The House was bought by a company to develop the house into offices and housing. However the house has been left in awful state. The house is close to becoming beyond disrepair.

Regrettably fly-tipping incidents have increased in recent days and also complaints about garden fires. Many residents are having to store waste at home, which is made worse by the current lockdown and the spring cleaning season.

Obviously any re-opening of the waste and recycling centres would need to be carefully planned but the County council should be announcing their plans now. Social distancing and highway issues would need consideration. Probably a booking system with timed slots would be needed, but a reduced service at the tip sites would be much better than the current complete closure.

Government guidance is that councils should try to keep Household Waste and Recycling Centres open.

We are working to unite citizens across the State of Tennessee to preserve our Second Amendment rights. Wilson County United is one of 75 Counties throughout Tennessee actively pursuing Second Amendment Sanctuary and part of a statewide movement with over 19,000 members.

Wilson County United is requesting signatures from citizens in Wilson County, Tennessee that want to make Wilson County a Second Amendment sanctuary county. Once we have those signatures, they will be taken, along with a County Resolution requesting Second Amendment Sanctuary Status for Wilson County, Tennessee, and present them to the Wilson County Board of Commissioners for a vote at 7:00 pm on Monday, January 27th, 2020. The whole concept of the Second Amendment, is to provide the security of a free state.

There are already a handful of counties with Sanctuary status, Join us as we and other counties are organizing to make the whole state a Second Amendment Sanctuary! Look for us on FACEBOOK and search for the group: WILSON COUNTY STANDS UNITED.

Sadly, Westminster Council is considering the future of market's home, the Moxon Street/Cramer Street car park, including the possibility that it will be sold off for development.

Local Liberal Democrats campaigned to save the market when Westminster Council last wanted to build on the site, back in 2008. We saved the market's Marylebone home then, we must save it again now.

The Baltimore City Council is considering a bill that will impose new regulations for short-term housing in Baltimore City.

Much of the bill is drafted based what other communities are doing across the country including New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. They have also took into consideration Montgomery County and Prince George's county. Although some of of these approaches can be helpful, we need an approach to our city that is tailored more specifically to our needs in Baltimore after more research.

As one legislator put it, "If a local regulation is necessary to protect the public or minimize nuisances, then those regulations should apply to ALL HOUSING—regardless of whether a home is rented out or not. As technology continues to change the ways people live, work, and travel, state policymakers need to be on the lookout for local policies that stand in the way of economic progress."

We're not saying that is the answer by no means but just further evidence that this bill and it's consequences should be studied much further or not put in place at all. .

In the meantime, let Airbnb collect an Occupancy Tax that can include sales and use tax, typically a room or hotel tax from guests to improve our tourism and infrastructure.

Here's our video: https://www.facebook.com/BmoreAirbnbHousing/videos/2148697298752113/

Student landlords do not pay for the local public services their tenants use because student accommodation is currently exempt from business rates and student households are exempt from council tax. Yet, student landlords have need of the police, fire and other services 365 days a year while their tenants generate much need of local council services, e.g. extra street cleansing, waste management, and environmental health demands (noise abatement and poor housing conditions).

West Lancashire currently loses £1.3million in council tax annually from student accommodation which is exempt from council tax. Presently, the Government provides a grant to cover this loss, at least in part. However, there will be no grant funding by 2020 meaning further reductions in local services. Inevitably, this will mean fewer street sweepers, more litter, and longer waiting times.

Students are a very welcome part of our community and our local economy, but live in concentrated areas of the Borough in densely populated conditions. This has a big impact on services in these parts of the Borough.

Student households should continue to be exempt from council tax, as students are on low (and loaned) incomes.

Student landlords are profit –making businesses, and should pay properly for the demands their business model makes on public services.

Therefore, councils should be given powers to bring student landlords within the scope of business rates in the same way that hotels, self-catering and holiday lets are within the scope of business rates and this petition is to be sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting this change.

Her parents have applied for a Council house as Callie needs a lift, hoists and a wet room. Although small for her age she is getting too heavy to lift up and down the stairs.

The Council have said there are few fully adapted Council houses and others on the waiting list have been waiting longer. The family are being evicted from their current privately rented house because they complained to the landlord about the number of repairs needed. Early in March the central heating and gas fire stopped working. The landlord said he wasn't going to repair either. There are 3 children living in this house, 8, 4, and 1.

Despite the Councils own staff accessing that Callie needs specialist equipment they have advised that they rent privately. This will obviously be a non adapted house but they can't bid on a Council owned non adapted house.

This is utter bonkers.

Leicester Mercury have today ( 11th April ) published an article ( page 17 ) where they now state that the family might be able to have a non adapted house if one can be found that is suitable. The family have never been informed of this and are prevented from bidding on non adapted properties. Last October there were 6 empty properties within their postcode which they were not entitled to bid on.

Update 14th November 2016.
The family have been offered a brand new "fully" adapted house with EMHA which their OT has said might not be able to accommodate the hoist that Callie needs.
So much for Councillor Connelly saying they were working with the family.
Their current landlord has given them notice to quit so they are in limbo.

Thank you for everyone that has so far signed. It really means a lot.

Sign the petition to send a message to Newcastle Council that council tax should be reduced or frozen. By signing the petition, you will say "No" to yet more LibDem local tax rises.

When PAPD rookie Michael Kan stopped
his police car nearby, Lee spoke to
Kan. Kan walked over and ordered Mr.
Hopkins out of his car, and tried to
pull him out. Kan and Lee repeatedly
hit Mr. Hopkins with their batons,
while Mr. Hopkins tried to ward off
blows. Kan and Lee also doused him
extensively with pepper spray. Mr.
Hopkins was overcome, temporarily
blinded, handcuffed, and transported
to the hospital where he was treated
for body injuries, and a swelling near
his eye.

PAPD launched an immediate
investigation, which culminated in Kan
and Lee being charged with felony
assault and misdemeanor battery by a
Peace Officer. During the criminal
trial, all of the senior officers
that arrived on the scene that night
testified that they were concerned
that Kan and Lee could not provide a
reason for arresting Mr. Hopkins, and
so there seemed to be no justification
for use of force.

Presented with a strong case against
the two rookies, 8 jurors were certain
Kan and Lee were guilty: a 2-1 margin
favoring conviction. Despite all this,
Kan and Lee are being returned to
their jobs (after a plea deal let them
off with a mere $250 fine), and we are
told: "it's time to put it to rest and
move on".

We say there can be no rest until our
leaders realize it's time for Kan and
Lee to move on.

This petition arises not from malice
but the desire to safeguard the
community, as we strongly believe:

1. They are not fit for the job. As a
result of their beating of Albert
Hopkins on July 13 2003, and despite
the shocking deal that drastically
reduced the charges, the fact remains
that Officers Kan and Lee each pleaded
'no contest' to a criminal charge of
an act of illegal public violence
while on duty.

Yet, we have not seen Officers Kan and
Lee publicly take responsibility for
their misconduct. Instead, their court
testimony blamed the victim of their
criminal violence - who was not
arrested for any crime - while
belittling the response of their
supervisors that night. Does this
behavior reflect the discipline and
respect for the law that is
fundamentally required of law
enforcement officers? Or does it
indicate a profound employment
mismatch - that cannot be overcome
with any amount of retraining?

2. They cannot serve the interests of
the Palo Alto community. As reflected
in our budget, the safety of the
community is Palo Alto's highest
priority. As the locus of Silicon
Valley and home of Stanford
University, Palo Alto's community
includes guests welcomed from around
the world, that expect and are
entitled to the universal human right
and Constitutional protection) of
freedom from arbitrary arrest or
detention and unreasonable use of
force.

Given its profound authority, our
police force must not include those
who trample the rights of those they
serve, while rejecting the good
judgment of those they serve under.

3. Continuing their employment poses
unacceptable risks. Studies on police
misconduct, such as the Christopher
Commission report (an examination of
LAPD four months after the King
beating), have found that the heart of
the problem is failure to act upon the
few officers using excessive force.
Those officers frequently then go on
to become repeat offenders, who are
responsible for many of the cases that
cost the city in civil suits.

Palo Alto has already paid a $250,000
settlement for Kan and Lee's use of
force. How much would a jury penalize
the city in the next claim that may
result from their use of force, given
that the city was aware of the risk
and chose to ignore it? With budget
revenue rapidly shrinking, how are
such expenses justified?

Therefore, we call on the City Manager
to immediately take this step toward
freeing Palo Alto from the risks and
stigma of brutal injustice that we
believe Officers Kan and Lee's tenure
here has brought us, and begin
restoring Palo Alto as a community
united in its concern for public
safety and human rights.