Petition to Florida State Senate, Jeff Miller, Ander Crenshaw, Corrine Brown, Bill Posey, Daniel Webster, Richard Nugent, David Jolly, Kathy Castor, Dennis Ross, Vern Buchanan, Tom Rooney, Patrick Murphy, Alce...
Florida to add a need-based component to Medicaid, so that families of loved ones with severe and for the better and ask for a need-based component, so families like mine can take care of theirRead more
Greg CreeseOrlando, FL, United States
Created August 3, 2015
Petition to Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport
In this online mode situation we cant do our j component(project )effectively .because we are not projects may not come out and the purpose of j component is not fulfilled .So we request the managment of vit chennai to remove the j component for this online sem alone.
if u agree please sign this petition..Read more
paturi siva sathvikHyderabad, India
Created October 4, 2020
Petition to CUPE Local 4047, CUPE Local 4041, Local 4078
Component leadership (encompassing the Component Executive, Local 4041, Local 4047, Local 4078) has been can't ignore this any longer!
WE ARE DEMANDING THAT COMPONENT ELECTIONS BE MOVED FROM JANUARY 2021 TO ARTICLE 9.3.10OF THE COMPONENT BY LAWS.
Main Reasons Why:-Possible merger and commencement of talks critical scenarios. It would be difficult and unfavourable to have a change in the Component leadership in Petition make up 50% + 1 of the bargaining unit represented by the CUPE Component of Air TransatRead more
Vanessa GiulittoVaughan, Canada
Created July 27, 2020
Petition to Jim Talbot, Brigham Mellor, Brett Anderson, Doug Anderson, Corty Ritz, Rebecca Wayment, Richard Conover
Dear Mayor Talbot, I am concerned about the proposed storage unit and retail space project at 1525 W. and Clark Ln. In the March 6 city council meeting the request from the property owner will be presented for a variance to city code to change the setbacks to 10 feet. Please do not approve this proposal. Doing so will allow the owner to move forward with this project that is not in the best interest of the immediate neighborhood nor Farmington in general. I realize the owner has a contract from 1998 that allows him to commercially develop this lot. West Farmington has changed dramatically since then. Such a development no longer makes sense in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Such a development will have the following negative effects. It will: · Detract from the wonderful look and feel that has drawn so many people to Farmington· Increase traffic flow to this already busy intersection that is the main throughway into the west side of the city· Increase the safety risk to the many children that cross that street and walk along that sidewalk that would have vehicles entering/exiting the retail parking.· Lead to a sustained, gradual degradation in the quality of that neighborhood. As neighbors move to get away from the commercial area (two neighbors in front of the vacant lot have already moved), property values would likely decrease, more properties will likely become rentals which are generally not as well maintained. Please reject this proposal so the following alternatives can be explored with the owner, neighbors, and the city, to come up with a more beneficial outcome: · Swap a city-owned commercially zoned property with the owner.· Eliminate the retail portion of the storage units to decrease the safety risks and prevent increased traffic congestion.· Keep the setbacks at 20 feet to diminish the “fortress look” of the development walls. Please help us come to a solution that will be better for Farmington that won’t be a detraction, for decades, from the city we know and love. Thank you,
The Undersigned Residents of Farmington
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mayor and City Council Members’ Email Addresses: Mayor Jim Talbot email@example.comBrett Anderson firstname.lastname@example.orgDoug Anderson email@example.comBrigham Mellor firstname.lastname@example.orgCorty Ritz email@example.comRebecca Wayment firstname.lastname@example.orgRead more
On November 10th, the New York Times exposed the real reason the National Park service scrapped their common sense plan to ban the sale of disposable bottled water in Grand Canyon National Park: pushback from Coca Cola, a major park funder.
According to the article, plastic bottles make up 30% of all waste in the park and are the largest source of trash in the canyon. So why isn't this project moving forward?
Here's the problem: Beyond the pollution plastic bottles cause in the park itself, that plastic trash can be transported out to the ocean by the Colorado River. With as many rivers as there are in the world, even ones like the Colorado that have inconsistent flow, even one bottle is too many whether it reaches the ocean or not. If plastic does get to the ocean, it can contribute to The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, causing scores of problems for every creature it encounters along the way- fresh water or salt.
I have seen this problem firsthand. A few years ago I had the opportunity as a journalist to sail with the research organization, The 5 Gyres Institute, to a garbage patch. After seeing what I saw there I was disgusted: plastic trash of every type you can imagine including disposable plastic bottles and bottle caps. Upon my return, I promptly quit my job, began volunteering and devoted my career to trying to solve the marine-eco disaster that is plastic pollution.
Plastic PET bottles pose a clear and present danger to the overall health of the environment and contribute to marine plastic pollution. Coca-Cola sponsors groups that conduct beach cleanup efforts but consistently opposes solutions that would reduce pollution in the first place, like bottle deposits and bottle bans.
We cannot let corporations like Coca Cola shut down common sense measures to reduce plastic pollution. The Grand Canyon Park Service must do its job and protect our public land by immediately banning plastic bottles from the canyon.
Currently most of the IT employees have variable pay component in their Salary(CTC). This component companies not paying 100% of this variable component. They decide the pay out percentage based on component . Also, some companies call the varible pay as bonus. Actually, meaning of bonus is reward pass the rule to remove variable pay component from IT or any other employees salary.Read more
Indian IT Employees ForumIndia
Created July 7, 2019
Petition to Premier Tim Houston, The Honourable Tory Rushton, The Honourable Tim Halman