spinph777

spinph777 DraftKings Inc. Cl A stock falls Friday, underperforms marketNo, McDonald’s didn’t offer RFK Jr. $850 million in ‘hush money’ | Fact check

West Virginia knocks off No. 3 Gonzaga 86-78 in overtime in the Battle 4 Atlantis

Final Dolphins injury report for Week 14 provides good news for Jets clashGlobalink Investment Inc. Announces Charter and Trust Agreement AmendmentsIn a case that could affect thousands of property owners and beaches visited by millions of people along California’s 1,100-mile coastline, a state appeals court has indicated it will uphold rules limiting the construction of sea walls along the coast. The case, centered on the California Coastal Commission’s decision to deny a sea wall for 10 vulnerable townhouses near Half Moon Bay, is playing out at the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco. It has been closely watched by environmental groups, builders and oceanfront cities across the state as sea levels continue to rise due to climate change, putting billions of dollars of property at risk. “It’s a big deal,” said Charles Lester, director of the Ocean and Coastal Policy Center at UC Santa Barbara. “This will potentially resolve a question that’s been under debate for years now.” In late October, the appeals court issued a tentative opinion agreeing with the Coastal Commission that buildings constructed after Jan. 1, 1977, are not entitled to obtain permits to build sea walls. The state’s landmark Coastal Act took effect on that date. It says the commission “shall” issue permits for sea walls and other types of armoring to protect “existing structures” against erosion from battering waves. But state lawmakers never clearly defined the term. Property owners have argued “existing structures” means any building present at the time the permit application is filed. But the Coastal Commission’s attorneys have argued in recent years that “existing structures” only means those built before 1977. They cite a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that construction of concrete walls along the coast stops bluffs from eroding, depriving public beaches of sand. Such armoring also stops beaches from naturally migrating inland, resulting in them becoming submerged over time. “Sea level rise is a new game in town,” said Lester, the former executive director of the Coastal Commission from 2011 to 2016. “The shoreline is moving landward. We’re looking at projections of losing a significant amount of California’s beaches due to sea level rise. And most of that is in places that have a lot of sea walls.” The court scheduled a Dec. 11 hearing and then will issue a final opinion. In its tentative opinion, the judges cited earlier versions of the Coastal Act as it was being debated in the state Legislature, and showed how broad language allowing sea walls was tightened to read “existing structures.” “If the Legislature intended to guarantee any structure shoreline protection — regardless of when it was constructed — it could have retained the broad language,” the appeals court wrote. Private property rights groups are unhappy. “There may not be a simple solution. But reinterpreting the Coastal Act to sacrifice the rights of coastal landowners isn’t the way to solve these problems,” said Jeremy Talcott, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation , a Sacramento property rights group. “Simply allowing thousands of homes to fall into the sea is a very drastic decision.” The case will decide the fate of a quiet neighborhood on the San Mateo County coast. In 2016, a severe storm caused 20 feet of bluffs to collapse into the ocean in front of Casa Mira, a complex of 10 townhouses on Mirada Road that’s 2 miles north of Half Moon Bay. Worried their homes were in imminent danger, the owners obtained an emergency permit from the Coastal Commission to place boulders, called riprap, along the crumbling shoreline to block the waves from causing more damage. But when they applied to build a permanent 257-foot concrete sea wall, the commission said no. “Sea walls eat away at the beach,” said the commission’s chairwoman, Dayna Bochco, during the 2019 meeting. “So someday as this keeps moving in and in, you are going to lose that beach if you have that sea wall. I think it’s anti-access.” The commissioners voted to allow only 50 feet of sea wall to be constructed in front of an adjacent four-unit apartment building that was built in 1972. They said the Casa Mira, whose townhouses were built in 1984, couldn’t have a sea wall. The Casa Mira Homeowners Association owners sued and won in San Mateo County Superior Court last year. The Coastal Commission appealed. In its tentative opinion, the appeals court overturned much of the lower court ruling, siding with the Coastal Commission and its Jan. 1, 1977, cutoff date. The appeals court said the Casa Mira homeowners still can get the sea wall they want, however. But only because it would protect a portion of the California Coastal Trail that runs between their homes and the public beach below, making it a “coastal dependent” use to improve public access that is allowed protection under the Coastal Act. Joshua Emerson Smith, a Coastal Commission spokesman, said the agency will withhold comment until the appeals court issues its final ruling. Thomas Roth, a San Mateo attorney who represents the Casa Mira Homeowners Association, did not respond to requests for comment. With so much at stake, experts say the issue could end up at the state Supreme Court next year. For that to happen, one of the parties would have to appeal, and the court would have to agree to take the case. Numerous groups filed briefs in the case, including the Surfrider Foundation , the Bay Area Council and the California Building Industry Association . “This is not just a California problem,” Lester said. “There are houses falling into the ocean in North Carolina, in Hawaii and other places. We’re not going to stop the ocean from rising. The question is what do we choose to protect over the long run? What’s in the public interest? Some of these developments have arguably reached the ends of their natural lives if you want to protect the beaches.”

NoneTechnipFMC PLC stock underperforms Friday when compared to competitorsCyber Monday: Time is running out to cash in on these local deals

Analysis: Protecting QBs from violent late hits like the one that leveled Trevor Lawrence isn't easyDAMASCUS — Thousands of Syrian insurgents moved into Aleppo on Saturday, taking control of significant landmarks such as the historic citadel and the city center, a day after entering Syria's largest city with little resistance from government forces. Residents and fighters reported the insurgents deploying in armored vehicles and pickups across the city. The Syrian military issued a statement acknowledging the insurgents’ advance and announced a redeployment to absorb the attack and prepare for a counteroffensive. The military stated the insurgents had not yet established bases or checkpoints but emphasized its intent to restore security. The insurgents' surprise takeover is a major blow to Syrian President Bashar Assad, who had regained full control of Aleppo in 2016 after a brutal campaign. The city, a former opposition stronghold, had been under government control since then, making the insurgents’ push a significant setback. The offensive, launched Wednesday in the Aleppo and Idlib countryside, saw insurgents capture dozens of villages before reaching Aleppo. Fighters were seen removing posters of Assad and raising opposition flags over the Aleppo Citadel, a symbol of the city’s heritage and history. Late Friday, airstrikes targeted insurgent reinforcements on Aleppo’s outskirts, killing 20 fighters, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Residents reported clashes and sporadic gunfire in parts of the city. Some civilians fled the fighting, with schools and government offices closing on Saturday. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that Aleppo’s airport was shut down, flights were suspended, and hospitals were overwhelmed with patients, while many private medical facilities closed due to the instability. Opposition fighters were seen celebrating in Aleppo’s streets, firing into the air but deploying security forces to prevent looting. Videos shared on social media showed insurgents visiting residents to reassure them of their safety. The Syrian Kurdish-led administration in eastern Syria reported that nearly 3,000 people, most of them students, had fled Aleppo for Kurdish-controlled areas. The city has a sizable Kurdish population, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing conflict. Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed its warplanes killed 200 militants during strikes on Friday but provided no further details. — Agencies < Previous Page Next Page >

MAURA HIGGINS has reacted to the I'm A Celeb camp after the former Love Island star flew out to Australia. Two new latecomers to this year's series made their debut at the end of Wednesday's episode, and within an instant of entering the camp, former Love Islander Maura was already fuming over the living conditions. Maura Higgins and Reverand Richard Coles were seen last night in a lavish hotel, with them heading straight to Snake Rock tonight before being given a secret mission. Snake Rock has been transformed into the Jungle Junkyard, with the pair having been given a two-ring hob. But although the camp has a hob, the junkyard also contains overgrown greenery, rusty corrugated metal, and of course, zero luxury. And it's safe to say that Maura is less than impressed by the living conditions she is faced with after leaving an opulent hotel, with the reality star firing expletives in a huge rant. Read More about I'm A Celeb 'THIS CAMP SUCKS' "It’s not liveable, we have nothing, this camp sucks," she fumed after seeing the camp for the first time. She then added, "I’m going to ask Richard to say a prayer for us tonight because I’m gonna need one." Then, Maura added, "We've definitely got the sh*t camp, so thanks for that. Jesus Christ. I tell you I saw this on a movie, there's a trick to doing this. "Guys this is not livable, this is not livable. This camp sucks." Most read in I’m A Celebrity 2024 Meanwhile, Reverend Coles, compared his new abode to some bins, admitting, how he once "fell asleep by some bins outside Amnesia night club in Ibiza". Speaking about his bin stint, Rev Coles said, "I don’t remember much about it, but it’s that level." NOT EVERYTHING IS AS IT SEEMS But not everything is as it seems, and they are encouraged to take a look around. Then, the Jungle Junkyard car came down to reveal a luxurious double bed so that the pair could sleep in luxury. Also revealed to the duo was a container reveals a hidden large sofa and a cargo box that opened with a large bathtub with bubbles, bath salts, and hot water. A red chest then opened to reveal a gas cooker and a hidden fridge door opens, stocked with fruit smoothies and a fruit platter. Ant and Dec then explained to the pair that over the next few days, Maura and Rev Coles will have to complete a series of missions in order to win food. MAURA Higgins is a late entry to I'm A Celeb 2024. Yet who is joining her? 2019 Love Island star Maura, 33, will be a late entry to the jungle line-up. She will head into the I'm A Celeb camp , along with the Reverend Richard Coles , 62. The duo will join the likes of Coleen Rooney , Barry McGuigan and Danny Jones in Ant and Dec’s jungle camp a week into this year’s star-spangled series. Yet initially the duo will have their own private base - and a secret mission - before heading into the main compound Down Under. Maura has already described the jungle as "hell." Meanwhile Richard, who has starred on Strictly, has confessed his biggest "fear." And to be successful overall, they were told that they had to convince the celebs in the main camp that they were roughing it in the Jungle Junkyard. "I’m a great liar," Maura boasted, while Richard weighed in with: "I’m gonna learn fast!"Baltimore Amazon center busy on Cyber Monday

Dodgers trade proposal cuts ties with 3-year starter for $70 million superstar | Sporting NewsLendingClub CEO Sanborn Scott sells $269,217 in stock