Can Local Governments Impede Housing Markets? Related Articles Share Save Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago July 6, 2016 1,546 Views Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago About Author: Brian Honea Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Federal and local government agencies have added significant building costs that did not exist as recently as 15 years ago, which has had an adverse effect on many housing markets, according to a recent survey of more than 100 builders by John Burns Real Estate Consulting (JBREC).The survey found that in many instances, the government added these extra costs in order to protect the environment and improve the surrounding area for existing residents.“While these are noble goals, builders have to charge more for new homes—or simply not build homes in many instances,” said John Burns, CEO of John Burns Real Estate Consulting.Analysis of the top 33 markets in the country found that the number of new home communities has increased by only 4 percent in the last year, according to Burns. At that pace, the number of new homes permitted will not reach 1.1 million until 2023, which is consistent with historical averages.While the survey found there are many reasons why the recovery is not stronger, local government was the primary reason that volume recovery was stronger in some areas than in others. The survey found that government attitudes toward housing tend to be either friendly and affordable or unfriendly and unaffordable.Areas where builders can quickly build to meet demand like Texas and Georgia, which are well-known for business-friendly environments, fit into the friendly and affordable category; particularly Texas, which has opened up huge amounts of land for development in the last decade due to massive investments in freeway infrastructure. Texas also features new homes near employment centers that tend to be cheaper than in most areas even when home price appreciation is considered.Meanwhile, states like Virginia, Illinois, New Jersey, California, and Washington (excepting downtown Seattle) are well known for being difficult for builders, regulation-wise, according to JBREC. These places feature areas that are highly desirable to live, but they have become very expensive, and on top of that, demand is outpacing new construction, JBREC reported.“The bottom line is that there is a huge correlation between government attitudes and new home construction and prices,” Burns said. “We strongly believe that the large, affordable markets will grow faster than the other markets.”Click here to view the full survey. Brian Honea’s writing and editing career spans nearly two decades across many forms of media. He served as sports editor for two suburban newspaper chains in the DFW area and has freelanced for such publications as the Yahoo! Contributor Network, Dallas Home Improvement magazine, and the Dallas Morning News. He has written four non-fiction sports books, the latest of which, The Life of Coach Chuck Curtis, was published by the TCU Press in December 2014. A lifelong Texan, Brian received his master’s degree from Amberton University in Garland. Tagged with: Housing Market John Burns Real Estate Consulting Local Government The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Print This Post Home / Daily Dose / Can Local Governments Impede Housing Markets? The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Previous: Fed: U.S. Economy is ‘Not Running Hot’ Next: Declining Trend Continues for Bankruptcy Filings Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago in Daily Dose, Featured, Market Studies, News Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Housing Market John Burns Real Estate Consulting Local Government 2016-07-06 Brian Honea Sign up for DS News Daily Subscribe
A Palm Beach County judge has ruled surveillance video that allegedly shows New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft receiving a sex act at a Jupiter day spa cannot be released.Police say Kraft solicited sex at Orchids of Asia Day Spa in January.Last week, prosecutors announced a plan to release surveillance video that police claim shows New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft soliciting prostitution at a Jupiter day spa to the public.Shortly after, a judge issued an emergency order to prevent the alleged videos release.Tuesday, the judge ruled that the video cannot be released at this time.In the ruling, the judge said that the surveillance video could not be released unless the case goes to trial, a plea deal is reached, the State drops charges against Kraft, or if the Court finds Kraft’s fair trial rights are no longer at risk.Kraft has plead not guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution and is requesting a jury trial.Related content:Judge Blocks Prosecutors’ Attempt to release explicit Robert Kraft day spa video
Has all the colorful artwork of the fish-a-pod been for naught? Three European biologists claim that Neil Shubin’s famous Tiktaalik fossil, supposedly of a fish evolving into a four-footed land dweller (see 05/03/2006, 11/13/2008) which has garnered iconic status in the media (01/16/2008), is not a missing link after all. The situation is much more complex, argued Boisvert et al in a letter to Nature.1 Those who enjoy the full jargon can follow their reasoning:The pectoral fin skeletons of Panderichthys and Tiktaalik share certain unusual features such as a blade-like radius and a longitudinal ridge-and-groove on the flexor surface of the ulna. These can tentatively be interpreted as attributes of the ‘elpistostegid’ segment of the tetrapod stem lineage and thus ancestral for the tetrapod forelimb. Given that recent phylogenies consistently place Panderichthys below Tiktaalik in the tetrapod stem group, it is surprising to discover that its pectoral fin skeleton is more limb-like than that of its supposedly more derived relative. In Tiktaalik4, like in ‘osteolepiforms’ and rhizodonts (more primitive fish members of the stem group), the ulna and ulnare are of similar size. The axis of the fin comprises two more elements distal to the ulnare, and the distal radials are arranged pinnately around this axis. In contrast, in Panderichthys and tetrapods, the ulna is much longer than the ulnare, the ulnare is the last axial element, and the distal radials/digits are arranged in a transverse fan shape11 (Fig. 3). It is difficult to say whether this character distribution implies that Tiktaalik is autapomorphic,2 that Panderichthys and tetrapods are convergent, or that Panderichthys is closer to tetrapods than Tiktaalik. At any rate, it demonstrates that the fish-tetrapod transition was accompanied by significant character incongruence in functionally important structures.Being translated, that last sentence says that if these fossils represent an evolutionary line from fish to tetrapod, the features are all mixed up and out of sequence – including the “functionally important structures.”1. Boisvert, Mark-Kurik and Ahlberg, “The pectoral fin of Panderichthys and the origin of digits,” Nature 456, 636-638 (4 December 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07339.2. Autapomorphic means a derived trait unique to any given taxon, i.e. shared by the ingroup taxa, but excluded from its outgroup taxa. Convergent refers to traits that appear similar but are not phylogenetically related.If this tale were told by Paul Harvey, “the rest of the story” would undo the first of the story. It wouldn’t bother the evolutionists, though, because that’s what Darwinism is all about: telling a good story (12/22/2003 commentary).(Visited 74 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Here’s why theories on the evolution of human culture are doomed from the get-go.The National Academy of Sciences published a set of papers on Cultural Evolution recently. Some three dozen evolutionists, including Francisco Ayala, took part in the shebang, spilling their neurons about how the cultural practices of humans (and some other intelligent species, like dolphins), evolve by natural selection (the evolutionists’ answer to everything). We’ll list the papers with links to those interested, but then we’ll describe why Darwinian theories about cultural evolution are doomed from the outset. You might not want to waste your time on the papers, therefore, unless you want to examine them as a case study on how academics can become too smart to see their own illogic. Maybe that would make for a good paper in response. But don’t miss the surprise ending!First, let’s look at a press release from the Max Planck Institute about the project. Notice the problems they themselves freely acknowledge:To date, most research on cultural evolution focuses on microevolution; changes that occur within cultural groups over relatively short periods of time. However, as Russell Gray, Director of the Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution at MPI-SHH points out “processes observed at the micro level do not necessarily explain the macroevolutionary patterns and major transitions we observed in deeper human history.” In a new article by Russell Gray and Joseph Watts in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) present [sic] a “plea” for research on cultural macroevolution. The authors highlight the exciting potential to combined [sic] cutting edge statistical methods and comprehensive cross-cultural database to resolve longstanding debates about the major cultural transitions in human prehistory.Before even looking at the PNAS papers, therefore, we know that the evolutionists will not and cannot answer the big question! That question involves macroevolution of human culture by Darwinian processes (i.e., natural selection). Microevolution in culture, it could be argued, is intelligently designed by leadership decisions about what the group should do. On their own judgment, therefore, they have no evolutionary answers: only “potential” answers, which of course is the futureware fallacy.The lead article makes it clear that natural selection will be the only tool allowed in their explanatory toolkit. This is important for our analysis that follows. In “Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters ” (PNAS), Creanza, Kolodny and Feldman say this:Human culture encompasses ideas, behaviors, and artifacts that can be learned and transmitted between individuals and can change over time. This process of transmission and change is reminiscent of Darwin’s principle of descent with modification through natural selection, and Darwin himself drew this explicit link in the case of languages: “The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel”. Theory underpins most scientific endeavors, and, in the 1970s, researchers began to lay the groundwork for cultural evolutionary theory, building on the neo-Darwinian synthesis of genetics and evolution by using verbal, diagrammatic, and mathematical models. These models are, by necessity, approximations of reality, but because they require researchers to specify their assumptions and extract the most important features from complex processes, they have proven exceedingly useful in advancing the study of cultural evolution. Here, we review the field of cultural evolutionary theory as it pertains to the extension of biology through culture.Here are the other papers in the series with links, and indications that the authors are keeping to the Darwin-only rules. You can skip over these titles if you want, because as we will show afterwards, nothing they say matters anyway.Lotem et al., “The evolution of cognitive mechanisms in response to cultural innovations” (PNAS). “The authors used computer simulations to show that even in the presence of genetic variation, cultural conventions of language are like ‘moving targets’ for natural selection, making the evolution of genetic adaptations to specific languages highly implausible.” Later, “Whereas it is relatively easy to see how natural selection acts on clearly defined morphological traits, such as limbs, bones, or coloration, with cognitive traits that are not well understood, it is difficult to tell what is actually evolving.”Rai et al., “Dehumanization increases instrumental violence, but not moral violence” (PNAS). “Recent ethnographic and historical analyses, and classical works on the evolution of cooperation and the sociology of crime….” etc.Hal Whitehead, “Gene–culture coevolution in whales and dolphins” (PNAS). ” In all cases, socially learned behavior affects how individuals interact with their environment or with each other and thus affects the transmission patterns or selection pressures on genes.”Alex Mesoudi, “Pursuing Darwin’s curious parallel: Prospects for a science of cultural evolution” (PNAS). “This idea is the basic premise of cultural evolution: Cultural change constitutes a Darwinian evolutionary process that shares key characteristics with the genetic evolution of species.”Andrew Whiten, “Culture extends the scope of evolutionary biology in the great apes” (PNAS). “I address these issues first by evaluating the extent to which the results of cultural inheritance echo a suite of core principles that underlie organic Darwinian evolution but also extend them in new ways and then by assessing the principal causal interactions between the primary, genetically based organic processes of evolution and the secondary system of cultural inheritance that is based on social learning from others.”Whiten, Ayala, Feldman and Laland, “The extension of biology through culture” (PNAS). Darwin-lovers all, these four evolutionists mention Darwin almost worshipfully throughout their paper. “Initial explorations of Darwinian dynamics in the case of animal culture have taken the list of eight key properties extracted from the Origin of Species for testing with human data [the six listed above, plus changes of function and convergent evolution] and through examining studies of animal culture, concluded there is evidence for all of them (although minimal and slow-developing compared with the most recent, cumulative cultures of humans).”Errico et al., “Identifying early modern human ecological niche expansions and associated cultural dynamics in the South African Middle Stone Age” (PNAS). These authors appear to go beyond Darwin, but their additional process—exaptation—is just another form of natural selection that finds a new use for an existing trait. Both processes, however, are purely materialistic in evolutionary thinking, because it happens in worms as well as humans. “Our findings support the view that the path followed by past human populations to produce adaptations and cultural traits, which most researchers would qualify as typically human, is not the outcome of classic Darwinian evolutionary processes in which the appearance of a new niche is often associated with a new species. Rather, the innovations characteristic of the HP represent cultural exaptation: innovations that use existing skills, techniques, and ideas in new ways.”Katz, Grote and Weaver, “Changes in human skull morphology across the agricultural transition are consistent with softer diets in preindustrial farming groups” (PNAS). All materialistic, even though they think ‘plasticity’ in skull shape is more important than natural selection. “We therefore think genetic mechanisms should not be wholly discounted in studies of the effects of agriculture on skull morphology.”Stout and Hecht, “Evolutionary neuroscience of cumulative culture” (PNAS). Surprise! These authors prefer an “extended evolutionary synthesis” over classical Darwinism. No surprise: the EES is just as materialistic as the old neo-Darwinian synthesis. “Key questions include the extent and nature of overlap between processes supporting behavior execution, observation, and interpretation (e.g., ToM), and the relevance of evolutionary processes other than natural selection (e.g., CE [cultural evolution]). An emerging extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) effectively addresses both topics through its core concepts of constructive development and reciprocal causation.”Gray and Watts, “Cultural macroevolution matters” (PNAS). “Evolutionary thinking can be applied to both cultural microevolution and macroevolution. However, much of the current literature focuses on cultural microevolution. In this article, we argue that the growing availability of large cross-cultural datasets facilitates the use of computational methods derived from evolutionary biology to answer broad-scale questions about the major transitions in human social organization.”Got that? We have just seen three dozen eggheads pontificate about how culture evolved, and not one of them noticed a logical problem with what they are doing. They readily acknowledge problems within their framework, but not with the framework itself.To understand our critique of this whole project, we recommend you first listen to three podcasts on ID the Future by Nancy Pearcey:Is Reason Reliable? Interview with Nancy Pearcey (ID the Future)Are Humans Really Robots? Nancy Pearson on the “Free Will Illusion” (ID the Future)“Freeloading” Off of Religion: Nancy Pearcey on Materialism and Human Rights (ID the Future)Image credit: Illustra MediaIf you listened, you already hear the giant sucking sound of an implosion. These papers are classic examples of the problem she delineates: evolutionists never apply their theories to themselves! After all, they are humans aren’t they? They are members of a culture, aren’t they? They believe their bodies, brains and cultures originated by Darwin’s natural selection or some extensions of naturalistic evolution, don’t they? OK, then. Nothing they say is about truth. Nothing they say is about reason. Nothing they say is about logic. It’s all about their genes using them like marionettes on genetic strings.To see why this is true, let’s write a satire about the origin of this PNAS series by natural selection. “Here, we review the field of evolutionists writing papers about cultural macroevolution as it pertains to the extension of biology through culture…. Our population is the class of evolutionists who write Darwin-style papers in PNAS…. As culture extends the scope of evolutionary biology in the great apes and dolphins, parallels can be seen in the mumblings of academics developing their cultural traits as it regards vocalizing Darwin quotes under selective pressures to publish or perish, or order to pass on their genes.”Game over.(Visited 836 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Maurice L. Eastridge, Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist, Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State UniversityWe know that personality of children in the same family can vary immensely, caused by genetics, birth order, changing parenting styles, and other factors. Have you ever related these differences to dairy calves? Previous research has revealed that food animals that are generally calmer or less reactive, versus more excitable, have improved growth rates, meat quality, and milk production; improved immune function, and decreased physiological responses to stressful events. Dairy cows that are more excitable in the milking parlor produce less milk, milk out slower, and have reduced lifetime production efficiency.Given this prior knowledge, researchers at the Animal Welfare Program at the University of British Columbia conducted a study with 56 dairy calves to identify personality traits that may be associated with feeding behavior and performance. Calves were housed in seven groups with eight calves in each group with access to automatic milk feeders and free choice water, hay, and calf starter. Calves were assigned to 1 of 4 milk-feeding allowances (1.6, 2.1, 2.6, or 3.2 gallons per day of milk) within each group of eight calves, with each group containing two calves on each allowance. Milk was reduced to 50% of the allowance at 42 days of age and reduced by 20% per day from day 50 until calves were completely weaned at day 55. At 27 and 36 days of age, each calf was subjected to three novelty tests (novel environment, human approach, and novel object). Seven different behaviors were scored, but interactive, exploratory-active, and vocal-inactive were the most important in explaining calf behavior. Calves with more exploratory-active began to consume starter at an earlier age and had greater starter intake and overall average daily gain. Calves that were more interactive and vocal-inactive (less vocal) had more unrewarded visits to the milk feeder during the weaning phase. Calf starter also was fed through the automated feeder system, and overall, it took 19 days for the calves to eat 0.10 pounds per day, 36 days to first eat 0.50 pounds per day, and 42.5 days to eat 1.5 pounds per day of calf starter.Some general conclusions from this research are:Personality traits explain individual variability in the development of feeding behavior, solid feed intake and weight gains, and behavioral responses of dairy calves.It is important to identify calves that are struggling to make the transition from milk onto solid feed so that performance and welfare are not compromised. Calves that are struggling with the transition can have an extended transition or other exceptions to assist them with the changes during this critical period.Characterization of calf personalities at around three weeks of age can identify animals that are most likely to make this transition smoothly and to identify calves that would benefit from additional assistance.Calf behavior and performance have been used to access when individual calves are ready to move to an automated milk feeder. Additional evidence is still needed, but information collected during the time calves are using the automated milk feeder may help to identify potential personality differences among calves that warrant variation in the transition of calves to a weaned state.Even though the dairy industry in moving toward more group housing of pre-weaned calves, using the data collected in the automatic milk feeding system and careful daily monitoring of the calves by employees can help to identify health, performance, and personality differences for individual management of the calves to best meet their needs.
A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Startups can be incredibly innovative, but sometimes the pitches can sound incredibly repetitive: “The Mint.com for X” or the “open source alternative for Y” or “Z, but viral.” Even more frustrating – when these good ideas just linger as “coming soon” pages for products that never seem to manifest.That’s the impulse behind the Random Startup Generator, a gentle reminder from the folks at the blogging startup Fireplace who built the generator as a reminder that “execution is key.”“Anyone can make a really awesome coming soon page (including a script), but we want more real companies with real products,” Fireplace says. Fireplace has made an awesome one here, and even though it’s a joke, I’d be curious to know if the Random Startup Generator generated sign-ups for its actual product. Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Tags:#start#tips 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Related Posts audrey watters
The Samajwadi Party (SP) has moved an application seeking the disqualification of Shivpal Singh Yadav from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly under the anti-defection law. Shivpal Yadav, the estranged uncle of SP president Akhilesh Yadav, was elected from the Jaswantnagar Assembly constituency in the 2017 State elections. He floated a new party Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) and had contested the recent Lok Sabha elections on its symbol. The application from the leader of the SP in the Assembly, Ram Govind Chaudhary, has been received and a letter seeking Mr. Yadav’s reply has been issued, sources in the Assembly said. Speaker Hriday Narain Dixit will take a decision on the matter after receiving Mr. Yadav’s reply, they said. Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party (Lohia) spokesman C.P. Rai said before contesting the Lok Sabha elections, Mr. Yadav had informed the Speaker about his new party and he will say the same in the reply.
Touch Football Australia (TFA) has an objective to ‘Provide Best Practice Administration at all levels’ involving risk management strategies to be implemented across the sport within the 2011-2015 Strategic Cycle.TFA is proud to make available the TFA Introduction to Risk Management for Touch Football handbook as well as the TFA Risk Management Module. Both resources have been developed with the goal of explaining what risk management is, how to develop risk management strategies, as well as providing effective guidelines and practical templates to assist members managing risks, providing a complete package of information.The TFA Introduction to Risk Management for Touch Football handbook in addition to the above provides an outline of specific hazards and risks associated. Divided into three (3) sections:Section 1: Risk Management FrameworkSection 2: Implementing Risk ManagementSection 3: Risk Management Areas of FocusThe TFA Risk Management Module is part of the TFA Affiliate Management Resource Initiative (AMRI). The module comprises information containing advice, guidelines, templates and operational solutions to assist members, clubs and affiliates in developing risk management strategies. The module is divided into four Risk Management Areas of Focus (RMAF):RMAF 1: Governance & Operational ManagementRMAF 2: Sport Activities, Events & Competitions ManagementRMAF 3: Travelling & TouringRMAF 4: Working with SchoolsTo access the Risk Management Manual, please visit the Affiliate Management Resource Initiative section of the TFA website – http://www.austouch.com.au/index.php?id=1304 For more information, please click on the attached memo. Related Filestfa_introduction_to_risk_management_for_touch_football_december_2013-pdfRelated LinksRisk Management
TORONTO – U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to hit imports of Canadian solar energy modules with staggering tariffs, starting this month, has sparked another court battle over the extent of his powers to push through his America First agenda.Three Ontario-based manufacturing companies are suing the U.S. government in the U.S. Court of International Trade over a Trump presidential proclamation that began imposing 30 per cent tariffs on imports of their products as of Feb. 7.Silfab Solar Inc. of Mississauga, Heliene Inc. of Sault Ste. Marie and the U.S. subsidiary of Canadian Solar Inc. of Guelph jointly argue that Trump has overstepped his authority under U.S. law in several ways.For one thing, they say Trump ignored the position of the U.S. International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that would be required to recommend global tariffs on imports of solar cells and modules — mainly from Asia.They also claim Trump disregarded an exemption for the Canadian companies, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, because they haven’t caused significant harm to the few remaining American manufacturers.They argue that U.S. law bars the president “from taking safeguard actions against a NAFTA country in this circumstance.”The Trump administration filed its defence late Tuesday, as ordered by CIT chief judge Timothy Stanceu, who is overseeing the case in New York City.In court documents made available to the public, it said the argument that Trump is statutorily precluded from establishing safeguards because he did not receive an official institutional remedy recommendation from the ITC doesn’t place his determination of serious injury into regulatory limbo.“Section 201 of the Trade Act provides that, when the ITC makes a ‘serious injury’ determination, the president ‘shall take all appropriate and feasible action within his power’ to remedy the injury,” the court documents read.The Trump administration also said the three Canadian plaintiffs are on no firmer ground that the requirements of NAFTA were not satisfied in the absence of the ITC finding that goods from Canada accounted for a substantial share of imports and contributed importantly to serious harm suffered by American manufacturers.“The president determined that Canadian goods met these criteria and should not be excluded from the safeguard measure, and the NAFTA Implementation Act makes clear that the president is the sole arbiter in making such determinations,” the court documents read.Trump’s move does have the support of SolarWorld Americas Inc. of Portland, Ore., one of the companies that prompted the ITC’s investigation last year, which says the president does have the authority to impose the tariffs.“SolarWorld is the last remaining U.S. producer of solar cells still in operation in the United States; the remaining U.S. cell producers have all been driven out of business by foreign imports,” SolarWorld’s lawyer said in a briefing to the court.The Canadians say the U.S. International Trade Commission concluded last year that solar cells and modules from Canada accounted for only about two per cent of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells used in the United States.They also say the commission found the Canadian imports don’t meet the threshold required for the United States to include a NAFTA country in the president’s general action against imported photovoltaic cells and modules.The Canadian companies do have supporters in the United States, including from two Minnesota state senators — Republican Paul Gazelka and David Tomassoni of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.“In recent years, Minnesota has made significant and growing investments in the solar industry, often in partnerships with Canadian solar companies,” they wrote in a letter to the trade court.“These partnerships have resulted in the creation of jobs for Minnesotans and aided the rapid expansion of Minnesota’s solar industry.”The Minnesota briefing says Trump’s proclamation is problematic because it didn’t follow a “careful and balanced process” that the executive branch needs to follow before imposing safeguard measures on foreign imports.“The executive branch did not follow that careful process here,” it asserts.“By imposing a tariff on Canadian imports anyway, the proclamation contravenes the deliberate process Congress designed. … Furthermore, the proclamation has written Congress out of the vital oversight role to which the statute entitles it.”
This might just be the hardest run you’ve ever done. Can you do 1K to a Beer Garden?Mighty Peace Brewing presents 1K to a Beer Garden Saturday, July 28, 2018. You’ll do 1K, then have a beer with Mighty Peace Brewing, dinner from Aniela’s Kitchen and live music from two local bands.Plus all the proceeds from the event will go directly to the Fort St. John Firefighters Charitable Society. The society helps local families specifically those facing the high cost of travelling outside our community to receive the medical treatment they require. The Tortoise Prize – SlowestBest DressedSpirit Awardand the Worst Dressed OR be a VIP and you can skip the run and head right to the Beer Garden.The cost is $65 per person or be a VIP for $85. Registration fees will increase if there is any space available the day of the event. To register, visit www.energetictickets.caWhat’s included in your registration:You get your first beer on usDinner from Aniela’s KitchenPierogi and Polish SausageGreek SaladAnd Dessert Squares A 1K to a Beer Garden T-shirtTwo live bands – Salt n’Water and another band to be namedFree Safe Rides home thanks to Energetic ServicesIt all takes place at Surerus Ball Diamonds on Saturday, July 28, 2018. Registration is limited to the first 250 people.Event Times:Registration from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m.Run at 5 p.m.Beer Garden from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.Dinner at 6 p.m.Bands 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.Plus on top of all this fun, we’ll be giving away prizes for the following: