first_imgSURFACE CREATES NEW PROBLEMS Author: Nedo Pinezić, www.nedopinzeic.com The Ministry of Tourism is preparing another legal paradox. They want to stop the legalization of tourist traffic, that is, to enable the stopping of “categorization”. The reason is, allegedly, the load on the infrastructure in certain tourist destinations and the departure of residents due to tourism. Categorization? It is not a real means of regulating these problems. Flats are built and bought for someone to stay in. Temporarily, occasionally or permanently. They don’t build and they don’t buy to gape empty. If they are categorized then those staying in them will be registered as tourists and the owners will pay the tourist tax, income tax and tourist membership fee. In addition, the owners will be able to legally cooperate with travel agencies, cleaning and maintenance agencies, employ seasonal assistance… So they will create legal jobs in support activities. Such “categorized” accommodation is also available under the supervision of the Tourist Inspectorate, the Economic Inspectorate. If they will not be “categorized” then those who live in these apartments will be in the status of owners and their friends, tenants and their friends. If we want to be honest and objective then we have to look at what we are discussing from multiple angles. The basis of smart planning is (should be) related to the permanent population in a tourist place. If that were the case, then the spatial planning and the building permit would be related to the investor’s residence. The same applies to the purchase and sale of flats / real estate where homeless buyers (and anyone can register their residence in the place of ownership of the flat) would pay a significantly higher purchase and sale tax than resident buyers (Swiss model). Also, the construction of leisure houses (cottages) would be limited in space, floor, volume, design (as it was in the former state). Development and housing planning (I guess) should also take into account the employment opportunities of tenants in the real sector (unless everyone will be employed in the public sector, which can flourish indefinitely). If all this is gone, then what do we have? In the period of a decade and a half, every 7th job in Croatia “disappeared”. In that period, we lost 144.000 active residents. In Dalmatia alone, 60.000 jobs were “lost”. When we talk about the workplace, we mean “indefinite” employment. The number of permanent residents in the historic centers of tourist places will not increase due to the inadequacy of apartments for living by modern standards and due to the disappearance of jobs near the place of residence. Only residents who are tied to the same zone by work can live in the historic center of the tourist place, especially if they work twice, older people who do not have the opportunity or do not want to leave their home. Everyone else goes to the periphery where they can achieve a better standard of living. The chaotic situation in spatial planning, real estate trade and finally in the incompatibility of public infrastructure with approved, planned and built housing capacities. WHERE DID THE JOBS DISAPPEAR? The only benefit of reducing the number of categorized apartments will be for investors who will “open up” the possibility of building new, better, more beautiful tourist facilities instead of those that are “decategorized”. “On paper” there will be a lack of commercial tourist facilities.center_img At the same time, a new construction cycle will be launched, a new, large-scale “concreting” of the coast, emigration of the population and (dis) sale of Croatian “oil” (coast). They will not be registered as tourists, and the owners of these apartments will not pay fees, taxes, membership fees, nor will it be possible to supervise the tourist inspection in such apartments. And all other jobs related to such apartments will not be “visible” or recorded. Without such a status, a young man is incapable of credit, unable to pay rent, unable to provide housing. He can only be a “seasonal resident” of a tourist place employed in seasonal jobs in tourism with a stay in a “staff hostel”. All other possibilities disappeared in the whirlwind of war and postwar. The list of failed companies is impressive, and the “new industry” has not come to life. PEOPLE GO FOR BUSINESS Not to be outdone, the measure of “decategorization” is “throwing dust in the eyes.” This measure will not solve the targeted problems, in fact, new, even bigger ones will be produced. PERMANENT RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN LEAVING HISTORICAL CENTERS FOR DECADES This trend is happening in all cities, so there is a noticeable increase in the number of inhabitants in the peripheral settlements of cities such as Rijeka, which are not nearly “tourist” like Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik… Viškovo “on the edge of Rijeka” is the largest and youngest municipality in Croatia it is also growing. Historic towns in central Istria were abandoned long before the emergence of tourism in these places. Venice itself, its strict center, was abandoned by 40.000 inhabitants in the 60s. At the same time, settlements like Mestre-Marghera where cargo and industry have moved have increased… As many as XNUMX% of apartments in the historic center of Venice have been declared unsuitable for today’s standard of living. Dubrovnik’s historic core is also not exempt from this phenomenon. “CATEGORIZATION” OF APARTMENTS IS AN ACT OF LEGALIZATION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC IN TOURIST ATTRACTIVE PLACES The problem of depopulation is related to many other circumstances, tourism is the least “guilty”. Indeed, in one part it still makes its modest positive contribution. It connects people to a place where they can earn income from tourism. The question is until when? WE ABOLISHED PLANNING PROVISIONS FROM THE FORMER STATE AND SOWED A DISORDERlast_img read more

first_img Published on October 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm Comments At home in the dead of the night, the craving for that next Winston cigarette must have been insatiable. How bitter that next cup of half-black coffee must have tasted.Jake Crouthamel piped down on 30 cigarettes and drank 10 cups of half-black coffee a day during his 27 years as director of athletics for Syracuse University. But in June 2003, this Winston, the first after Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford told Crouthamel the ACC had revoked Syracuse’s invitation to the ACC — one the Orange had accepted, Crouthamel said — must have provided the most requisite release of all.‘As far as I was concerned, a formal invitation is a formal invitation,’ Crouthamel said. ‘I had assumed — and this was not a one-person decision, this was a conference decision — that it had been through and through and verified. The decision was made to invite Syracuse. The call was made extending the invitation, and Syracuse agreed.’In 2003, eight years before Syracuse accepted an invitation three weeks ago on Sept. 18 to join the ACC along with Pittsburgh, SU accepted an invitation to join the very same league. Was it well known? No. But had Crouthamel and Swofford, together, come to some kind of terms on the direction of the ACC and Syracuse?Yes.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text‘In my mind the process has been thoroughly completed and it’s over,’ Crouthamel said. ‘So all of this stuff that was going on behind the scenes was unbeknown to me at the time.’‘A friend was calling a friend and telling me that the original phone call that I had received before was no longer valid,’ Crouthamel added. ‘And I thought it was a betrayal.’But why was it a betrayal? On June 4, 2003, three ACC officials visited the SU campus and the ACC was set on inviting Syracuse, along with the league’s top target, Miami, and Boston College. Yet two weeks later, Swofford made that phone call to his friend, rescinding the original offer and effectively ending their relationship. The two haven’t spoken since.Crouthamel and then-SU Chancellor Kenneth ‘Buzz’ Shaw weren’t aware of exactly what and who were truly affecting Syracuse’s ACC candidacy and why Swofford rescinded the offer. That Boston College and Virginia Tech would ultimately enter the league over the Orange lay more in unknown politics hundreds of miles away.Simply, why didn’t Syracuse end up in the ACC when it wanted to, eight years prior to 2011? When it had not only one, but arguably two chances?***Bill Leighty will be happy to tell you. He was, after all, the man who screwed a Virginia Tech-ACC license plate onto the governor of Virginia’s car mere days after Virginia Tech and Miami joined the ACC in late June 2003 — days after Swofford called Crouthamel — with a smile on his face.Leighty, the former chief of staff to Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia, knows the reason why Syracuse’s invitation was revoked: Warner. The governor spearheaded a resilient lobbying and politicking plan in June of 2003 with the goal of the ACC and its presidents extending membership to Virginia Tech, Leighty said.‘I think a lot of people worked on it,’ Leighty said. ‘But the bottom line is it would not have happened without Mark Warner’s involvement. Period.’Warner’s expansive efforts targeted not only Virginia administrators and its Board of Visitors, but also Division-I presidents from the ACC and across the country.What Leighty meant was that the ACC ultimately inviting Virginia Tech over Syracuse in 2003 was contingent upon Warner’s efforts. His eleventh-hour lobbying ultimately persuaded seven of nine ACC presidents to vote for Virginia Tech. And it helped that then-University of Virginia President John Casteen was on Warner’s side from the beginning.‘What I can tell you is that John Casteen was supportive all along,’ Leighty said. ‘They did it very quietly, but I think that John Casteen recognized that it was a boost for the rivalry between Virginia and Virginia Tech, and I would actually say that Casteen and Warner were co-conspirators in this thing.’Crouthamel said he later found out Casteen was going as far as threatening to pull Virginia out of the conference if membership wasn’t extended to Virginia Tech — whether or not that was just a scare tactic was never tested.None of it was simple. And none of it was apparent to Syracuse’s administrators at the time. Crouthamel found out about Warner’s politicking efforts later, when an ACC athletic director, who he declined to name, informed him of the events.‘Yes, it was the governor of Virginia exerting a certain influence on the ACC on behalf of Virginia Tech, saying again they would pull Virginia out of the ACC if Virginia Tech wasn’t invited,’ Crouthamel said.***Richard Blumenthal effectively gave Warner the time he needed. The Connecticut attorney general filed a lawsuit in a Connecticut court on June 6, 2003, just two days after ACC officials left the Syracuse campus with what seemed like concrete mutual interest.In the suit, Virginia Tech and four other Big East institutions accused the ACC of conspiring to destroy the Big East, seeking millions of dollars in monetary compensation. Virginia Tech vowed to preserve the Big East in the suit, but the school continued working privately toward ACC inclusion with the extra time.All the while, Warner had the administrative backing of the University of Virginia’s Board of Visitors, and with that, Casteen had all the power he needed to put forth his second expansion vote only for Virginia Tech.According to ACC bylaws, seven of nine schools needed to vote yes to admit another school. Duke and North Carolina were traditionally opposed to any expansion. Virginia and Casteen, in essence, were that seventh swing vote. But one thing is clear: The suit had some effect.It gave Warner time.‘I do remember that we thought we were out (of luck) a number of times,’ Leighty said. ‘But there was additional time, and I guess the lawsuit was why that happened.’Eight times, Leighty recalls, he and Warner thought it was over. Eight times, the prospects of Syracuse joining the ACC would have been better had they given up.But finally on June 24, when the presidents voted on each expansion plan separately, Virginia Tech and Miami were approved as the 10th and 11th teams. Warner and Casteen had won. Crouthamel and Shaw had lost.***Syracuse history professor David Bennett thought it was obvious SU could still join the ACC even after June 24. This was an obvious second chance as, to Bennett, it was clear the ACC would go to 12 teams to have a lucrative conference championship game.Bennett, the former chairman of the Athletic Policy Board and the NCAA Faculty Representative from 1975-95, went to Shaw.‘The question I had for (Shaw), it wasn’t a question, it was a strong feeling, and it was that this could not stand,’ Bennett said. ‘ … They were clearly going to add either Boston College or Syracuse. And I thought we should make a full-court press to be that school.’Shaw and Crouthamel chose not to.Instead, the two, along with University of Pittsburgh Chancellor Mark Nordenberg and then-University of West Virginia President David Hardesty Jr., worked to rebuild the Big East into the unbalanced yet formidable 16-team basketball superconference it became, Shaw said.Boston College, though, secretly pursued the path Bennett suggested for Syracuse and ultimately joined the ACC in October 2003.‘At the time we had no intent of leaving, at the time we were obsessed with putting the conference back together,’ Shaw said.Eight years later, though, Syracuse is in the ACC. The move was an ‘axiomatic’ one to Bennett. It was expected by Crouthamel, too.Still, it hurts the former athletic director. Crouthamel is the 73-year-old who birthed the Big East conference with his two Beta Theta Phi fraternity brothers at Dartmouth — the late Dave Gavitt and Frank Rienzo. Gavitt became the first commissioner of the Big East, and Rienzo is a former Georgetown athletic director. Gavitt passed on the same day — Sept. 16 — the world found out Syracuse was in talks with the ACC again.And even with the sudden news, both personally with the death of Gavitt and professionally with his former employer, Crouthamel doesn’t mind talking about what fell apart eight years ago. What once seemed inevitable then finally came to fruition now.‘I was not surprised at the recent news,’ Crouthamel said. ‘ … My question is why they didn’t do it before in 2003.’aolivero@syr.edu—Development Editor Kathleen Ronayne contributed reporting to this articlecenter_img Facebook Twitter Google+last_img read more

first_imgEven though this is one of the youngest cross country teams Syracuse has put together — 32 of the 45 athletes are freshmen and sophomores — it might also be one of the best.“We think we have our best team we’ve ever had,” said coach Chris Fox.The young team has Fox and others optimistic for this season and beyond. But expectations are still high, as the men’s team is expected to run away with the Big East.The women’s team is currently ranked No. 9. They won their first meet, the Harry Lang Invitational, and placed third in this past weekend’s Dartmouth Invitational.Meanwhile, the men’s team placed first in both meets and is ranked No. 12.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text“We expect to win the Big East, and it certainly feels like a team that could be Top 10 in the country,” Fox said of the men’s team.The youth and the depth of the team provide reasons for all the optimism.Andrew Bennison and Joe Kush, redshirt freshmen, both agree that the camaraderie of the team is one of its strengths. For Bennison and Kush, the team-oriented atmosphere played a big part in both of their decisions to run for the Orange.Kush and Bennison placed third and fourth at the Harry Lang Invitational, and 10th and ninth at the Dartmouth Invitational, respectively.Kush said the team’s strategy in the first two races was to go “in there with the mindset of having a big group up front.”And that’s just what they did for both races.At the Harry Lang Invitational, six of the men’s runners finished in the Top 10. At Dartmouth, seven of them finished in the Top 10.“It’s exciting to see everyone doing really well right now,” Kush said.Both Kush and Bennison are more concerned with team goals than their own, an attitude reflective of the rest of the team.If the men’s and women’s teams keep up their performances, the possibility of the team placing in the top four at Nationals and earning on spot on the podium might not be far away.Said Fox: “That’s our ultimate goal.” Comments Published on September 12, 2012 at 12:53 am Contact T.J.: tjtree@syr.edu Facebook Twitter Google+last_img read more

first_imgSyracuse (3-4, 0-3 Atlantic Coast) travels to Tallahassee, Florida, a place it’s never won, to play Florida State (3-4, 1-2) on Saturday. The Orange are looking to pick up their first conference win of the season and are the only winless ACC team in conference play.The Seminoles are coming off a two-point loss at No. 25 Wake Forest while the Orange’s home comeback attempt against Pittsburgh fell short in a 27-20 loss.Here’s how our beat writers think the game will shake out.Eric Black (5-2)Down BadFlorida State 31, Syracuse 23The Seminoles aren’t a great team. They’re 3-4, just like the Orange, and they’re coming off two-straight losses, just like the Orange. But they’re certainly at least a good team, something that Syracuse doesn’t quite have the right to call itself at this point. Florida State has defeated two Power 5 teams this year, two more than SU has. That includes a dominant 31-13 win over NC State a few weeks ago, the same team Syracuse lost to on Oct. 10, 16-10. And despite having lost two games in a row, the Seminoles’ opponents in those games were the two best teams in the ACC. Between the injury concerns and question marks at quarterback and the continued display of ineptitude by one of the worst offensive lines in the country, a road win at Doak Campbell is too much to ask for of this SU team right now.AdvertisementThis is placeholder textAndrew Graham (5-2)Different opponent, same resultFlorida State 27, Syracuse 16After he’d retired from coaching, legendary FSU head man Bobby Bowden sat in the booth for a quarter of an FSU game and, when asked by the commentators to choose between having the coaching abilities he had the talent he could recruit — in essence, what’s more important: good coaching or good players? — Bowden chose players. It’s that simple. These teams both have notable failings and issues that aren’t getting coached away this season, but Florida State’s players are better than Syracuse’s. That’s not to say the Orange won’t hang around — again, both of these teams are both lifeless at the moment — but I’ll always take the bad team with four- and five-star recruits playing at home over the bad team with three-star recruits playing on the road.Josh Schafer (6-1)OvermatchedFlorida State 27 Syracuse 13Florida State and Syracuse have equal records but not equal performance through seven games. Three of the Seminoles losses came against current Top 25 members and the other came against Virginia, which is currently first in the Atlantic Division. The only common opponent between SU and FSU is North Carolina State. While the Orange lost 16-10, the Seminoles beat the Wolfpack 31-13. Sure, FSU hosted NC State but Syracuse will have to play in Doak Campbell Stadium as well. With nearly 80,000 fans screaming, a top 50 pass rush and questionable quarterback health, Syracuse has a lot stacked against it. Then bring in FSU’s star running back Cam Akers, who already has 773 rushing yards, and FSU just has a little bit more going for it than Syracuse. The Orange may salvage this season, but on the road against a team full of four and five-star recruits isn’t the week to do it. Comments Facebook Twitter Google+ Published on October 25, 2019 at 12:13 pmlast_img read more

first_imgSome fans attacked the Manchester United team bus with glass bottles and other missiles – which delayed kick-off by 45 minutes.The FA says it’ll work closely with both clubs and the Metropolitan Police to investigate. Winston’s Reid’s late header secured a deserved victory for the Hammers in their final home game before moving to the London Olympic Stadium in the summer.Manager Slaven Bilic says that his players were determined to leave the old ground on a winning note…However there was a sour note to last night’s game after the English FA confirmed that it will investigate the “unsavoury incidents” that took place before the game.last_img read more