Our small North Berkeley community already has FOUR drug stores, including CVS, Safeway Pharmacy, Pharmaca, and Sal's, in less than one mile from each other on Solano Avenue. Furthermore, there are already FIVE Walgreens in Berkeley and one is on Shattuck Avenue 1.4 miles away from the proposed site on 1830 Solano Avenue. The proposed Walgreens is to replace our only neighborhood gas station on Solano Avenue. A more reasonable alternative would be a multi use building with several smaller retail spaces and residential units above. There is tremendous opposition in the community to this Michigan based developer building a "just shy of" 10,000 SF Walgreens in this location. If Walgreens succeeds in opening, existing small businesses, local traffic and surrounding residential housing will suffer major negative impacts. Think gridlock. There is not enough parking as it is on Solano Ave. and the proposed 22 parking spaces are not enough for a 10,000 SF Walgreens! The community is outraged and, in a recent community meeting with the developer, expressed 100% opposition to having a Walgreens in our neighborhood!

Sergio's Deli has only two more months before its doors close for good and the construction of another luxury high-rise begins. The landlord has sold the property and is giving the owner every excuse why he hasn't renewed the lease but promises they will still have a store once the building is finished. I'm sure the people from the Lower East Side, especially the ones who has lived on Ave D for over three decades would love to see great changes that we all can benefit from. Closing down another "mom & pop" store I doubt is one of them. If they want to change the AVENUE, they need to start by relocating the half-way house that's located on 4th street.

APOSTOLIC LETTERISSUED MOTU PROPRIOOF THE SUPREME PONTIFFFRANCISON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATEIN CRIMINAL MATTERS  In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;b) crimes referred to:- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate. FRANCISCUS

I am starting this petition because I want the Red Sox to win the World Series, and it's hard to do so when they make a bunch of plays that look Little League-ish in their execution. Cut it out, dudes!

tanjet

I am starting this petition because our local news coverage does not inform us of what exactly each legislator is doing on important legislation. We only get general statement like, 'we need to stop spending so much;, or 'we need to present a strong image around the world.' All citizens have the right to hear each elected officials reasoning and the way they actually voted on important bills.

We are creating an App that allows Boston citizens to track where the nearest T is similar to the BU bus app. Separated by each line. It will alert users as to when the next one they are searching for will arrive Updates on the status of each T. It will also have a T schedule on it.

Many dogs need exercise above and beyond human limitations; furthermore, many dog owners do not have a yard where their dogs can spend time outside, and leashes greatly limit the dog’s space and pace.

The people of the United States of America established and supported the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which protected animals through a legitimate scientific process. That process was upheld and protected via the courts. The rider that stripped wolves from the ESA is unpatriotic, was not supported by most Americans, caves in to special lobbying anti wolf extremists, and is unscientific. It is outrageous that the rider that stripped wolves of their ESA protections went against public support, the courts, and the intent of Congress in implementing the ESA. It is extremely disturbing that the rider also prevents any review by the courts of the so-called "wolf management plans" that are calling for killing up to 60% of our wolves in the first year. It is disgusting that these animals will be trapped, poisoned and shot on sight, even in our national wild lands. This terrible error has already resulted in world famous and beloved wolves from Yellowstone National Park, many of whom were the subject of real-life ecological research, being killed inhumanely and unnecessarily by hunters specifically targeting these animals for their own ends. These and other wolf populations bring tourism and tens of millions of dollars annually to the local communities near Yellowstone and other wolf habitats. I call on our Congress to rescind the ESA rider and to restore wolves to their rightful place on the Endangered Species List.

It is time for Texas to have a Senator who represents the interest of all of the people. Mayor Castro is a proven leader who revitalizes communities, promotes a pro-business environment, and cares for all people. He is the type of leader Texas needs in Washington.

Senator Ted Cruz tied glitches pn the Obamacare website with email scamming, and then made a crude reference to Nigerians. We consider that a gratuitous insult.

My name is Tammy Timm and I am urging the Nebraska legislature to revise the grandparent rights statute in Nebraska. (Nebraska Revised Statute 43-1802) While Troxel V. Granville addressed the weight that should be given to fit parents as it pertains to their ability to raise their children, it did not address the legalities of who has standing to bring suit in such cases. The Nebraska statute currently states that grandparents have standing to file for visitation rights if the parents have started the process of, or are divorced, if one parent is deceased, or if the parents were never married and paternity has been established. It does not, however, take into consideration the rights of grandparents (as legally defined in Nebraska Revised Statute 43-1801) whose children are married, yet separated, and may never decide to start divorce proceedings. In the Nebraska State Constitution Article I-3, it states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, NOR BE DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." (ALL CAPS added for emphasis.) Given this, it seems to me that the wording of the grandparent rights statute does not fully give equal protection. Grandparents who meet the current criteria can begin the process to protect, via the law, the relationship that they have with their grandchildren, while other grandparents who do not meet these criteria, are being denied that same protection. Nebraska has the right, and the duty, to see that all of it's citizens are treated equally under the law. One can not provide relief under the law for one set of grandparents while denying a subset within that same group, equal relief. Especially if each set has equally maintained a legitimate relationship with the child, and in some cases, if the excluded subset has played closer to a parental type role with the grandchild, above and beyond what those who are currently protected have done. I am not asking that we seek to overturn the Supreme Court decision regarding how judges must weigh grandparent rights against the rights of fit parents to make decisions about the raising of their children. I am merely asking that Nebraska gives equal access and protection to all grandparents, at a minimum, so they may present their case to the court for a decision. I believe that this can be achieved by making a revision which eliminates wording that divides grandparents into subsections based on the martial status of their children, which is well within the rights of the Nebraska legislature to do. If interested, you will see my personal story below. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ While the focus is on providing legal protection to all, here is my personal story, which was what led me to get interested in grandparent rights: In my personal case, I have always had a significant relationship with my grandson. He is 17 months old currently and I have never gone longer than a week without seeing him (until recently), he has lived with me without his parents being here, lived with me with his parents being here, I have provided financially for his needs when his parents were unable to do so, I have taken him to medical appointments, but most importantly I have always provided him with a loving relationship that was stable. The parents separated and after a visit with the father, he refused to return the child to the mother and cut off contact with her. Shortly after that, he agreed in writing, to allow me a visit with my grandson. Then a few days after that, he also cut off all contact with me, leaving me without the visitation he had agreed to. Neither parent has started divorce proceedings, nor does it appear that either will in the near future. Now, every day that goes by where I have no legal recourse is a day he can use against me as not having an ongoing relationship with the child, thereby hindering my ability to be granted visitation rights in the future, should legal recourse become available to me. My sole interest is in what is best for the child, and it would seem, that given the chaos surrounding his parents current situation, which is between the two of them and something I don't wish to be in the middle of, that continuing a personal relationship with someone who has been a significant, stabilizing, positive individual in his life, would be in his best interests. I am only asking for the legal opportunity to present those facts in a court of law. **UPDATE - My grandson was returned to my daughter and I paid for the attorney to file for divorce. I now have an ongoing relationship with my grandson. I would like to help others. If you are in the Nebraska or nearby surrounding areas, please visit our FB page https://www.facebook.com/NEgrandparents/