Matching Items (757)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

68495-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMuro, Mark (Author) / Melnick, Rob (Author) / Heffernon, Rick (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2002
Description

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one major finding reflected consensus, while several others revealed sharp differences of opinion in the business community about the potential economic impacts of the SDCP and associated initiatives.

68521-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsMuro, Mark (Author) / Onaka, Jun (Author) / Melnick, Rob (Author) / Morrison Institute for Public Policy (Publisher)
Created2002
Description

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project

In February of 1998, the Pima County Board of Supervisors launched what has evolved into the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP) -- a comprehensive effort to protect the Sonoran Desert, guide growth and rationalize land development in the metropolitan Tucson region. Proponents of this planning process maintained that the project would reconcile conflicts between human activities and conservation, providing benefits for both wildlife and economic development. Critics, however, have increasingly alleged that implementing such an initiative will adversely affect land and housing markets, increase taxes and create problems of housing affordability. Over time a pressing need has consequently grown for objective information about the possible fiscal and economic impacts of the conservation programs being assembled by Pima County. This report addresses that need. It is a tool in the form of an impartial framework for assessment that government officials, environmentalists, business people and the general public can use for debate and decision-making.

76527-Thumbnail Image.png
ContributorsSmucker, Silas (Author)
Created1965
DescriptionReport on the history of the the Phatanakane Project in the Muong Phieng region in Laos, focusing on the economic, agricultural, and civil purposes of the project and its accomplishments thus far.
76622-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1973
DescriptionArticle about the land and geographical survey of two regions in Laos: Nam Kueung and Ban Houei Sai
76617-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1966
DescriptionArticle about the daily life in Vientiane, Lao Buddhist beliefs, and food.
76574-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1972
DescriptionReport on economic assistance from the United States to the Royal Government of Laos, looking specifically at their many programs to increase education and improve health, agriculture, and public needs.
79147-Thumbnail Image.png
Created1869-09-29
Description
A contract between Antonio, a Chinese settler, and Pedro R. Casanas. The contract was to last for a year and lists the legal requirements of both the employee and the employer. Noted that Benito completed a contract with Pedro previously. Antonio did not negotiate or sign the contract as the

A contract between Antonio, a Chinese settler, and Pedro R. Casanas. The contract was to last for a year and lists the legal requirements of both the employee and the employer. Noted that Benito completed a contract with Pedro previously. Antonio did not negotiate or sign the contract as the signature stipulates that someone else signed for him. Signed by Pedro Casanas, Manuel Ruiz, and two witnesses.