcast on CBC and CJRT radio, and both BRAVO! arts channel and City TV.   Wang's appearances with orchestra include concertos with the Hungarian Symphony Orchestra, the Sinfonia Cultura Orchestra, and the RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra.

References

Chinese pianists
Musicians from Beijing
1974 births
Living people
The Royal Conservatory of Music alumni
Central Conservatory of Music alumni
21st-century pianists


East of Havana is a 2006 documentary film co-produced by South African actress Charlize Theron. The film features three young Cuban rappers: Soandry, Magyori, and Mikki and centers on their experiences in the Cuban underground hip hop scene.

Charlize Theron presented this film at the SXSW Film Festival. The movie chronicles the journey of three underground hip hop artists in Cuba.

References

External links

East of Havana on Rotten Tomatoes
East of Havana on Metacritic

2006 films
Cuban hip hop
Films produced by Charlize Theron
2000s English-language films


Eryngium articulatum is a species of flowering plant in the carrot family known by the common names beethistle and jointed coyote thistle. This plant is native to the northwestern United States from California to Idaho, where it is a plant of marshes and riverbanks. This is a sturdy, branching perennial herb with rounded, naked stems reaching maximum heights over one meter. It has a few sparse sharply serrated leaves at nodes and branching points along its stem. Atop the stem is the rounded to egg-shaped flower head, which looks superficially like that of a thistle, mainly due to its spikiness and lavender color. It is fringed with up to 17 spiny, toothed, pointed bracts, each up to about two centimeters long. Each flower head is packed full of small lavender flowers.

External links
Jepson Manual Treatment
USDA Plants Profile
Photo gallery

articulatum


Greatest Hits is a greatest hits compilation album by Exposé, released on November 21, 1995. It contains all of their Top 40 pop hits (with the exception of "I Wish the Phone Would Ring"), two new songs ("I'll Say Good-Bye for the Two of Us" [from the film Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home] and a remake of Skeeter Davis's hit "End of the World"). In addition, the album includes remixes of three of their hits.

Track listing

Charts
Singles - Billboard (North America)

References

1995 greatest hits albums
Exposé (group) albums


The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is the metropolitan planning organization for New York City, Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley (Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester counties). It is a federally mandated planning forum to allow the ten counties it represents to coordinate the use of federal transportation funds. NYMTC was created in 1982 after the disbanding of the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, a metropolitan planning organization for the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Unlike most other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the United States, NYMTC's staff are all employees of the New York State Department of Transportation.

Voting members of NYMTC comprise representatives of the counties of Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk; the New York City Departments of City Planning and Transportation; the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the New York State Department of Transportation. Unlike some other MPOs, all NYMTC votes must be consensus-based, meaning all the voting members must agree on transportation funding resolutions before they can be approved.  Despite the policy and multi-billion dollar budget implications of the votes, there is a noticeable absence of public dissent or even discussion of issues amongst the voting members.

Nonvoting members include representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, New Jersey Transit, North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The NYMTC region includes New York City, Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley. It encompasses an area of  and a population of 12.6 million, which was approximately 65% of New York State's population in 2009.

To respond to local needs, NYMTC is divided into three Transportation Coordinating Committees (TCC): New York City TCC, Mid-Hudson South TCC and Nassau/Suffolk TCC. These committees recommend sub-regional transportation priorities and provide opportunities for the private sector, general public, local government and interested stakeholders to become involved in the planning process on a more local level.

See also
Metropolitan planning organizations of New Jersey
Regional Plan Association

References

External links
 NYMTC Homepage
  History of NYMTC, included as part of federal certification review
 Compendium/Guide to NYMTC History & Governance

1982 establishments in New York (state)
Metropolitan planning organizations
Transportation in New York (state)
New York metropolitan area


Mitre 10 Dream Home is a reality television series that screened on TV2 in New Zealand, originally presented by Jayne Kiely, with Simon Barnett presenting series 11. Two couples are challenged to show the country whether or not they are able to work well together, they turn a dilapidated house into their Dream Home. Each week, the two teams renovate a room or area of the house in the space of one weekend. Viewers vote for the room they like best, with the votes from the viewers and judges helping determine which team wins the competition. The winning team wins the Dream Home they create, and the second team have the option to purchase their Dream Home at a public auction. In 2013 the competition was changed to building a new home from scratch.

In May 2023, it was announced Australia’s Seven Network would be adapting the series, to be produced by Endemol Shine Australia, to air in 2024. In June 2023, it was announced Dr Chris Brown will host the series.

Copyright dispute
The 'Dream Home' concept enjoyed success in New Zealand over a period of ten years and inspired a similar venture in Australia. In 2003 the show's creators Ninox Television Ltd and the Australian production company Nine Films & Television Pty Ltd entered into an arrangement. Consequently, Australia's Nine Network screened two series of the very successful show called The Block, though the production company failed to pay Ninox any licence fees. In 2005 Ninox Television Ltd launched legal action, alleging that the latter's TV series infringed copyright. The case progressed to the Federal Court of Australia. The court eventually ruled against Ninox, concluding that though the shows were very similar in character, "simply by reason of the fact that there are large elements of unscripted dialogue and interaction within the overall framework of the programs, there cannot be any substantial reproduction."

The teams
There are two teams competing to build their Dream Home, and are known as the Blue Team and the Yellow Team (from series 11, the Orange Team and the Black Team). The team consists of the chosen couples to compete in the show. Couples with young children and that do not already own their own home are usually chosen. Each team includes their own builder to assist with the construction of the home, an architect, and a designer who not only creates the final plans for the home, but helps with the building process. Each team also has a budget advisor known as the team's Red Coat (as this person always wears a red coat), who advise the team on their spending during the project and make suggestions with any budget related matters.

Team selection
Finalist teams are chosen and the finalist teams have the task of designing their Dream Home. The design must meet certain criteria, such as being environmentally friendly and a certain size. The judges are looking for any unique design aspects that have not been seen elsewhere, such as in a magazine. The finalists present their design concept to the judges as a portfolio and a model and given their reasons why they should compete to win their Dream Home. The potential teams are told whether they become the blue or yellow team if chosen to compete in the competition. The best possible blue team and best possible yellow team chosen by the judges become the teams to compete to build their Dream Home.

The Project
After the teams are chosen in the second episode, they meet with their builders, designers and architects to discuss the design for their Dream Home. The house is designed based on the design created by the couple prior to selection, but often the architects may find the design is simply not feasible and redesign the house from scratch. The teams also visit Mitre 10 and Farmers (the major sponsors of the show) to choose possible items for the house as well as building materials.

Once all the design work is complete, the original home is prepared to be remodelled into a Dream Home. The teams first demolish any parts of the original home. In the earlier series this was simply gutting out the inside of the existing home but, in later series, the teams demolished everything except a couple of original walls and the floor. Rules were changed from the 2006 series onwards, requiring at least 30% of the original wall stud to be kept. Once the home is demolished, builders build the shell of the house; putting up any frame work (and usually the roof). Teams do not play a part of this construction, and very little of it is shown. In series 11, the framework for the houses was constructed by builders and the roofing and bottom layer of the exterior cladding was installed before the teams started construction.

Each week, the teams construct a room in the house (or outside area) over a weekend. While there is some variance between each series, the following rooms are usually constructed each week:
 Week 1: Teams are chosen and house is designed by potential teams.
 Week 2: Master Bedroom
 Week 3: Bathroom (and ensuites if any)
 Week 4: Lounge/Living and Dining Area
 Week 5: Children's bedrooms (usually 2 rooms)
 Week 6: Hall way and laundry
 Week 7: Kitchen
 Week 8: Exterior of house clad and painted
 Week 9: Landscaping of gardens as well as building decks and garage
 Week 10: Final show no actual building takes place, winner announced and second house auctioned.

While much of the construction work is done by the team members, some tasks are done exclusively by qualified tradesmen for both teams. These are tasks that could not easily be done by the team members, however the costs of this must be met from the team's budget. These jobs include carpetlaying, plumbing, and electrical work, as well as the construction of the roof on the house and pavement driveway and garage.

Competition rules
Rules that the teams must adhere to during the construction of their Dream Home include that:
 While teams are allowed to call in extras to assist with the building of the house, such as friends or family members, the extras must not be qualified builders or tradesmen, that is, unless they pay the builder or tradesman out of the team's budget. The exception to this rule is the team can call in a tradesman to carry out a task outside of the tradesman's field of work. For example, the team can call in a plumber to help with painting or a painter to help with plumbing.
 The teams have a certain budget to adhere to each week, which the team's Red Coat advises on. The Red Coat keeps track of spending, and reports as to whether the team underspent or overspent on their budget. If the budget exceeds the recommended amount, the team has less to spend in later rooms.
 The construction of the room is done under a certain time limit, usually from 8:00 on a Saturday morning until 17:00 on Sunday afternoon (a total of 33 hours). Often the teams work into the early hours of Sunday morning and then be back on site to continue work after sunrise. The teams must down tools and vacate the house once the time limit has been reached, whether or not the room is complete. The final minutes are often spent tidying any work for the final presentation. In some series, factors outside the show's control (e.g. rain during the exterior cladding weekend) have meant that teams have been ordered to down tools and vacate during the weekend, with time remaining made up on a later date.
 The house must adhere to certain safety aspects, such as rails on the staircases. If these aspects are not included, even if the team did not have time to add such features, then a penalty is imposed. This is usually a cash fine out of the team's budget.

The Winner
Each week the three judges view the rooms constructed and judge the standard of the workmanship, design aspects, and whether the project was actually completed, looking for any possible flaws. The judges then decide which room constructed that week deserves to win, which carries a small weighting in determining the final winner. Viewers of the show also can vote for the room they liked the best by calling the shows 0900 number or by placing a vote by text message.

The final show is live and viewers are still able to place their votes for the overall project prior to the winner being announced. The winner wins the Dream Home they constructed, including all the furnishings. The second place team wins all the furnishings in the home, and also money for a deposit to enable them to purchase the house at the auction, should they hold the top bid. The auction takes place with bidding open to any members of the public attending the auction. Throughout the shows history, the second place teams have always won the house in the auction, except in series 6, where the winners did not walk away with the home on the show, due to the auction closing below reserve, but managed to settle outside the show.

Series
Series 1-5 took place at the end of the year, whereas series 6-10 took place at the start. This means there was no series in 2004, although most of series 6's filming took place during that year. Series 11 took place during the middle of the year.

Series 1 (1999)
This series took place in Blenheim. The potential teams were chosen by building a mailbox with the best two mailboxes being the couples that would compete in the competition. The design of the houses were done solely by the architects but with input from the competing couples, the couples were shown the houses before they were placed on site and were given the opportunity to locate where on the section the house would be located. The houses were 1930s style bungalow houses, the interior was gutted out and exterior cladding removed but the teams built their Dream Home in the shell of the original home maintaining much of its original look, even the timber windows were kept as opposed to replacing them with modern aluminium window joinery. The house were not viewed by judges; instead, the winner was solely determined by viewer votes. Viewers could vote by calling the 0900 number (text messaging was not used by many New Zealanders at the time).

Series 2 (2000)
This series took place in Hastings. There was scant difference between the first and second series, except for the added requirement to increase the floorspace of the house by 25%. The houses were  1960s style state house.

Series 3 (2001)
This series took place in Timaru. There was scant difference between this and earlier series. The houses were, as in series 1, 1930s style bungalows.

Series 4 (2002)
This series took place in Wanganui. The way that the teams were chosen was changed: potential teams were required to design the house before selection. The houses were located on site before the series began, and were 1940s or 1950s style state houses. This is the first series where the final product resembled a house that looked nothing like its original design, with much of the original house having been demolished. Teams were required to increase the floor space of the house by 50%.

Series 5 (2003)
This series took place in Dunedin. The original houses were once again 1950s state houses but the houses this time were demolished down to the original floor boards and a single wall, but some materials from the original houses were reused in the new house. This was the first series where the couples and their designers were given the opportunity to see the room the other team had completed and give their view, usually picking any faults out to the shows viewers.

Series 6 (2005)
This series took place in Upper Hutt. The houses had their floor space increased between 100% and 200%, creating much larger houses. The original houses were 1950s state houses painted by the show producers in blue and yellow before the series began.

Series 7 (2006)
This series took place in Whangarei. The amount of floor space the teams had to increase and the size of the property were both reduced, and a requirement was put in place that the teams had to keep at least 30% of the original wall structure. The final result produced a house that looked nothing like the original.

Series 8 (2007)
This series took place in Whakatane. This was the first series were the series was produced by TVNZ instead, the show still remained hosted by Jayne Kiely and included the same judges. The show became much more like a reality TV show with a Shed Cam, where members of the team could sit in front of the camera and express anything they needed to say to the viewers. As well as this, the show became more competitive, showing rivalry between the two teams, as opposed to in the past, where the two teams had treated each other as their future neighbours and were much more friendly. A rising property market in every region since the show began has made purchasing the Dream Home for the team who come second much harder. In this series, both teams faced the reality that if they didn't win their Dream Home the couple would not be able to afford to purchase the property at auction. The auction for the second place teams Dream Home did not meet reserve and viewers were left uncertain of whether the family would be able to purchase the home but it was revealed the following day the family managed to negotiate to purchase the property. At the time the winner was announced, transmission of the show was cut at the crucial moment. However, it was rescreened minutes later.

Series 9 (2008)
This series took place in Hāwera. The show was branded as Mitre 10 Dream Home Ultimate with bigger houses on a bigger section and bigger prizes to be won. The teams also won prizes for winning the room each week. The series returned to being produced by Ninox Films. The winner was the Yellow team. The Blue team won their auction with no other bidders trying to take them on.

Series 10 (2009)
This series took place in Greymouth. The expectations for the houses in this series were scaled back to reflect tougher economic time as a result of the recession. The houses had to "reflect their original character" and the budget was reduced. However, there was still an expectation of a 100% increase in the floorspace of the houses. Four couples were shortlisted for the show, competing in pairs for each of the two houses. Rather unusually, neither of the two couples picked to compete for the Blue House were chosen to renovate that house. Instead, one of the couples originally picked to compete for the Yellow house was chosen to renovate the Blue House and competed as the "Blue Team". The way the judges come to their decision as to who is the winner each week was changed. Each of the three judges rate each team a score out of ten. The scores are added together and the team with the highest score wins for the week. This makes it possible for the judges decision to be a tie, which was the result in the first week. In this case, both teams won a prize for winning the room for that week. The Yellow Team won this series, and the Blue Team were successful in buying their house at the auction.

Series 11 (2013)
This series took place in Kaiapoi, a satellite town of Christchurch which was badly affected by the 2010 Canterbury earthquake and the subsequent 2011 Christchurch earthquake.  After four years off the air Mitre 10 Dream Home returned in July 2013, with Simon Barnett replacing Jayne Kiely as host. Unlike the previous series, the six finalist families were announced early in 2013 and the public were given a chance to vote for their favourite with the top voted family securing a spot on the show. The other family was picked by the judges. The 2013 series saw the show's first same sex couple. Due to changes in the building code post-earthquake, especially concerning foundations (the land the houses are being built on is classified TC2 "green-yellow", requiring more specialised foundations), the teams could no longer renovate a relocatable house instead the teams were required to design and build a house from scratch.

The team colours were changed in 2013 to orange and black, in keeping with the new Mitre 10 Mega logo. While the houses in previous series had three bedroom each, the houses in this series both had over three bedrooms. This series also introduced DIY challenges, on top of the main challenge with cash prizes.

In addition to a 1-hour show on Tuesday nights, a 30-minute show titled Mitre 10 Dream Home: Offcuts was screened on a Saturday night. The Offcuts show featured behind the scenes footage, highlights and a chance for the teams to reflect the previous weeks show.

The orange team were the winning team in 2013. Both teams were given a valuation for their homes of around $500,000 each, but both only sold for $375,000, with the only other bids, controversially, being vendor bids.

See also

 Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
 My Lottery Dream Home
 Prize home lottery
 Show home

References

External links
Mitre 10 Dream Home Website
TVNZ OnDemand: View current series online

1999 New Zealand television series debuts
2009 New Zealand television series endings
2013 New Zealand television series debuts
2013 New Zealand television series endings
1990s New Zealand television series
2000s New Zealand television series
2010s New Zealand television series
New Zealand reality television series
TVNZ 2 original programming


The Miaoying Temple (), also known as the "White Stupa Temple" (), is a Chinese Buddhist temple on the north side of Fuchengmennei Street in the Xicheng District of Beijing. The temple was a monastery of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism and is now open to the public as a museum. The temple's White Pagoda was built 1279 in the Yuan Dynasty and is the oldest and largest Tibetan Buddhist pagoda in China.

History

Yuan Dynasty
The temple's pagoda was built on the site of a previous pagoda of Yong'an temple in the Liao Dynasty (916-1125),

The temple was built in 1279 under the orders of Emperor Kublai Khan and was originally named " Dashengshou Wan'an Temple ". The White Pagoda built in the Yuan Dynasty is the oldest and largest Tibetan Buddhist pagoda in China. In 1961, "Miaoying Temple White Pagoda" was announced by the State Council of the People's Republic of China as one of the first batch of national key cultural relics protection units .

Ming and Qing Dynasties
There were temples built on the sites since the Liao and Yuan dynasties.  The temple's famous white stupa also dates to the Yuan Dynasty to house a relic of the Buddha.  However, the present-building dates to the Ming dynasty as well as its given name, "Miaoying Si", meaning "Temple of Marvellous Response".

Late Qing Dynasty
In 1961, then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai signed a Proclamation stating that the Temple was to be protected as a National Treasure. This Proclamation kept the White Stupa safe during the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s.

In 1976, the temple was seriously damaged by the Tangshan earthquake. The top of the stupa tilted to one side, the bricks and mortar supporting the stupa crumbled, and many relics were broken.

In 1978, the Beijing Department of Cultural Relics undertook the task of repairing and renovating the temple. The courtyards, the four corner-pavilions, the Hall of the Buddhas of the Three Ages, the Hall of the Heavenly Kings (Tianwang dian) in front of the stupa, the Hall of the Seven Buddhas and the stupa itself were repaired and renovated.

The complex was again renovated in 2010.

See also
 History of Beijing
 Beihai Park, the location of another famous White Dagoba in Beijing

References

External links

Introduction to the Miaoying Monastery and White Dagoba

Tibetan Buddhist temples in Beijing
Gelug monasteries and temples
Pagodas in China
Major National Historical and Cultural Sites in Beijing
Stupas in China
Xicheng District
Yuan dynasty architecture


Sea otter conservation began in the early 20th century, when the sea otter was nearly extinct due to large-scale commercial hunting. The sea otter was once abundant in a wide arc across the North Pacific ocean, from northern Japan to Alaska to Mexico. By 1911, hunting for the animal's luxurious fur had reduced the sea otter population to fewer than 2000 individuals in the most remote and inaccessible parts of its range. The IUCN lists the sea otter as an endangered species. Threats to sea otters include oil spills, and a major spill can rapidly kill thousands of the animals.

During the 20th century, sea otter populations recovered from remnant populations in the far east of Russia, western Alaska, and California. Beginning in the 1960s, efforts to translocate sea otters to previously populated areas were also successful in restoring sea otters to other parts of the west coast of North America. Populations in some areas are now thriving, and the recovery of the sea otter is considered one of the greatest successes in marine conservation.

In two important parts of its range, however, sea otter populations have recently declined or have plateaued at depressed levels. In the Aleutian Islands, a massive and unexpected disappearance of sea otters has occurred since the 1980s. The cause of the decline is not known, although the observed pattern of disappearances is consistent with a rise in orca predation. Sea otters give live birth. In the 1990s, California's sea otter population stopped growing for reasons that are probably different from the difficulties facing Alaska's otters. A high prevalence of infectious disease in juveniles and adults has been found to cause many sea otter deaths. A parasite, which is often fatal to sea otters, is carried in the feces of wild and domestic cats.

Background

The sea otter (Enhydra lutris) is a marine mammal living near the shores of the  North Pacific, from northern Japan, the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka east across the Aleutian Islands and along the North American coast to Mexico. It has the thickest fur in the animal kingdom. Between 1741 and 1911, a period of extensive hunting for sea otter pelts, known as "the Great Hunt", brought the world population to 1,000 – 2,000 individuals in a fraction of the species' historic range. Since then, most commercial hunting of the species has been banned, although a limited amount of hunting by indigenous peoples has been permitted.

The sea otter preys mostly upon invertebrates such as sea urchins, diverse mollusks and crustaceans, and some species of fish. In most of its range, it is a keystone species, with a stabilizing effect on its local ecosystem that is disproportionate to its size and abundance. Specifically, sea otters control sea urchin populations, and the absence of these species would result in extensive damage to the kelp forest ecosystems, including the inshore species that rely on them as well.

Because of the sea otter's crucial ecological role, as well as the animal's aesthetic and cultural value, particular efforts have been made to protect the species and to expand its range. Conservation of the sea otter is complicated by the fact that some of its preferred prey species, such as some species of abalone, crabs, and clams, are also eaten by humans. Because of the species' reputation for depleting shellfish resources, advocates for commercial, recreational, and subsistence shellfish harvesting have often opposed allowing the sea otter's range to increase, and there have even been instances of fishermen and others illegally killing them.

The sea otter's range is currently discontinuous. It is absent from about a third of its former range, including all of Oregon and northern California, and it has only recently begun to reappear in Mexico and northern Japan. Sea otters can do well in captivity, and are featured in over 40 public aquaria and zoos. The southern sea otter which range historically spanned from Baja, California all the way up to the shorelines of Oregon and
Washington, now only stretches from Southern California to just north of Half Moon Bay, California. What was historically a vast population now numbers just over 3000 as of 2006 census. The biggest concentrations of sea otters can be found in the waters surrounding Alaska. While population numbers of the northern sea otter located in this region have still declined, the population hasn't been affected nearly as drastically as southern sea otters.

Conservation issues
Research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests that food availability is the major determinant in sea otter population growth. The IUCN describes the significant threats to sea otters as oil pollution, predation by orcas, poaching, and conflicts with fisheries. Sea otters can drown if entangled in fishing gear. They can also be stressed by well-meaning human watchers who approach too closely. The most significant threat to sea otters is oil spills. Unlike most other marine mammals, sea otters have very little subcutaneous fat. Otters rely primarily on their fur to be clean, dense, and water resistant in order to be insulted from the cold. When their fur is soaked with oil, it loses its ability to retain air. The liver, kidneys, and lungs of sea otters also become damaged after they inhale oil or ingest it when grooming. The contamination of their fur destroys the insulating properties of the fur, causing the animal to experience hypothermia and death.

The small geographic ranges of the sea otter populations in California, Washington, and British Columbia mean that a single major spill could be catastrophic for that state or province. Prevention of oil spills and preparation for rescue of otters in the event of one, are major areas of focus for conservation efforts. Increasing the size and the range of sea otter populations will also reduce the effects of catastrophic oil spills.

More broadly, sea otters must maintain a high level of internal heat production in order to compensate for a lack of blubber. Because of this, sea otters need to consume food equal to 25% of their body mass every single day to satisfy their high energetic requirements. Consequently, depending on the habitat, reproductive status, and per capita prey presence, hunting for food can cost sea otters between 20 and 50% of the day foraging, leaving sea otters significantly vulnerable.

 Marine protected areas provide good habitat in which activities such as dumping waste and drilling for oil are not permitted. The sea otter population within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is estimated to be more than 1,200. The at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary is over 500.

Future direction
Focused research over the past 60 years has laid the framework starting from a few thousand sea otters recovered yearly at the beginning of the 20th century to roughly 150,000 sea otters recovered yearly in the present. In one study, several key challenges are outlined regarding the future of sea otter preservation. Research is aimed at focusing on (1) defining sea otter populations at more minute spatial scales to more accurately represent dispersal pattern; (2) quantifying how food availability and ecosystem recovery impact sea otter populations; (3) designing sea otter monitoring programs through a coalition of international efforts to maximize both spatial and temporal research; (4) weighing the socioeconomic costs and benefits of the expansion of currently sea otter populations to prevent future potential issues such as over breading; (5) recognizing how multifaceted the situation is including how sea otter population may be highly affect from higher level predators on occasion, etc. A large focus has been placed on the use of quantitative models. Such models can act as tools for integrating and simplifying a wide range of data, including physiology, behavior, population dynamics, genetics, and disease ecology. Quantitative models enable rapid testing of several hypotheses, discovery of underlying mechanisms, and establishment of sound mathematical models to represent sea otter dynamics.

Russia
Before the 19th century, there were around 20,000 to 25,000 sea otters in the Kuril Islands, with more on Kamchatka and the Commander Islands. After the years of the Great Hunt, the population in these areas, currently part of Russia, was only 750. As of 2004, sea otters have repopulated all of their former habitat in these areas, with an estimated total population of about 27,000. Of these, about 19,000 are in the Kurils, 2000 to 3500 on Kamchatka and another 5000 to 5500 on the Commander Islands. Their population growth has slowed down slightly, suggesting that the numbers are reaching carrying capacity. The success of the sea otter's recovery in Russia has been credited to large-scale and long-term protection, enlargement of the species' range, and human emigration from the islands.

Alaska

Colonies were discovered around Alaska's Aleutian Islands and Prince William Sound in the 1930s. A sanctuary was created in Amchitka Island, whose sea otter population grew to outstrip its supply of prey. By the mid-1960s, Amchitka Island was being used a site for nuclear testing, which eventually killed many sea otters in the area. In advance of a major test in 1968, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission agreed to move hundreds of the animals to other parts of the coast. Seven hundred sea otters were transplanted in the 1960s and 1970s, with survival rates improving as scientists became more knowledgeable about how to safely transport the animals. In 1973, the sea otter population in Alaska was estimated at between 100,000 and 125,000 animals. During this year, the U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce administered the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( ESA) to stop the extinction of plants and wild animals in the United States, other foreign nations, and at sea.

Declines in the Aleutian Islands
In the 1980s, the population in the Aleutian Islands of western Alaska was home to an estimated 55,000 to 100,000 sea otters, but the population plummeted to around 6,000 animals by 2000. One controversial hypothesis is that orcas have been preying on the otters. The evidence in support of this explanation is circumstantial: It is unlikely that the otters have been dying from disease or starvation, as few bodies of sick or emaciated otters have been recovered. Also, populations have declined in areas of open water frequented by orcas, but not in nearby lagoons where orcas are absent.

Some Alaska orcas specialize in preying on marine mammals and others on fish. The orcas that prefer marine mammal prey usually attack seals, sea lions, and small cetaceans, and have occasionally been seen preying on gray whale calves. The small, furry sea otter offers little nutrition for an orca; however, orcas are so large that a handful of individual whales on a diet of sea otters would account for the disappearance of thousands of otters. According to one theory known as "sequential megafauna collapse," orcas may have started eating otters due to shortages of their usual, much larger, prey. The region's population of large whales was decimated by commercial whaling in the 1960s. Then, stocks of harbor seals and Steller sea lions experienced massive declines in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, which may have forced orcas to seek smaller prey. The theory that orca predation has been responsible for these declines remains controversial, and so far, there has been no direct evidence that orcas prey on sea otters to any significant extent.

Exxon Valdez oil spill
The March 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill devastated the sea otter population in Prince William Sound. Over 1,000 oiled sea otter carcasses were recovered, with the actual number of deaths estimated to be several times that number. Approximately 350 oiled sea otters were rescued, and over the next five months, they were given intensive rehabilitation. Each otter was tranquilized and thoroughly washed and dried. Those that had swallowed a lot of oil were treated with activated charcoal. The effort saved about 200 of the 350 rescued sea otters, although many later died after being released. Although few sea otters were saved in the rescue effort, much knowledge was gained about how to successfully rehabilitate oiled sea otters. A 2006 report from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council named the sea otter as one of several species still being affected by the lingering oil in the area.

Current status
As of 2006, there are an estimated 73,000 sea otters in Alaska. In August 2005, the "southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment" of the sea otter was listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. A little over a year later, the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit arguing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to designate critical habitat for the species, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

British Columbia and Washington
Between 1969 and 1972, 89 sea otters were flown or shipped from Alaska to the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. They established a healthy population, estimated to be over 3,000 as of 2004, and their range is now from Tofino to Cape Scott. However, the First Nations people in the area had not been consulted before the relocations took place. Although the translocated sea otters improved the general health of the ecosystem, they depleted shellfish and sea urchins that local indigenous communities had come to reply upon, and many in these communities came to regret the return of the otters.

In 1989, a separate colony was discovered in the central B.C. coast. It is not known if this colony, which had a size of about 300 animals in 2004, was founded by translocated otters or by survivors of the fur trade. The sea otter is considered a threatened species in Canada and is protected under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). In April 2007, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada changed its assessment of the sea otter from "threatened" to "special concern." The committee's assessment reflects the ongoing strength of the B.C. population and may lead to a reduction of its legal status under SARA.

Fifty-nine sea otters were translocated from Amchitka Island to Washington in 1969 and 1970, with annual surveys between 2000 and 2004 recording between 504 and 743 individuals. The state has listed the sea otter as an endangered species since 1981.

Central and Southern California

California is the only location where the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) subspecies is found in significant numbers. In 1938, a couple testing a telescope discovered a group of about 50 of these animals in a remote part of the coast near Big Sur, California. With conservation efforts, including the crucial pioneering of Monterey marine protected area by Julia Platt and Margaret Wentworth Owings and the Friends of the Sea Otter organization, this group has since grown and expanded its range. However, recovery has been slow in comparison to sea otter populations elsewhere, and also in comparison to sympatric marine mammal species such as California sea lions and harbor seals. Its average growth rate between 1914 and 1984 was only 5%, and it fluctuated or declined in the late 1990s.   The southern sea otter was listed under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened subspecies in 1977. A survey taken in the spring of 2007 counted a little over 3,000 sea otters in California, up slightly from previous years but down from an estimated pre-fur trade population of 16,000. For the subspecies to be delisted from the list of threatened species, the count must average 3,090 or more over three years. To aid in the efforts of sea otter preservation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Sea Otter Program has been observing southern sea otters from as far back as 1984.

The expansion of the sea otter population brought it into conflict with shellfish fisheries. Beginning in the 1980s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to manage the competition between sea otters and fishermen by creating an "otter-free zone" from Point Conception to the U.S.-Mexico border. In this zone, only San Nicolas Island was designated as sea otter habitat, and sea otters found elsewhere in the area were supposed to be captured and relocated. These plans were abandoned after it proved impractical to capture the hundreds of otters which continued to swim into the zone.

In December 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received a tip that a man docking his boat in Moss Landing, California, shot at a mother sea otter with a pellet gun. The otter was nursing twin pups at the time of the incident.

Population health
The causes of the recent difficulties for California's sea otters are not well understood. As the birth rate in California is comparable to rates in other, rapidly growing sea otter populations, the decline is attributed to high rates of mortality. Unusually high mortality rates amongst adult and young adult otters, particularly females, have been reported. Disease is believed to be a leading cause, and other possible mortality factors include water contamination and drowning in fishing nets.

Although the bodies of dead sea otters often sink at sea, necropsies of beached carcasses provide some insights into the causes of mortality. A study of 105 sea otters that had washed ashore between 1998 and 2001 determined the major causes of death to be protozoal encephalitis, acanthocephalan parasite infection, shark attack, and cardiac disease. Infectious disease alone caused 63.8% of deaths, and in most of these cases the disease was caused by parasites. Infection, particularly Toxoplasma gondii encephalitis, was often present in otters that had died of cardiac disease, suggesting that infection may have contributed to the onset of cardiac disease. T. gondii encephalitis was also strongly associated with shark bites, perhaps because the disease causes abnormal behavior that increases the likelihood of shark attack.

In one study, 42 percent of live sea otters surveyed had antibodies to the T. gondii parasite, an almost certain sign of infection. The parasite, which is often fatal to sea otters, is carried in the feces of wild and domestic cats. As the parasite can be carried into the ocean via the sewage system, cat owners have been encouraged to dispose of droppings in the trash rather than flushing them.

Although it is clear that disease has contributed to the deaths of many of California's sea otters, it is not known why the California population would be more vulnerable to disease than populations in other areas. It has been proposed that a low level of genetic variation of the population, due to its history of population bottlenecks, may be a contributing factor.

Northern California and Oregon
Attempts were made to move 93 sea otters to the Oregon coast in the 1970s.  None have been seen since the early 1980s. It is not known if they died or moved away.

Under a directive from Congress, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated the feasibility of reintroducing sea otters to their historical range along the West Coast of the contiguous United States. The Service focused the assessment on Northern California and Oregon, where potential sea otter reintroduction would have the greatest conservation value. The Service’s 2022 assessment indicates reintroduction is feasible, but it does not provide a recommendation as to whether sea otter reintroduction should take place. Additional information and stakeholder input would be needed to help inform any future reintroduction proposal if the initiative moves forward. The Elakha Alliance, an Oregon nonprofit that supports reintroduction of sea otters, commissioned its own feasibility study, which reached similar conclusions. The Service and Elakha studies found that a robust social and economic impact analysis must address the concerns within the fishing industry.

References

Bibliography

External links
 The Otter Project
 Friends of the Sea Otter
 Defenders of Wildlife

Otters
Mammal conservation


Jordan Turner-Hall (born 5 January 1988 in London, England) is a former rugby union player for Harlequin F.C. in the Aviva Premiership, playing primarily as a centre but he could also play on the wing.

His first start for England came on 30 May 2009 against the Barbarians.

He spent his younger days playing American football with the likes of Nick Ashburn and Charlie Canrac, who both went on to play professionally for the Miami Dolphins. Turner-Hall was known as 'The Bull' in his football playing days, and it is his hefty frame that can at times make him one of the most brutal attacking forces in the Premiership today. Honours such as representing Harlequins 1st XV at 17 years old, and playing for the England under 20s on a regular basis, have already come before him.

He started for Harlequins in their 2011–12 Premiership final victory over Leicester Tigers.

References

External links
Harlequins profile
England profile

1988 births
Living people
Black British sportsmen
England international rugby union players
English rugby union players
Rugby union centres
Rugby union players from London


At its establishment in 1912, the Republic of China claimed to be the successor state to the entirety of the Qing empire, which included Outer Mongolia. The Republic of China did not recognize Outer Mongolia until 1945; neither country exchanged diplomats between 1946 and 1949. At the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, Mongolia recognized the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China retreated to the island of Taiwan. The Republic of China continued to show Mongolia as part of its territory on official maps until 2002 when they recognized Mongolia as an independent country, and informal relations were established between the two sides.

In the absence of formal diplomatic relations between Mongolia and the Republic of China on Taiwan, the two countries have trade and economic representative offices, which function as de facto embassies: Taiwan is represented by an office in Ulaanbaatar, and Mongolia is represented by an office in Taipei.

History

Before 1949
Throughout history, regimes on the Mongolian steppe and China have waged war on numerous occasions. China's Great Wall was constructed to ward off invading hordes from the Mongolian steppe and Central Asia. For example, the Mongols under Kublai Khan conquered much of China and established the Yuan dynasty, and Mongolia later fell under control of the Qing dynasty of China.

During the Xinhai Revolution in 1911, Outer Mongolia declared independence from China and formed the Bogd Khanate. In 1912, the Republic of China was established. Although many people of Inner Mongolia sought to accede to the new state, China retained its control over the area and reasserted control over Outer Mongolia in 1919. Consequently, Mongolia sought Soviet Russian support to reclaim its independence. In 1921, both Chinese and White Russian forces were driven out by the Red Army of the Soviet Union and pro-Soviet Mongolian forces. In 1924, the Mongolian People's Republic was formed.

Under the terms of the 1945 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, the Republic of China was to recognize both Mongolian sovereignty and independence in 1946. However, due to a border conflict on the Khovd/Sinkiang border, no diplomatic relations were established between 1946 and 1949.

After 1949
In 1952, three years after the Republic of China's retreat to the island of Taiwan (which was retroceded from Japan in 1945), the ROC government accused the Soviet Union of violating the 1946 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship. The following year, the Legislative Yuan voted to abrogate the treaty. The Republic of China continued to represent China at the United Nations (UN) until 1971 and used its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to block the admission of the Mongolian People's Republic into the UN throughout the 1950s. The only veto cast by the ROC during its membership in the UN was in 1955, against the admission of Mongolia. Thus, Mongolia was excluded from the UN until 1960, when the Soviet Union announced that unless Mongolia was admitted, it would block the admission of all of the newly independent African states. Faced with this pressure, the ROC relented under protest.

The Legislative Yuan applied for a constitutional interpretation on 12 April 1993 to ask what the boundaries of the ROC national territory would be, while considering Outer Mongolia not included in the ROC territory. However, the Judicial Yuan in its Interpretation 328 on 26 November 1993, called the constitutional territory beyond the reach of judicial review and thus avoided the question as whether Mongolia should be considered the constitutional territory of the Republic of China.

In 1996, Taiwan's Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Office director said "The island's National Assembly does not necessarily have to make a constitutional amendment because Outer Mongolia's independence is well established."

Relations changed in 2002, 91 years after Mongolia's first declaration of independence. At the time, the Republic of China still did not recognize Mongolia as an independent country; official maps of the Republic still showed Mongolia as its territory. When the Executive Yuan under the Democratic Progressive Party administration announced that Mongolian nationals would be entitled to visas rather than entry permits when traveling to Taiwan, the same as individuals from foreign countries, the Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan criticized the implementation of the decision, as they had not been consulted in this regard. Later, representatives of the two governments agreed to open offices in each other's capitals; ROC's office in Ulaanbaatar was opened in September of that year. ROC's Ministry of the Interior then decided to discontinue including Mongolia on its official maps of ROC territory, and on 3 October 2002, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that ROC recognizes Mongolia as an independent country. As of 2002, the ROC government recognized Mongolia as an independent country, excludes Mongolia from maps of the Republic of China and requires Mongolian citizens visiting Taiwan to produce passports.  In 2006, old laws regulating the formation of banners and monasteries in Outer Mongolia were repealed.

Education
There are approximately 1,400 Mongolian students in Taiwan, as of 2019.

Trade
In 2017, bilateral trade between Taiwan and Mongolia was valued at US$44.84 million.

See also
 China–Mongolia relations
 Mongolians in Taiwan
 Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission
 Mongolian and Tibetan Cultural Center

References

Taiwan
Mongolia


Mongolian Taiwanese or Taiwanese Mongolian may refer to:
Mongolians in Taiwan
Multiracial people of Taiwanese and Mongolian descent
Mongolia–Taiwan relations


The New England Group 19 Rugby League competition is a Rugby league competition which is run under the auspices of the NSWRL, which absorbed the NSWCRL in 2019. It is based in the New England region. It was originally called the Group 5 Rugby League Premiership but that competition merged with another local competition to form New England Group 19. The competition is generally played on Sundays throughout the winter months, with strong local rivalries as well as inter – town rivalries.

History

Group 5 Rugby League
Historically, rugby league in the Northern Tablelands and North West was administered under the Group 5 Rugby League banner.

Group 19 emerged from Group 5 in the early 1980s, and initially featured roughly half of all the clubs from the Northern Tablelands and North West NSW. Group 5 eventually merged into the Group 19 competition after the 1981 season and the league has been known as New England Group 19 ever since.

Group 19 Rugby League
In the 1980s, Noel Cleal and his brother Les emerged from Warialda to rise to prominence in the NSWRL Premiership.

The early 1990s were dominated by the two Moree sides, the Boomerangs and Boars, before the Inverell, Warialda and Armidale Rams sides rose to the top of the league in the late 1990s. Guyra, known as the Super Spuds, won a hat trick of Premierships from 2002-2004.

Glen Innes, Tingha and Inverell dominated the late 2000s and early 2010s with the Moree Boomerangs emerging as the dominant side with back-to-back titles in 2013 and 2014.

In just their second season in Group 19 the MacIntyre Warriors claimed the A Grade honours, winning a tight contest over the returning Narwan Eels in 2017. The Eels returned to the competition after several years hiatus due to unruly supporters and unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Unfortunately the MacIntyre Warriors folded in 2018, as a result of many players rejoining the nearby Goondiwindi league side. Their absence paved the way for a return to the premiers circuit for the highly rated Moree Boomerangs, a team that wear their indigenous flag themed jerseys with much pride.

Guyra and Ashford folded after the COVID-19 plagued 2021 season, and Moree Boars left the year prior to join Group 4. Warialda, Tingha and a Uralla-Walcha joint venture rejoined the 2022 A Grade competition bringing the total to seven teams as Glen Innes entered a year's hiatus.

The 2023 Under 18's competition was won by the Glen Innes Magpies against Narwan Eels.

Clubs

Current clubs in Group 19
The Tooheys New England Group 19 Premiership currently contains eleven clubs, two of which are in Armidale (the Armidale Rams and Narwan Eels), and nine from the surrounding area.

Recess 2023

Former clubs

Part of Final 2nd Division Season in 2019
  Ashford Roosters (promoted to A Grade 2020-21, then folded)
 Tenterfield Tigers (moved to QRL-administered Border Rugby League)
 Uralla Tigers (recess; currently fielding merged sides with Walcha)
 Walcha Roos (recess; currently fielding merged sides with Uralla)
(Plus Bingara, Bundarra, Guyra, Tingha and Warialda who have moved up to the A Grade competition)

Other Former Clubs
  Gilgai Wolves (folded)
  Gwydir Gumbies (demerged to re-form separate Bingara and Warialda clubs)
 Goondiwindi Boars (Toowoomba Rugby League)
  MacIntyre Warriors (Boggabilla, Border Rugby League)
 Moree Boars (Group 4)
 Wright College Redmen Armidale (folded)
 YCW Armidale (folded)

Champions
Group 19 Rugby League Champions

Group 5 Rugby League
The competition in the area was previously known as Group 5. Once the Group 19 name became available after the demise of the previous competitions of that name, a breakaway competition
from Group 5 became known as New England Group 19. Group 5 merged into this league two years later. The 'Moree' listed is the predecessor of the Moree Boars.

Group 5 Rugby League Champions

Group 19 Junior League

Current Teams

  Armidale Rams
  Bingara Bullets (No seniors)
  Glen Innes Magpies
  Guyra Superspuds (No seniors)
  Inverell Hawks
  Moree Boars (Seniors: Group 4)
  Warialda Wombats

See also

Rugby League Competitions in Australia

References

www.whereistheleague.com.au

External links

Rugby league competitions in New South Wales


People named Curbishley:

Alan Curbishley, football manager
Allison Curbishley, athlete
Bill Curbishley, music producer

See also
 Colin Corbishley (1939–2015), English footballer


Lost Creek Airport may refer to:

 Lost Creek Airport (Michigan) in Luzerne, Michigan, United States (FAA: 5Y4)
 Lost Creek Airport (Oregon) in Dexter, Oregon, United States (FAA: 82OR)


Hordain () is a commune in the Nord department in northern France.

Heraldry

See also
Communes of the Nord department

References

Communes of Nord (French department)


Estreux () is a commune in the Nord department in northern France.

Heraldry

See also
Communes of the Nord department

References

Communes of Nord (French department)


Onnaing () is a commune in the Nord department in northern France.
Onnaing is home to Toyota Motor Manufacturing France, where the Toyota Yaris and Yaris Cross are assembled.

Population

Heraldry

See also
Communes of the Nord department

References

Communes of Nord (French department)


The Five Pagoda Temple
(), formally known as the "Temple of the Great Righteous Awakening" () or "Zhenjue Temple" () for short, is a Ming dynasty Buddhist temple located in Haidian District, Beijing, China.

Architecture
The temple has a square foundation, the "diamond throne", that stands  tall.
The foundation can be accessed through a spiral staircase and supports five pagodas and a glazed pavilion. Each of the pagodas has a rectangular floor plan. Four of the pagodas are positioned on the corners of the foundation (one pagoda on each corner), the fifth pagoda stands in the center. The five pagodas are associated with the Five Dhyani Buddhas. The corner pagodas have 11 layers of eaves, whereas the slightly taller central pagoda has 13 layers.  The total height of the structure from its base to the tip of the central pagoda is . The building is constructed from brick and white marble, but the building has taken a rusty color due to the oxidation of iron traces in the stone. All four walls of the foundations are decorated with carving of the one thousand sagacious Buddhas arranged in rows as well as Buddhist symbols (such as dharma wheels), animals (elephants and peacocks) and floral designs (bodhi trees), as well as Sūtra texts.

Among the decorations is a pair of footprints that symbolizes the spread of Buddhism all over the world. Traces of red pigments remain from the previous painting of the pedestal.  Its Diamond Throne Tower's architectural style is that of a "diamond (Vajra) throne pagoda", which is inspired by the Mahabodhi Temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar, India that marks the place where Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment (bodhi).  However, the design of the Diamond Throne Pagoda in the Zhenjue Temple differs from that of the Mahabodhi Temple in the proportions of the structure: The pedestal of the Mahabodhi Temple is much lower compared to the overall height than the pedestal in the Zhenjue Temple. Furthermore, the central pagoda in the Mahabodhi Temple is much taller than the corner pagodas, whereas in the Zhenjue Temple, the central pagoda is only slightly higher than the other pagodas. Besides the proportions, the two buildings also differ in the decorations, which have a distinct Chinese style in case of the  Zhenjue Temple, e.g., they had glazed-tile roofs.

History

It is not clear how the architectural style of the "Diamond Throne Pagoda" of the Mahabodhi Temple was introduced to China.
According to one tradition. the design was presented to the imperial court by the high-ranking Indian monk named Sariputra during the reign of the Yongle Emperor in the early 15th century. Besides the designs for the diamond throne pagoda, the monk is said to have brought with him five golden Buddha statues. According to the legend, these statues are buried in the temple, one under each pagoda.  However, references to such design can be found in much older Chinese art and architecture, for example in a mural painting in the Dunhuang Grottoes that has been dated to the Northern dynasties, about 1000 years older than the Zhenjue Temple.

Using the style of the diamond throne pagoda, the temple was constructed later during the reign of the Chenghua Emperor in 1473. Besides the marble construction of the diamond throne pagoda, the temple complex also contained a number of wooden buildings; at least six halls were present during the times of the Ming dynasty. The complex underwent renovation during the time of the Qing dynasty in 1761 when the halls were tiled in yellow. The temple complex was damaged by fire in 1860, during the Second Opium War and again in 1900 by the Eight-Nation Alliance that put down the Boxer Rebellion. Only the stone structure of the five pagoda building proper survived the destruction, the wooden halls perished, but the pedestal that once supported the "Big Treasure Hall" remains on the site.  At present, the temple houses the Beijing Art Museum of Stone Carvings ().
The Zhenjue Temple has been listed as a national monument since 1961 (resolution 1-75).

See also
There are at least six temples containing a "diamond throne pagoda" in China. The other five temples are:

Temple of the Azure Clouds in Beijing
Yellow Temple in Beijing
Five Pagoda Temple in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia
Miaozhan Temple () in Kunming, Yunnan Province
Guanghui Temple () in Zhengding,  Hebei Province

The Beijing Zhenjue Temple is the oldest of these buildings.

References

Buddhist temples in Beijing
Major National Historical and Cultural Sites in Beijing
Ming dynasty architecture


The Ginter Building is a historic U.S. building located at 1540 Highland Avenue, Eau Gallie, Florida.  The building was constructed in 1926 by Clifford Ginter.  Over the years, it was used as an apartment building, a rescue mission house, a store, professional offices, and a nursery school.

Notes

Gallery

Buildings and structures in Melbourne, Florida
Eau Gallie, Florida
Commercial buildings in Florida
1926 establishments in Florida
Buildings and structures completed in 1926


Crespin is the name or part of the name of several communes in France:

 Crespin, Aveyron, in the Aveyron department
 Crespin, Nord, in the Nord department
 Crespin, Tarn, in the Tarn department
 Saint-Crespin, in the Seine-Maritime department


George Witty (1856 – 21 November 1941) was a New Zealand Member of Parliament for Riccarton, in the South Island.

Early life
He was born in North Ferriby, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England and came to New Zealand in 1875 with two shillings in his pocket. He was a farmer and a director of the local sale yards company in Christchurch.

Member of Parliament

George Witty represented the Riccarton electorate in the New Zealand House of Representatives for twenty three years from 1902 to 1925 . Witty was a Liberal but at the 1922 election he stood as an Independent and was successful.

Witty was a member of the Legislative Council from 1925 to 28 October 1932. Witty and Leonard Isitt were both appointed to the Legislative Council by Gordon Coates on 28 October 1925; shortly before the 1925 election on 4 November. Both were Liberals but their retirement removed "a source of some bitterness from the Party’s ranks (Coates rewarded them with seats in the Legislative Council the day after the election)". Gordon Coates was Reform, and both of their former seats went to Reform candidates.

After Witty, Bert Kyle of the Reform Party represented the Riccarton electorate.

In 1935, Witty was awarded the King George V Silver Jubilee Medal. He received the King George VI Coronation Medal in 1937, and served as chairman of the Paparua County Council.

Death
Witty died in Christchurch on 21 November 1941, aged 85 years.

External links

References

1856 births
1941 deaths
New Zealand Liberal Party MPs
Independent MPs of New Zealand
Members of the New Zealand Legislative Council
Mayors of places in Canterbury, New Zealand
New Zealand farmers
New Zealand businesspeople
New Zealand people of English descent
People from North Ferriby
New Zealand MPs for Christchurch electorates
Local politicians in New Zealand
Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives
Colony of New Zealand people


The Victorian Desalination Plant (also referred to as the Victorian Desalination Project or Wonthaggi desalination plant) is a water desalination plant in Dalyston, on the Bass Coast in southern Victoria, Australia. The project was announced by Premier Steve Bracks in June 2007, at the height of the  millennium drought when Melbourne's water storage levels dropped to 28.4%, a drop of more than 20% from the previous year. Increased winter-spring rains after mid-2007 took water storage levels above 40%, but it was not until 2011 that storages returned to pre-2006 levels.

The plant was completed in December 2012, and was the largest addition to Melbourne's water system since the Thomson River Dam was completed in 1983. However, at the time, Melbourne's reservoirs were at 81% capacity, and the plant was immediately put into standby mode. The first water released for public use was in March 2017 via Cardinia Reservoir.

As a rainfall-independent source of water the desalination plant complements Victoria's existing drainage basins, being a useful resource in times of drought. It is a controversial part of Victoria's water system, with ongoing costs of $608 million a year, equivalent to .16% of Melbourne's FY2019 GDP, even if no water is ordered. Construction commenced in mid-2009. While the project will supply water for Melbourne, it is being managed by the Department of Sustainability & Environment (DSE) as a public-private partnership (PPP). DSE awarded the tender for design, build and operation to another company that will in turn supply the water to Melbourne Water, that makes payments to the plant owners and operators, Aquasure (Ventia/Suez). Melbourne Water pays the owner of the plant, even if no water is ordered, $608 million a year. That is $1.8 million per day, for 27 years. The total payment is expected to be between $18 and $19 billion. On 1 April each year, the Minister for Water places an order for the following financial year, up to 150 gigalitres a year, at an additional cost to Melbourne Water and consumers.

Proposal

The potential for a desalination plant was promoted through the late 2000s in response to an increasingly severe drought which saw Melbourne's water storages go from 57.1% of capacity in January 2005 to 28.7% in June 2007.

The project was part of the Victorian Government's "Our Water, Our Future" water plan which included associated projects such as the North-South Pipeline, the Cardinia Pipeline and a proposed interconnector to Geelong.
The total average inflow into Melbourne dams from 1913 to 1996 was  per year, while average inflow 1997–2009, during Victoria's most severe recorded drought was  per year.

The combination of drought and rapid population growth put pressure on reserve storage capacity which had dropped from 97.8 per cent in 1983 to just over one-quarter of maximum capacity in 2007. As a result, water restrictions were in place for several years.

The desalination plant and associated infrastructure includes tunnels connecting the plant to marine intake and discharge structures up to  out to sea, an  pipeline to connect the plant to Melbourne's water supply system, and power supply infrastructure for the plant.

The plant can provide up to  of additional water a year, with the potential to expand production to  per year.

A two-headed marine structure extends up to  offshore was to be temporarily constructed. The plant takes in  of seawater and pumps back  of saline concentration every year.

A six turbine windfarm was built in 2005 and is located at Glenthompson to offset the facility's electricity use.

Estimated water production is  of desalinated water per year, potentially providing around a third of Melbourne's annual water consumption (based on 2007 consumption levels). It is intended that the water produced will be supplied to Melbourne, Geelong, Western Port and South Gippsland.

The intake pipes for the desalination plant are located over  out to sea.

Environmental effects studies
In August 2008, a 1,600-page environmental effects study report was prepared and found that; "...several protected species could be affected by the plant's construction and operation – including the orange-bellied parrot, the growling grass frog and the giant Gippsland earthworm – but none would be left "significantly" worse off.". The community was given 30 business days to respond to the report. Watershed Victoria claimed that this was insufficient time for community groups to analyse the report and prepare submissions.

Contract to build and operate
There were eight tenderers for the contract for the construction and operation of the plant, with two consortia being short-listed – AquaSure (Ventia Contractors/Suez) and BassWater (John Holland Group/Veolia Environmental).

On 30 June 2009, the AquaSure consortium, which is made up of Degrémont, Macquarie Capital and Ventia Contractors, was named the winning bidder. Simultaneously, it was announced that construction was scheduled to commence in late 2009, proposing that water be delivered by late 2011.

A$1.8 million per day fee is payable to the construction consortium. This minimum fee that is payable for 27 years after completion. Even if no water is required, the total payment is between $18 and $19 billion.

Location

Nine sites were included in the feasibility study's "long list", and subsequently reduce to four (Surf Coast, East of Port Philip Bay, West of Western Port, and Bass Coast). The Bass Coast was chosen as the premium location. Compulsory acquisition notices were issued to affected residents on 25 January 2008.

The site is a  area in Dalyston next to Williamsons Beach on the Bass Coast in south-eastern Victoria. It is between Wonthaggi and Kilcunda and near the Powlett River.

The site is located on Bunurong aboriginal land, specifically the Boakoolawal clan which lived in the area south of the Bass River before white settlement. Middens containing charcoal and shellfish mark the location of their campsites along the coast. Many significant archaeological artifacts have previously been discovered around the construction site, including Australia's first dinosaur bone, the Cape Paterson Claw, discovered nearby in 1903 by William Ferguson near what is now Eagles Nest, Bunurong Marine National Park in Inverloch.

Plans are underway to build a much larger, wind farm at Glenthompson to offset the electricity used by the desalination plant.

The site is located in the Powlett River Coal Fields where the State Coal Mine produced most of the steam-locomotive fuel that serviced the Victorian Railways network, from 1911 until 1978.

Cost
The capital cost for the project was initially estimated to be $2.9 billion in the initial feasibility study; this was later revised to $3.1 billion and then to $3.5 billion. After the winning bidder was announced it was revised to $4 billion.

Operating costs are to be charged by a private firm over a 25–30-year period and are estimated to be around $1.5 billion. This cost includes labour, replacement of membranes, chemicals costs and energy, and it was initially estimated at $132 million per annum. Unlike previous water infrastructure works in Melbourne, the plant will be built and operated as a public-private partnership.

A 2008 report by the Water Services Association of Australia, modelling several national water-supply scenarios for 2030. It determined that sourcing water supply by seawater desalination was the most energy-intensive. The report predicted that if desalination was the primary source of supplying around  per person per day, energy use would rise by 400% above today's levels.

On 12 December 2009 The Age newspaper published details of considerable areas of land made cheaply available to the plant's developers without the value of that land being included in the project's official costs.

The average water bill for residents living in Melbourne was estimated to rise by more than 60 per cent over the following five years, while the Essential Services Commission estimated it might rise up to 96 per cent.

Then Water Minister Tim Holding, stated that; "Melbourne residents need to help pay for major water infrastructure projects, such as the desalination plant and the Sugarloaf (North South) pipeline."

By comparison, the Kwinana Desalination Plant in Perth, Western Australia, was completed in 2006 with approximately 30–50 per cent of the output of the Wonthaggi plant. It cost $387 million to build and did not include an  pipeline and windfarm.

Energy consumption
The plant is estimated to require 90 MW of electricity to power the plant and transfer pipeline when operating at 150GL capacity.

The owners state it is 100% offset by renewable energy, however they also state it would be "impractical" to directly supply the plant with renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, instead purchasing "renewable energy credits" (also known as Carbon Credits) to offset the coal powered energy the plant in fact uses.

Opposition

The project encountered opposition from community groups and local residents, and the Australian Greens and the business fundamentals were challenged during feasibility studies and assessments of Melbourne's water supply needs.

Regular public rallies were conducted on the site and in Melbourne.

The community group Your Water, Your Say was one of the first organised opposition group. It was sent bankrupt after it lost a legal case after the group pursued the Victorian Government over lack of reports and consultation. The case centred on initial water requirement figures, feasibility studies and environmental effects reports among other issues. More recently, a new opposition group Watershed Victoria, has continued the opposition campaign.
The government pursued legal costs, which sent the group bankrupt.

Public rallies and protests were held at the site near Wonthaggi and in Melbourne on Spring Street outside the State Parliament buildings during 2007, 2008 and 2009.

At a July 2008 protest several people were removed from Crown land, but none were arrested.

In June 2009, a petition including 3,000 signatories opposing the plant was presented to the Victorian Parliament.

Your Water Your Say v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
Your Water Your Say (YWYS) opposed the proposal, taking legal action against the Victorian State Government regarding non-disclosure of financial information and lack of environmental studies and reports. As of July 2008 YWYS lost the action, and the Federal Court awarded costs to the State Government estimated to be up to $200,000, effectively rendering the community group broke. YWYS was subsequently disbanded.

In its submission response to the Environmental Effects Statement, YWYS stated: "The Federal and State Governments are aware that YWYS is unlikely to be in a position to pay its significant legal costs and hence their apparent inability to make a decision on this front can only be interpreted as an attempt to further avoid community scrutiny of this project."

Sharing of private information with private consortia
In December 2009, it was revealed that private information obtained by Victoria Police during surveillance efforts on individuals involved or corresponding with YWYS, Watershed Victoria and other community groups, had been made available to the private consortium building the desalination plant, Aquasure, via a memorandum between the State Government, Victoria Police and Aquasure. Victoria Police responded by explaining that the information would be used to better "manage" future activities and potential "security threats".

Public access
Booked tours are run and plans are underway for Aquasure to open to the public. The gates open daily for public access to the  park and  of walking, horse riding and cycling tracks. The plant is located next to Williamsons Beach and the Wonthaggi Wind Farm, Wonthaggi.

Timeline

2007
19 June – the Victorian Government announced its intention to develop a seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant on the coast near Wonthaggi. The plant is explained to be part of a water plan marketed as Our Water Our Future.
28 December – the Minister for Planning for the Victorian Government determines that the project would require assessment under the Environment Effects Act 1978 and preparations for an Environment Effects Statement (EES) begin.

2008
25 January – Compulsory acquisition notices issued to the residents of the proposed site.
4 February – the Federal Government determines that the project will have to require approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
21 February – 13 March – draft scoping requirements for the EES placed on public exhibition.
4 May – final scoping requirements for the EES issued.
13 June – Justice Heerey awards costs to the Federal and State Governments a result of the action – Your Water Your Say v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts & Anor; Federal Court Proceeding VID188/2008.
5 July – The plant is addressed during the Climate Emergency Rally at various locations in Melbourne.
 of coastline is landscaped to alter the flow of Powlett River.
20 August – 30 September – Environment Effects Statement (EES) released for public comment by the State Government, community given 5 weeks to submit responses to the 1,600-page report.

2009
11 January – Planning Minister, Justin Madden, approved a planning scheme amendment to allow for a pilot desalination plant to come into effect on 17 January.
30 July – Winning bidder for construction announced.
6 October – Construction commenced.

2010
4 February – First sections of the new pipeline are laid

2012
Production and related operations commenced at end of year
"Zero water order" for financial year 2012–2013 and plant immediately put into standby mode

2017
 19 March – Victorian Government announces the first water from the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant was now flowing into Cardinia Reservoir.

2018–2019

 Owing to dry conditions, two consecutive orders were placed for 100 GL and 125 GL of water, expected to meet a quarter of Melbourne's water demand, placing upwards pressure on water prices.

2035–2045
Contract for the operation of the plant expected to expire.

Media
Construction of the plant was described in an episode of Build It Bigger, which aired on the Discovery Channel and the Science Channel in the United States in 2011.

Photos

See also
List of desalination plants in Australia
Reverse osmosis plant

References

External links
Victorian Government Desalination Project Site
Partnerships Victoria Summary Page

Industrial buildings in Victoria (state)
Desalination plants in Australia
Environment of Victoria (state)
Water management in Victoria (state)
Gippsland (region)
Infrastructure completed in 2012
2012 establishments in Australia


Crespin () is a commune in the Nord department in northern France. The town of Crespin was founded in 648 with the building of the Crespin Abbey by Saint Landelin. Its population was 4,532 in 2017.

Heraldry

See also
Communes of the Nord department

References

Communes of Nord (French department)


Place management is the process of making places better. This is practiced through programmes to improve a location or to maintain an already attained desired standard of operation. Place management can be undertaken by private, public or voluntary organisations or a mixture of each. Despite the wide variety of place management initiatives the underlying common factor is usually a desire to maximise the effectiveness of a location for its users, whether they are residents, shoppers, tourists, investors, property developers or business owners.

Overview
Place management is defined by the Institute of Place Management as "a coordinated, area-based, multi-stakeholder approach to improve locations, harnessing the skills, experiences and resources of those in the private, public and voluntary sectors". However, as a conceptual field it remains relatively underdeveloped because of its infancy.

History
Place management has its roots in the management of towns, cities, neighbourhoods and other locations. The reasons for the need for place management are compelling. The proportion of the world's population living in cities has grown from 13% in 1900 to nearly 50% now.  Changes particularly in healthcare and technology have led to dramatic shifts in migration practices. Fluctuations in the movement of people places a strain on both urban and rural locations.

Migration is not limited between rural and urban locations but can also happen between countries, creating issues relating to cultural integration. People will migrate for numerous reasons often linked with finding a better quality of life either through superior employment prospects, escaping war or poverty, or even to enjoy a better climate. This can create problems for locations which become exposed to increases in population, decreases in population, or a shift in the demographic composition of a population. Places subsequently act as focal points for the occurrence of phenomena such as globalisation and the clash of civilisations.

Factors such as changing technology not only drive migration, but can in themselves trouble the prosperity of places. Technological development was a driver behind the Industrial Revolution which led to high levels of migration into urban locations. However, further technological development rendered many of the primary functions of successful industrial cities as obsolete towards the end of the twentieth century. Grimond cites New York City as being one city which “went through a bad patch in the 1970s” while other major cities, such as Manchester in the UK which is famed for instigating the Industrial Revolution, also suffered. Rapid technological and industrial change not only creates jobs but can also cause mass unemployment, damaging local economies and leaving pockets of deprivation across regions.

Another important factor in the development of the field of place management is the impact of the retail sector. As a non-judicial parliamentary review of the UK retail sector states, retailing is a necessity for local populations, supplying food and goods in the absence of self agricultural practices. However, shifts in the sector influenced by national and multi-national companies have led to the globalisation of the sector, which raises concerns about the sustainability of the supply of goods and the effectiveness of local economies. Furthermore, all business practices, either positively or negatively, can impact upon the prosperity of the area it is based through the employment of people, investment and skills retention.

As it now appears to be accepted that for numerous reasons places undergo a process evolution which can impact upon their prosperity, it has become more widely acknowledged that deliberate and co-ordinated intervention in this evolution is desirable. Recognising a symbiotic relationship between the prosperity of a location and the prosperity of retail, firms Boots the Chemist, J Sainsburys and Marks & Spencer in the UK contributed to the development of place management by supporting local authorities in the formation of locally based intervention schemes. This led to the appointments of the United Kingdom's first town centre managers in Ilford and the London Borough of Redbridge in 1987. This consequently led to the formation of the Association of Town Centre Management. Between 1987 and 2000 around 500 town centre management schemes covering 600 towns and cities dedicated to co-ordinating various functions of a particular location have been established.

Since the 1970s and 1980s, similar intervention schemes were practiced elsewhere under different guises including urban revitalisation in Poland, activity centre management in Australia, and business improvement districts in the US. Despite their differences, as they each embody the aim of improving the effectiveness of a location, the Institute of Place Management has sought to unify them under the banner of ‘place management’ borrowing a term which was originally conceived in Australia.

Nature
Place management has existed for over 20 years in a variety of forms. It is encompassed within the practice of acts including town centre management, urban revitalisation, activity centre management, regeneration, management, marketing, economic development, neighbourhood management, neighbourhood renewal, socio-economic revitalisation, community development and business improvement district management. However, there exist questions about the practical nature of place management because no clear consensus has yet been developed.

Questions include both the positive and normative aspects of place management. The overwhelming amount of variables which impact upon the effectiveness of a location in serving the needs of its users makes it difficult to determine if place management is being practised in a particular location, how it is being practiced and how it should be practiced. A mixture of cultural, societal, demographic, economic, religious, political, legal and technological issues may all play a role. This is problematic for both the academic and the practical determination of place management.

Although this term is relatively new, place management has, in practice, become an established concept over the last twenty years in Europe, having existed in parts of North America for much longer. It is also an emerging concept in other parts of the world such as Asia and Australia. The concept embraces management of a wide range of locations, which may include public and private spaces of various sizes and geographical spaces. Consequently, place management can take a number of forms. Initiatives can be differentiated by the origins of the resources which support it and the degree of formality which underpins the agreement to secure resources from the various funding bodies.

One example is a community-based (bottom-up) approach, where communities or businesses take the initiative of improving their street, town centre, public park or engage actively with NGOs and the voluntary sector. Among many other examples, this approach has been trialled successfully since 1995 by an association of independent retailers in Granollers, Spain where a not-for-profit association was formed which aimed to enhance the local area for residents and consumers, investing revenue in improvements and charitable causes. This demonstrates an informal place management initiative.

A business improvement district (BID) is a predominantly private partnership (although it can also encompass some public resources) in which businesses in a defined area elect to pay an additional tax in order to fund improvements to the district's public realm and trading environment. These businesses hope to see a return on their investment through an increase in customer spend within the location. The concept of the BID is believed to have been developed in Canada before spreading to the US and across the globe. Unlike the Granollers example, as a BID is a formal place management initiative because it acts as an additional tax which is legally recognised in many of the areas in which they have been set up.

Contrary to the ‘bottom-up’ approach, many place management schemes have been initially formed publicly by local government, which has provided funding to create the post of a place manager.  Local government is often seen as a natural home for place management initiatives, as its remit will be to obtain a desired standard of living for its residents. However, the additional financial burden or a lack of place management expertise can hamper efforts to locate place management initiatives with local government.

References

Management by type