The Healthy Development Measurement Tool is a product of the Urban Health and Place Team at the Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability within the San Francisco Department of Public Health. As described in the background, the HDMT was developed as part of the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment (ENCHIA) project.

Livagreen is a design consortium for achitects, urban designers, environmentalists, planners, and citizens intended to: provide information to those interested in land use and transportation planning; and build bridges between academia and professional practice using theoretical and practical frameworks of sustainable, systems-oriented environmental design. Thank you for your interest. Feel free to contact us if you have inquiries, suggestions, thoughts, or creative ideas.

Overholser, Geneva. "On Behalf of Journalism: A Manifesto for Change." Philadelphia: The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. 2009.

Overholser's article follows a June 2005 gathering of journalists and scholars at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and many of her arguments stem from the discussions at that seminar. While maintaining a realistic and attainable vision of the future of journalism (and practical admission that "journalism as we know it is over"), Overholser argues that journalism is ideally a marshall of democracy and necessary to American freedom and must (and will) continue to exist, just in a new form. By discussing the responsibilities of journalists - as ethical, objective, professional, accountable sources - along with the responsibilities of the public and the government to support journalism in its ideal form, Overholser asserts that "what's needed is wide-open thinking about how consumers use information, and where they are getting it, and how old media companies can fulfill those needs while bringing the best of their traditions onto new platforms."

Overholser's article is comprehensive, realistic, and yet hopeful. Her refreshing outlook is that journalism has changed for good, but that that change is a welcome chance to re-evaluate, throw out the tired and unhealthy aspects of 'old world' media, and recommit to the "core values of the craft." She examines several options for the future of journalism – non-profit status, local ownership, media ownership rules, greater professionalization of 'citizen journalists' by means of agreed-upon standards – and all with the outlook that since the public will demand goof work, journalism will be here for the long haul. Overholser adeptly suggests that the problem with modern journalism isn't in the journalists, but in the public; and we must be encouraging better civics and news literacy education to help the public play their role better. It isn't journalism - the protector of democracy and leader in civic education - that is in danger of death, it is the media news conglomorates, and Overholser seems optimistic that their deaths may not injure democracy much.

This is a digital repository

Gortais, Bernard. "Abstration and Art."Philosophical Transactions: Biological Science 358.1435 (29 Jul. 2003): "The Abstraction Paths: From Experience to Concept" 1241-49. Royal Society. JSTOR. Van Pelt Library Philadelphia, PA. 2 Dec 2008..

Gortais begins by defining a work of art. He explains that representation in art means making something present that was not present before. A work of art is thus the representation of something real in terms of a subjective relationship to the world by means of expression that are perceptible to the senses. He adds that representation through imitations is doomed for failure because imitation only produces a worse version of the original piece. The goal of a work of art is to make the artist’s relationship to the world perceptible through symbolic signs that objectify it. The perceptions of the artist and those of the public are never the same. The major function of the artist is to act as a mediator between a representation and a public. He puts his definition in the context of visual art and examines Kandinsky’s theory on the science of art. Gortais comes to the conclusion that visual art is fundamentally abstract and based on form, color, structure, rhythm, etc. This creates a language through which we can understand all art forms. However, the form of art must take into account its context because the practicalities of its primitive composition may change, though not changing their aim.

“Fantasia” does not fall into Gortais’ definition of a work of art. The film does not act as a mediator between the public and the subjectivity of a form. In fact, it does the exact opposite by depicting images and stories that represent the subjective versions of abstraction. Gortais’ definition further rejects “Fantasia” as art because it is a kind of imitation of music. Disney altered the works to fit the rhythm of animation and thus adds its signature to the music. “Fantasia” is thus a failed attempt at symbolizing the meaning of the music’s objectivity. Following Gortais’ explanation, “Fantasia” does not qualify as art, and furthermore, does not qualify as an appropriate educator of art.

This letter written on behalf of the Society of American Archivists expresses one group’s opposition to the CTEA and the need to oppose such a passing of an act. They argue that the law disrupts the balance between public and private interests and will have a negative impact on the public’s use of unpublished materials for teaching, scholarship and research. The point of the Society is to make things available to the public and they believe that such an extension will inhibit their ability to make things available and useable to the public. Maher on behalf of the society argues that there should be a vigorous public domain and protections for the rights of holders of intellectual property as well. They believe that too short of a copyright may discourage new works but too long of a period may limit the creation of new discoveries and Congress must maintain a balance between the interests of authors and the rights of the public. Maher argues that, “no extension of copyright term should be contemplated until there are available solid analysis of the likely impact of such an extension on the creation of new knowledge”. He goes on to say that the Society is troubles by the effect the extension may have on the use of unpublished material that is found in archives and that courts have continues to restrict the application of fair use, which applies, to archives. The final argument Maher makes is that the Society believes that only a few individuals of heirs and corporations would benefit from the extension of such an extension.
    This letter is important because it takes the perspective of an organization that finds the passing of the CTEA to be unbeneficial and detrimental to their work. It is important to my paper because it takes a different perspective, a more personal perspective in a sense. The argument they make is not just for the public domain but also rather for the balance which is something that has not been argued for in other articles.

James Boyle, an advocate for the public domain, writes in his first chapter, the importance of intellectual property and how it is supposed to not only create incentives for innovation but also to create feedback that, “dictates the contours of information and innovation production”. Boyle recognizes that copyright law is intended to allow an artist to make a living if their works are able to be protected by copyright, however, the extent of the copyright is what he critiques. He writes, “the rights that were supposed to be limited in time and scope to the minimum monopoly necessary to ensure production become instead a kind of perpetual corporate welfare- restraining the next generation of creators instead of encouraging them”. Boyle believes that the extension of copyright is in the favor of large corporations who wish to seek profit rather than seek creation, which is the basis for the copyright law. He continues to write that he believes that the goal of the system (protection laws as a whole) should be monopolized only as long enough to provide incentives and then should be released into the public domain so that the public can benefit as well. He also points out that for most owners make all the money they will receive within five or ten years and that the remaining years are of little use. Another point Boyle also makes is that there are many works that have unidentified copyright owners or owners that just cannot be found which can be difficult for libraries who need permission to reproduce that material and therefore cannot if they cannot find the owner. This he believes is harmful to the public and does not allow them access to something that one may have permission to use but simply cannot get that permission due to the lack of information about the owner. Boyle argues that the extension of copyright law was lengthened without any evidence that it would encourage innovation.
    James Boyle’s argument for the protection of the public domain is convincing and it is convincing as my opposing argument for my paper. He provides an argument unlike other arguments that I have found because he not only discusses the corporate perspective but also the length of time that an owner actually receives payment for his work under copyright law. His argument is important to my paper because it provides a counter-argument that is strong and concise.

This article is an important source bringing together the ideas we have been discussing in class about ownership, parody and the public domain.  It would be a very important source in discussing and interpreting the Koons v. Rogers case in more depth in terms of the public domain, the economic factors, and the First Ammendment Act.  The test for economic harm is whether the copy takes so much from the original that it "serves as a replacement for that original".  A photograph of String of Puppies in a gift store of an art gallery may very well do just that.  In other words people may be more incline to buy a postcard of the more famous artist, Koons' work, than from some less well-known artist, such as Rogers.