text:
Click the button below or email email@example.com to contribute your experiences with this product. Although not necessary, it's interesting to have a first name, city, state and country (no email addresses will be used). Any information submitted becomes the property of Tennis Warehouse.
Please include any relevant information such as string type and tension, skill level and style of play.
Comments: I am a high school student playing competition tennis, and I am 3rd in my school squad. I play with a
heavy topspin forehand (extreme western) and a two handed backhand. When I first got this racquet two years ago, I loved it. It
brought my game to new heights! I loved the easy power and control at the same time. However, as I improved, and played at
higher levels, in the longer matches the racquet began to feel sluggish and heavy. Because of the energetic way I play my game,
the racquet made my game very tiring. A good friend of mine got the Pro Staff 95, and once I had a go at that, I loved it even
more. It felt more maneuverable and did not take any effort to swing with pace and generate spin. Because of my experience with
the PS 95, (after several playtests) I have decided to switch to the new Wilson Six.One 95S. This racquet takes away all the faults of
the Juice, while still retaining all the good things. The stability and control are still there, but the Six.One 95S really compliments
my game, particularly my topspin forehand. From my experience with this racquet, I would recommend it to the players who hit a
flatter ball, and enjoy a bit of weight behind their shots. I do not recommend this to players like myself, who have very heavy
topspin forehands; the weight of the racquet combined with the style of forehand I have do not go very well together. All in all
though, a very good racquet, stunning on serves and overheads, and solid at the net.
From: Chris, 11/13
Comments: It feels good at first, but I got real tired of it real fast. If I'm taking a hard crack at the ball, it's fine. But
if you want to sit back and just roll the ball in the court, this racquet has nothing. I bought it and hit a couple of winners, then
went out and bought two. Now, I've had them for three months and I'm switching back to my old, bigger PD Roddicks. I felt like I
had to hit every ball like it was a match point; like nothing but winners all the time. It may be a great racquet for a better player,
but not me (I am a 4.0 player with a 4.5 rating).
From: Caleb, 7/13
Comments: First I'm a 4.5 powerful baseliner with top spin on my ground strokes and I'm very picky with my choice
of racquet. The Wilson Juice Pro is a awesome. Great racquet, strung it at 50 pounds. I am coming from a Wilson N blade 98
(strung at 50lbs also). I have gained much control, power and spin. I would recommend this racquet. Keep in mind, this is not a
racquet for everybody as it is a heavy racquet and nowadays players are looking for lighter racquets for extended games. I suggest
demoing it first if you're interested in the racquet.
From: Jesus, 7/13
Comments: Great racquet! I highly recommend it to anyone that loves power and spin.
From: Paden, 4/13
Comments:I played with the Wilson NCode 95 6.1 for many years and loved the frame. It was flexible enough and
also light enough for me to get some serious pop off my ground strokes. I am also a one-handed backhand player and the Wilson
racquet suited my style of game best. So I decided after so many years with my NCodes that I needed to make a change and
check out the latest and greatest Wilson 6.1 I demoed it for a bit but found it heavier than my previous NCode and also had more
weight to it. Not for me. I then tried lots of other racquets but never seemed to find anything that fit my game. I was not really
looking at the Juice Pro since I thought it was a bit too gimmicky but once I put the racquet in my hand I was instantly rewarded.
Great power, great with my one hander and also just enough weight to drive some big groudstrokes. Finished my demoing after
that and bought two. Played some sessions with the racquet and find myself winning more matches. Great racquet that does a lot
of things well. And the paint job also grew on me.
From: Adam, 2/13
Comments: Love this stick. One thing that bothers me though is its weight. I would love to see Wilson bring out a
Juice Pro Team with 315g (RDC 323g), please! 324g is on the heavier side and makes this racquet heavy after two hours of play for
a 36 year old guy. What happened to the good K Pro Tour!? Only Head (Extreme Pro) and Babolat (Pure Drive Roddick) offer similar
rackets. But they have way too much power and 100sq.in. heads.
From: Pete, 2/13
Comments: Update to my earlier comment (11/12.) After coming back from a knee injury I tried a variety of Wilson
racquets to see if the Juice was still my favorite, but I've recently fallen in love with the Pro Staff 90. Surprisingly, I was framing
more shots with the Juice Pro, possibly because I found myself slowing down too often before my shots. Having grown nearly 3
inches in height and 15 lbs since I started with the Juice, I can see why there's been this change in my racquet preference.
I am almost certainly switching to either the Pro Staff 90 or the Blade 93 (have yet to try that one.) I'll keep a Juice Pro for coaching
in the summer.
From: Anon, 2/13
String type and tension: Luxilon Savage @ 55 lbs
Comments: I spent two years playing with the Six.One 95 18x20 BLX. I liked that racquet's feel a lot, but because of
my high-energy playstyle, the racquet tended to become cumbersome toward the end of matches. My two Six.One 95s had gotten
a lot of wear and tear over two years, so I was looking to replace them. I tried several of Wilson's newer frames for 2012 as soon
as they were available. I found the Pro Staff 95 to be very light, and I never really got a great feel for it. The updated 18x20 played
well, but still had a tad too much weight to it. When I tried the Juice Pro, I was initially a little skeptical. It seemed to be a little
gimmicky for me with its vibrant colors and slightly extended length. Fortunately, this stick is a lot more than an attention-
grabber. Access to spin is improved with the Juice Pro. I love how the racquet has some weight to it, enough to let me really hit
out on the ball without losing control, while it is also arm-friendly. It doesn't fatigue the player nearly as much as a Six.One 95
would. The length takes a little getting used to, but the longer than average handle is also a plus for me. For me, a tall player with
grinding matches and a big serve, this racquet gets the job done. When I switched my old hybrid for a full bed of Savage in it at 55
lbs, it was out of this world.
From: Anon, 11/12
String type and tension: Luxilon Savage @ 55 lbs
Comments: I was going to buy a BLX Six.One 95 but decided to demo the BLX Juice Pro this as well. I started hitting
with the Six.One 95 and liked the way it felt. Then picked up this stick and WOW! It fit my strokes like a glove. Every stroke was
improved instantly, especially the serve. More pace, more spin, and more control. It's hard for me to describe but this racquet is
definitely the one for my game.
From: Jim, 11/12
String type: Wilson NXT 16g
Comments: It took a while until I was able to use this racquet properly, but
once I tried every possibility of handling it, my shots became
stronger and precise as never before. I am very satisfied! Good job
From: Sandro, 8/12
String type and tension: Topspin Cyber Flash @ 45 lbs
Comments: I've owned several racquets, including the Wilson kTour 95, Wilson K Factor 6.1 90 (Federer), and the
Head Extreme Pro MP. This racquet is better than any of those that I've used. I demo'ed it a while ago with the Sensation 16g
string. It had great power and my one handed backhand worked far better than with any of the other racquets. My forehand was
somewhat overpowered and would fly long too often. I bought the racquet and switched to Nat Gut 15g main/ Lux BB Alu Power
1.25 crosses at 53 lb/51 lb. It's just a dream now. I couldn't be happier. It feels solid, forgiving and maneuverable for its weight.
Highly recommended.
From: Andreas, 8/12
String type and tension: Babolat Natural Gut 15g mains @ 53 lbs / Luxilon Big Banger ALU Power 17g crosses @ 51 lbs
Comments: I love this racquet! I am simply speechless. I have nothing to complain about
what so ever. Control, power, and spin all in one frame. I love the plow through. I love to hit big with spin so this racquet was a
great fit for me. I don't know how Wilson makes every version of every racquet better than its last. Simply amazing.
From: Anon, 8/12
String type: Wilson Natural Gut mains / Luxilon Big Banger ALU Power crosses
Comments: This racquet is just awesome with the set up of Dunlop Silk 17 at 53 pounds. The shop was dead-on
saying it will make the racquet less stiff and with feel.
From: Jon, 7/12
Comments: I love this racquet. Ground strokes are solid, and feel great with lots of spin and pace. Volleys are
excellent too, very stable, although this is one of the places that takes a bit longer to adjust to. Serves are the same as
groundstrokes, great spin and power, and just spectacular there. I go full poly (Tecnifibre Black Code) at 55-57 pounds. I will say
that it is very important to keep fresh strings in this stick, shots will fly without it, and you'll lose all control.
From: Nick, 7/12
Comments: I demoed this Juice Pro with Wilson Sensation 16 and it was terrific. Control was spot on and feel was
great. I bought the racquet and strung it mid tension with Prince Syn Gut Duraflex 55 pounds and it ruined the racquet. It felt like
a 2x4 board. So I went to the shop to restring it with Dunlop Silk at 53 pounds. Will pick it up in 2 days and leave feedback later.
From: Jon, 7/12
Comments: Great racquet! I demoed this racquet and within a couple of days I found that
it is a real weapon. You can generate a ton of spin with a decent amount of power.
Plus with the smaller headsize there is plenty of control. Also, out of all of the racquets
I've played with, this is the best to serve with. One question I have is whether or not
the Juice Pro has Amplifeel in the handle.
From: Mike, 7/12
Comments: I got to play with this racket and have really enjoyed it. I have not decided what strings will
play the best in it but I get more pop on my forehand, better control on my serve and I have a fierce backhand now -- I
love this racket.
From: Woody, 6/12
Comments: Great for forehand. Can really whip the racquet through to create a
heavy ball. Also great for serving with pace and spin. Little tougher to
get bite on a slice though, and volleys need to be timed very well with
a solid punch, or they lack penetration. Feels very good on the arm as
well, i have golfers/tennis elbow and no pain with this racket with a
multi in it. Overall liked it very much.
From: Nathan, 4/12
Comments: A tad more muted than the Blade 98 and the six.one series. It felt more solid and stable than
the BLX
Pro Tour. This one is more in line with the weight and feel I like, so it was a better fit for me than the old Pro Tour. I
found better
power from the BLX Juice Pro off the ground and felt I had more plow through from the racquet. Coming through
contact the
racquet felt beefier, like I was getting more stick behind the ball. I really enjoyed smacking some big forehands with
this racquet.
Working the rally and waiting for the right ball to take a big cut at was the order of the day. I found decent spin when
angles and enough spin to keep aggressive approach shots inside the baseline. I also liked this racquet on my slice
backhand. It
came through the ball well, with enough drive to knife the ball deep and keep it low. I loved the racquet at net. It's rock
solid and
it was a better fit for me than the Blade 98 and BLX 6.1 95's. It felt in comparison to the Blade 98 and the 95's more
maneuverable, more solid and much better dampened. I got wrist problems at net with the BLX Blade 98! But I actually
served best
with this racquet. My first serve is a weapon and this racquet increased that even more. I also found a lot of spin on my
serve, more than with the Blade 98 and six.one 95's. The touch and feel of this racquet is just awesome. Overall a stick
dynamite and in my opinion the best offering from Wilson this year!!!
From: Phil, 3/12
String type and tension: Luxilon BB Alu Power Rough, 53x51lbs
Headsize: 96
NTRP Rating: 6.0
Comments: I am not a 4.5 player as the recommendation says this racquet is geared for. After
purchasing the Pro
Tour a year ago, I loved the racquet but had decided that the tight string pattern may be holding me back in developing
top spin.
I immediately liked this racquet better than the Pro Tour. This racquet requires me to use less power than the Pro Tour
which has
been a bit of an adjustment (unless I am really focusing on Top Spin). I love this racquet for slice it is wicked from all
areas of the
court. Net play has been a bit of an adjustment there is just enough of a difference between racquets for me to have to
really think about my volley's. My serve is insane with the Juice, I do think the extra length has forced me to change my
toss a bit. I don't know maybe it is just my skill level.
From: Anon, 2/12
Comments: I had a chance to hit for a couple of hours with this and
here are a few thoughts. Likes: I have a 2hbh, so I like the extra
1/4 of an inch when I have time to fully swing at it; stability is
great; extra length, really helps with the backhand slice, the ball
goes deeper and a shot is more penetrating and harder to attack;
because the length is only 1/4 of an inch extra, I found that I can
still hit a forehand on the run without hitting it late, which is a
sensation I get with an extra 1/2 inch racquets; power and plow-
through is reminiscent of PDR+, which is something that I happen to
like, power on the serve is tremendous. Dislikes: Maneuverability is
a big issue both at net and on the baseline, feels more like a 6 pts
hl rather than 8 pts which is even tougher to handle with extra
length; the racquet feels stiffer than 63 flex.
From: Anon, 2/12
Comments: First, the BLX feels better in this version. So here is how my first
demo went - Went down to the local drop in and during warm ups I was
hitting everything out (almost put it away) but thought I give it a
longer try. I was playing singles, during the 1st game the stick felt
awkward (still not used to it) by the 3rd game I settled into the game
and started producing top spin winners off both wings. The opponent
even commented about the spin coming from the racquet. Volley you
need to drive though the ball as the head lightness can cause one to
cut to quickly and into the net it goes. Slices were decent a few
were long but the majority stay in and placement was decent. Serving
was awkward at first but by the second set I had adjusted and Spin
Kickers were awesome, slice wide was awesome and str8 down the T was
freaking awesome (Can you say Ace, Ace, and Ace) needles to say I
loved serving with it. Drop shot tended to go a little deeper than
anticipated but that is due to first time with the racket but its does
have a nice feel and directional control. I have it another week so
well see but first impressions were that this good be my new stick.
From: Robert, 2/12
Comments: This racquet has the same 'it' factor that drew me to the BLX Pro Open a year ago. I was
actually trying
the Juice 100 looking for a compliment to my Pro Open, but I found it lacking in most regards to the Pro Open. Same
results with
the Steam. I had all but decided to just pick up another Pro Open, but then on a whim I tried this racquet. It just felt
right. It was
a natural progression from the Pro Open and it helped me improve on key areas of my game where I felt I lacked with
the Pro
Open. It had the same great feel that I felt when I first demo'd the Pro Open after about 10 other racquets, but it felt so
more solid on strong serve returns, volleys, and all over the court. It forced me to stick to nice full ground strokes
instead of
sometimes copping out halfway through a swing because I was scared of the power coming off the Pro Open. Most
importantly, it
improved my two hand backhand by leaps and bounds especially against strong shots. I can't recommend trying this
enough even
if you are set on a 100 sq in tweener. Most improved racquet of 2012 from Wilson (if you compare it to the BLX Pro
From: Blake, 2/12
Comments: Switched from Wilson BLX six-one team. When I demoed the Juice Pro, it came with NXT 16g.
The first
few hours of hitting was terrible due to the NXT so I replaced it Solinco Tour Bite 17G and the racquet was perfect. I got
topspin off of both wings. The serve took some time adjusting but once I adjusted, the kick and flat serve had more
pop. On the
slice serve, I didn't notice a difference. At the net, the racquet is very demanding. I'm a good volleyer but it took a long
adjusting to the racquet's extra length and 8pt head light. On the slice, the racquet was alright but you have to drive it
more so
than a racquet that has less head lightness. The racquet is geared toward players that use a lot of topspin so I wouldn't
recommend this racquet to players whose game aren't revolved around their topspin forehand. Overall, I'm very
satisfied with this
Juice Pro because it's tailored made for topspin forehand.
From: Lee, 1/12
Comments: I just demoed these racquets and knew right away it was a good feel from what I
am used to. I've always used the Wilson line of racquets below the traditional six one (surge,
npro, etc. and most recently the k pro tour). I never liked the feel of the first BLX racquets
and these are much better! The elongated frame does take a few hits to get used to, especially on serve and volley. I
found that
using a full handed grip instead of just holding the bottom of the racquet proved much more feel and control. The best
part of
this racquet is the power/control combo. It feels like the Babolat pure drive racquets in terms of pop, but maintains
traditional fee. 2 handed backhand feels amazing. Suggest this racquet for aggressive, flat hitters who mix it up (like
Lopez, Azarenka, and supposedly Del Potro is going to use it)
From: Peter, 1/12
Comments: Got the demo for this with Wilson NXT 16 strings, which are stiff like Jon said. However, the
couldn't prevent this stick from being the beast it is. It's like the rare fusion of a Pure Drive (power) and Wilson Pro Tour
The specs are deceiving- the higher head-light rating along with the more open string pattern make for a lighter
feeling racquet
with a lot of pop and added spin potential. This is also flexier than the predecesor (Pro Tour) despite being about .3 oz
The extra 1/4inch is useful for extra speed on the serve but requires adjustment for volleying. My forehands tended to
be more
consistent when I whipped and went more under the ball for topspin, and less friendly to my usual flat, power
unfortunately. My one handed backhand hasn't seen any drastic increases in play. After several hours of play, my game
but I suspect this is the string's doing and not the racquet. Since this racquet is more on the lighter-feeling, so ft side,
I'd go with
a polyester like Solinco Tour Bite or Luxilon M2 Pro if you're a flat hitter. Overall, I'm impressed and might just buy 2 of
From: Anon, 1/12
Comments: Just demoed this racquet. I was really impressed with it, but it came strung with NXT 16 and
it was
kinda stiff feeling and not a lot of spin. I restrung the racquet with a blend of MSV Focus Hex 17and Babolat N.Vy 16.
The racquet
all of a sudden got a lot more spin and started to soften up a bit. I played again and added 4 1.5" strips of lead. The
stiffer feeling
went away with the addition of lead and the forehand got even heavier. My two-handed backhand had a clean response
with tons
of pop. The serve had extra pop and spin compared to my PK Ki-5x (note that the main difference between the 96 and
my 100
frame is this racquet has shorter main strings). My forehand got decent spin from the racquet, although less so than
my current
frame. I like the extended nature of the racquet, although at times I missed the extra 1/4 in, for the most part, the
maneuverability of the racquet made up for it. This is the first Wilson racquet that I may switch to since I played with
the Ultra FPK
as a junior.
From: Jon, 1/12
Comments: BLX Juice Pro 2012. Couple of thoughts. 1. Although this is supposedly Delpo's racket of
choice but he
is not using it at least not yet at the time of writing this review. 2. Why? Having demoed this and also his current model
the K
factor 95, I can perhaps offer some rationale. 1. The two rackets are completely different. 2. New BLX is longer not that
need the extra reach. 3. racket geometries have completely changed going from 95 to 96 si. 4. Kfactor with its
crispness and
harsh responsiveness is different from the BLX Juice Pro's slight less crisp but plush feel. 5. Both are kind of middle of
the road
between Blx ProStaff 90 2012 and the BLX Juice 100 in terms of control, spin and power. Personally, I prefer the BLX
Juice Pro's
feel. I think Delpo is just clinging onto familiarity. Upside of the BLX Juice Pro's Ampifeel, is that it may just cure him of
wrist joint pains.
From: Anon, 1/12
Comments: The racquet is amazing for my 2 handed backhand, it's a compact stroke and the extra
leverage and
swing weight all accentuate each other. Serve also feels good, nice spin production. Those strengths become slight
when it comes to my forehand, since it is a loopier stroke and I have to spend more time adjusting and timing the ball.
At the net
the racquet is ok, given the extra length and sturdy weight. It has has a relatively soft feel, right in the middle of plush
vs crisp. All
in all it's a nice racquet with some really nice attributes and some okay.
From: Chris, 1/12
Comments: Switching over from BlX Blade 98, this racquet is a lot more arm friendly, a lot flexier and
has good
spin. Doesn't get pushed around by a big hitter, and takes a bit of getting used to for net volleying. Bottom line, I like
this racquet
very much and will get a second one soon.
From: Tim, 1/12


text:
Update: On July 21, 2010, the FAA issued a final rule that amends 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. The changes include stronger protections for the National Airspace System and private airports. The rule will allow for greater lead time in assessing tall structures and provide for protection of instrument approaches into private-use airports. AOPA worked with the FAA over the past two decades to encourage greater protection of U.S. airports and airspace and supported the changes that have been adopted in the final rule. The amendments to Part 77 go into effect on Jan. 18, 2011.
The explosive growth of cellular communications and other digital technologies has resulted in a proliferation of tall towers. In 2000, the FAA conducted over 43,000 aeronautical studies to determine the impact of proposed structures on the national airspace system (NAS). This represents a growth of over 100% when compared to 1995 totals. The height of these and other structures can make them a hazard to general aviation, especially at locations relative to airports and navigational aids (both electronic and visual). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has an obstruction evaluation (OE) process to evaluate, mitigate, or eliminate the impact of tall towers and other obstructions to airspace.
It is important for general aviation pilots to understand the OE process and how the FAA evaluates such objects. Armed with this information, airspace users are able to determine the impact of obstructions on their aeronautical activities. Moreover, this impact may then be communicated in an effective manner to the FAA, allowing pilots to participate in the aeronautical study process.
The obstruction evaluation process begins at regional level within the FAA, and involves all lines of business including Airports, Airway Facilities, Flight Standards, Flight Procedures, and of course, Air Traffic. The roles of each group will be discussed later in this document.
The FAA's philosophy in evaluating objects that may impact navigable airspace is that each is presumed to be a hazard until proven otherwise. This posture clearly favors the aeronautical community, and is consistent with the FAA's overall mission of promoting aviation safety.
If a tower or other object is found to have a significant adverse impact, a "hazard" determination will be issued. However, in nearly 80% of all such cases, the FAA negotiates with the proponent until the conditions are met for a "no-hazard" determination. These efforts are a key benefit of the FAA's participation at this level.
AOPA recognizes that balancing the needs of all airspace users is a formidable task and the complexity and diversity inherent to all aeronautical activities ensures that the FAA isn't always in the best position to evaluate every factor that needs to be assessed in an airspace study. This is why in so many cases; studies are circularized to the public for comment. Pilots must be willing to take responsibility for providing comments as appropriate to the FAA region in which the study in conducted. Although AOPA can and often does provide comments on behalf of it members, the prestige of a national organization cannot replace the benefit of our members' intimate knowledge of their operational environment.
This document is intended to provide a high-level overview of the OE process used by the FAA in evaluating the impact of objects affecting navigable airspace. In addition, it is intended to answer many of the questions commonly asked by AOPA members. Finally, this brief will provide the aeronautical community with some strategic insight useful in opposing construction activities, should they feel it's necessary to do so.
We begin with an overview of the intent and limitations of the FAA's OE process. Aeronautical studies are conducted to determine the impact of an object on the safe and efficient use of airspace. By congressional mandate, the FAA cannot prohibit any construction activities. Instead, the FAA evaluates the proposed construction, and as necessary, works with the proponent to mitigate any impact that may result.
Step 1: When does the proponent need to inform the FAA of its intentions?
Title 14 CFR Part 77.13(a)(1-5) outlines the type of construction or alteration requiring notice to the FAA. Except as provided in Part 77.15, each sponsor who proposes any of the following shall notify the FAA in the manner prescribed in Part 77.17.
There are, however, instances when notification may not be required in spite of meeting these conditions. These conditions are outlined in 77.15(a-d).
In many cases, the proponent will submit their information for study to the FAA in spite of the fact their activities do not meet notice criteria. This often occurs for one of two reasons. The first is simply that the proponent did not know or incorrectly applied the notice criteria of Part 77. The second is that the issuance of a no- hazard determination from the FAA will all but insure no federal entanglements will halt construction efforts.
[See FAR Part 77.]
Step 2: Obstruction Criteria
Now we are assuming that the FAA has been notified of the proponent's intentions and a case has been opened. When this occurs, a specialist in the FAA's regional 520 office (Airspace Branch) will undertake the following:
If a proposed structure exceeds any Part 77, Subpart C obstruction standard, an aeronautical study shall be conducted to identify the effects of the proposal on the use of navigable airspace. In this case, the different offices within the FAA determine the possible impact as it relates to their area of responsibility. Clicking on the name of each office will provide a brief overview of each office and its assigned task(s). [See FAR Part 77.]
Air Traffic
Airports Office
Flight Procedures and Flight Standards
Airway Facilities
Military Representatives
Step 3: OE Circularization
Not all proposals or studies are circulated to the aeronautical community for comment. In many cases, the obstruction in question is short enough or distant enough from any airport or navigational aid that no useful purpose would be served by opening the issue to the public.
So when does the FAA circularize a study for comment? Guidance for this is provided in FAA Order 7400.2, Procedures For Handling Airspace Matters. Proposals requiring public notice include:
Conversely, circularization to the public is normally not required for the following:
With a better understanding of the requirements for circularization, a discussion may now begin on the parties to whom the circulars are distributed. As a rule, the following entities will receive notification of an OE case:
The methods used in circularizing a proposal or soliciting comments are relatively simple and straightforward. Public notice is generally provided through the issuance of an automated OE circularization letter and related documents. FAA specialists may also contact the necessary parties by telephone. Finally, informal airspace meetings may be convened to discuss a particular proposal.
Step 4: Evaluating Aeronautical Effect and Issuing a Determination
This is the point at which the FAA determines if an object is a hazard to the aeronautical community. By now, the FAA has already determined if an object exceeds the obstruction standards outlined in Part 77. However, keep in mind that the obstruction criteria set forth in Part 77 are just that, a standard to determine if it is necessary to further study the impact of a construction proposal. This criterion is not regulatory in nature, and exceeding the prescribed standards is by no means a disqualifying factor for a proponent. Simply put, an obstruction is not necessarily a hazard. [See FAR Part 77.]
In order for an object to be considered for adverse effect, one or more of the following conditions must be met:
At this point, the FAA has still not made a hazard/ no-hazard determination. For a hazard determination to be issued, a substantial adverse effect must exist. This requires a combination of two factors. First, an object must create an adverse effect ( see above). Next, a significant volume of aeronautical operations must be affected. FAA Order 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, provide guidance on what constitutes "significant volume."
When one of the following occurs, significant volume is considered to exist.
If a significant adverse effect is found to exist, a hazard determination will be issued. In the absence of such a finding, a no hazard determination will be issued.
As a pilot or airport owner reading this brief, you are likely concerned with what you can do to participate in an aeronautical study. The options available to you in fighting a construction proposal largely depend on the type of airport from which you operate. There are two basic types to consider, private and public-use airports. Unfortunately, the FAA's Part 77 process does not take into consideration the private-use facility. [See FAR Part 77.] If such an airport stands to be the only facility impacted, a notification may not be circulated. However, if the aeronautical study is circulated for comment, it may still be worth your time to comment. If you do choose to comment in this instance, keep these points in mind. First, the impact to a private-use airport will not be considered in the study, regardless of the severity. So any discussion based on this point will be futile, and should be avoided. Instead, take a critical look at the system-wide implications of the proposed construction. When doing so, regardless of the public versus private status of your airport, ask yourself the following questions:
How you answer these and other questions related to adverse effect will largely determine the nature of your comments to the FAA. If your comments cannot be tied to similar factors impacting the safe and efficient use of airspace, and the FAA has no cause for concern, a no hazard determination will likely be the outcome.

subset: commoncrawl


text: I am expecting a baby in May, and am looking for some input on what is the best baby carrier for a brand new baby. I wore my son in a sling style carrier from about 2 mths, but I remember that I thought he was too little to go in the sling when he was brand new because I was worried about his breathing, and it seems as though my mei tai may be too big for a new born. I am hoping to have a carrier that will allow me to nurse the baby easily while he is in it, as I will also have my hands full with a 3 YO. Any thoughts?


text:
The Yamamoto Tubes have many characteristics that make them a staple soft plastic bait in the bass fishing world. The super-fine salt impregnated plastic formula gives the bait an ideal rate of fall and cause bass to hold longer for a more positive hookset. The rubbery rip-resistant walls also don't tear easily, making them great for flipping or pitching into heavy cover. The tentacle tails always separate in water and are cut differently so they won't stick together. The twenty tentacles also greatly increase the surface area of the tail for more vibration and noise as each tentacle wriggles. The Yamamoto Tube Bait's construction also creates an erratic spiral action of the fall and causes the tail to stand up and flare out on the bottom. The long flowing tentacles move with the current and also quiver nervously like real fish fins even when standing still.
The Yamamoto Tubes work great when paired with a dropshot rig, split shot rig or jig. The Tubes provide an elusive darting and hesitating action when jigged and a lazy wavering action on a horizontal glide or pendulum fall. You can also Texas rig the Yamamoto Tube Baits and flip them into heavy cover or power fish them deep with heavy gear. The Yamamoto Tube Baits are available in a variety of colors and three sizes to match your bass fishing pursuits. Gary Yamamoto recommends using the 3" and 3.5" for finesse fishing techniques and the 4.5" for flipping.
0 Colors
More From Yamamoto Softbaits
Customer Reviews
Comments: Held up 2 to 6 compared to other brands. Well made, and well worth it. Loving the june bug. First citation smallie on it this past weekend.
From: Dustin: Richmond, Va
Comments: These things are the real deal. Can easily be rigged on a jig head, or Texas rigged. Watermelon colors work for me the best, but all catch fish.
From: Colorado USA
Comments: Maybe one of the most overlooked baits in the GYCB line. But, like everything the make they are great. I don't like the big bulky double and triple dipped 3.5" tubes it seems like everyone is making now. I have always caught more smallmouth on a plain thin walled slim profile tube, and these fit the part just right.
From: Basswipe: Meatwad's Pond
Comments: They catch a lot of fish and have great colors, but they tear easily.
From: Franklin


text:
Swarovski Elements Bangle£10 instead of £39.99 (from Simply Jewellery) for a silver-plated Swarovski Elements bangle - save 75%
Save 75%
Promotion ends on
04 / 03 / 2014
- Get a gorgeous cuff bangle.
- Encrusted with Swarovski Elements crystals.
- A silver-plated finish.
- Capture everyone's attention!
- A perfect gift for Valentine's Day.
The Fine Print
- May buy multiples.
- Voucher valid until 14th March 2014.
- Delivery costs an additional £2.99 per item.
- Please allow up to 7 working days for delivery after redeeming.
- Subject to availability.
Full Details
While diamonds may be a girl's best friend, they're certainly not your purse's! Luckily, you can keep your entire wardrobe happy with today's deal…
We're offering you a silver-plated Swarovski Elements cuff bangle for just £10, saving you 75% off Simply Jewellery's price of £39.99 (correct as of 22.1.14).
Sure to turn heads, this stunning Swarovski Elements crystal cuff bangle from Simply Jewellery is bound to be your essential accessory for 2014. A beautiful silver-plated band set with Swarovski Elements crystals, you'll exude timeless elegance with this gorgeous piece that'll complement any ensemble. Perfect for that little black dress or a casual day outfit, you're sure to turn heads wherever you go!
How to Redeem
- When the deal ends, we'll send you your unique wowcher code.
- Head to Simply Jewellery's site using the link we send you.
- Add the product to your cart.
- Enter your wowcher code when prompted.
Once purchased, you can redeem this wowcher towards another wowcher or claim a Wowcher Wallet Credit. Click here for more info.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Course - Classroom or Online!£16 instead of £299 for an online cognitive behavioural therapy course, or £399 for a classroom course from Mary Kay Jenny - choose from four locations and save up to 95%
Save 95%
Time left to purchase


text:
Create burgers on the wild side with wild rice, dill and Dijon.
Burgers are more juicy and flavorful if you avoid pressing down on the patties while they're grilling.
Shape the patties up to 4 hours ahead of time. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate until you're ready to grill.
© 2015 ®/TM General Mills All Rights Reserved


text:
You can expect some weird and wonderful sounds and a history lesson or two from the music programme of Auckland Fringe starting this week, writes Scott Kara.
It's not just the range of music on offer at this year's Auckland Fringe, but the lengths the artists are going to to put on a unique performance that makes it an intriguing programme.
Most notable are historically inspired shows like Explorer's Club: Antarctica by local folk band Bond Street Bridge, which tells the stories of Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton, and The Remarkable Diary of Samuel Pepys, which documents key events in London during the 1600s set to a soundtrack of music from that time, played by ensemble group Affetto.
"They are quite an undertaking," says Auckland Fringe director Michael Keating of the shows. "They look at the whole package and present the music in a totally different way, rather than just music in a bar, and they are the shows that are the most successful ones."
He rates Affetto and says when the group played last year, their early chamber music had hints of what pop music would become centuries later.
"They were old-school tricks that have become the pop hooks, or pop tricks, of today," he says.
And for more of what to expect on the Fringe fest music front, read on ...
Who: Flute player Miho Wada and her "pocket sized orchestra" (pictured below).
What: With her mix of kooky, cute and tough-girl style, this Japan-born, Auckland-based musician is a live music marvel. Along with her five-piece orchestra, she makes music that will get you grooving. For example, The Darkside of Bouncy Castle is a funky flute-meets-Baby Elephant Walk piece that is the opening track of her album, Wanderland.
Where and when: Alleluya, St Kevin's Arcade, K Rd, Feb 23, 6pm.
More info: mihowada.com
The Explorer's Club: Antarctica
Who: Local multi-instrumentalist Sam Prebble and his band of minstrels, who go by the name of Bond Street Bridge.
What: One of the the most ambitious folk music shows you're every likely to see. This multi-media performance pays homage to Antarctic explorers Scott and Shackleton by telling their stories through spoken word storytelling, original songs, heritage photos taken by the men themselves and illustrations by Auckland artist Emily Cater.
Where and when: Wine Cellar, St Kevin's Arcade, K Rd, February 22 and March 1, 9pm.
More info: bondstreetbridge.blogspot.com
The Remarkable Diary of Samuel Pepys
Who: Early music ensemble Affetto, who "explore the lesser known chamber music of the Baroque and Renaissance" periods.
What: Through the writings of Pepys, whose diary from 1660-1669 gives accounts of historic events during that time, and music from the 17th century, the Affetto quartet take the audience back to London during the great plague, the great fire and the beheading of King Charles I.
Where and when: Ponsonby Baptist Church, March 1-2, 7.30pm, March 3, 3pm.
More info: affetto.co.nz
Dialogos: The Music of John Psathas
Who: Contemporary jazz quartet, the Chris Mason-Battley Group, and renowned New Zealand composer John Psathas.
What: This collaboration sees Psathas' old and new works arranged especially for the quartet, including a new interpretation of his classical beat freak shakedown Drum Dances, which should make for one wigged-out performance.
Where and when: University of Auckland Music Theatre, March 9, 7pm.
More info: chrismb.co.nz
Lower Bar Collective - Live
Who: Ambient and atmospheric audio visual act Lower Bar Collective.
What: This show comes with a strobe light warning, but if that's a problem just close your eyes and let the smouldering and sonic waves of sound these chaps conjure up transport you to another world.
Where and when: Whammy Bar, St Kevin's Arcade, K Rd, February 22, 10pm; Silo Park, March 1, 6pm and 8pm; March 2, 1.30pm, 6pm, 8pm; March 3, 1.30pm, 6pm.
More info: lowerbarcollective.tumblr.com
Marisa Anderson Live
Who: Up-and-coming Auckland singer/songwriter Marisa Anderson.
What: Swingin' tunes about everything from love, scraps with your landlord, and, of all things, an emergency evacuation on an plane simulator.
Where and when: Box Cafe, Aotea Centre, February 22, 5pm-6pm.
More info: www.myspace.com/ladiesmile
Moving Scores
Who: Classical musicians and moving image artists come together as Melbourne-based group Three Shades Black.
What: This one is hard to explain, but by the sounds, these experimental artists take music notation and make it into films which is then performed by players as "graphic scores". Or, as Three Shades Black put it, "Come hear the image and see the music."
Where and when: The Hall, Mt Eden Village, February 22, 8pm.
More info: 3shadesblack.com
Piano and the Song
Who: Auckland piano man Craig Hallen
What: One man, one piano, one hour, and lots of songs ranging in scope from moochy ballads to rousing rock 'n' rollers and uplifting numbers about "living your dreams".
Where and when: Blues Bar, Aotea Centre, February 16 and 23, March 3, 6pm.
More info: craighallen.bandcamp.com
What: The music at Auckland Fringe
Where and when: Various venues, February 15 to March 10
More info: aucklandfringe.co.nz
- TimeOut


text:
I contacted Forest City's spokesman this morning to ask for comment on behalf of the company and its partner XSite and was told, "As of now, they will not comment." I will post updates should they develop.
Developer Forest City Ratner's ambition to build modular towers at record-setting heights, which could make Atlantic Yards profitable and launch a new prefab business, has provoked curiosity, speculation, and concern since reports of such plans surfaced in March 2011.
After all, with modular construction, Forest City might cut costs and construction time considerably. Atlantic Yards, now likely to take decades, could be completed closer to the long-promised ten-year schedule, albeit with question marks about its durability, diminished spending on jobs, and lowered tax revenues.
And, previously unreported, the modular venture has a contentious, litigious history, which for months slowed Forest City's efforts.
Today, while Forest City still faces challenges to go modular, including union negotiations and investment to start a factory, it has cleared a major hurdle.
By virtue of a legal settlement in August involving its business partner, FCR gained the expertise and financial terms it sought for assistance "in the development and implementation of a system and methodology of designing, manufacturing, and constructing modular" high-rise buildings "in a cost effective manner."
The charges in the lawsuit, aired in numerous legal papers, were settled before adjudication, thus leaving the full story ambiguous. The judge did issue two temporary restraining orders, lending some credence to the plaintiff's claims of potential harm caused by FCR's partner, whose legal defense the developer apparently funded.
The essence of the lawsuit
From Forest City's perspective, it was trying to negotiate the right transaction with the right partner, figuring out how to build 35-story-plus towers at a time when the tallest modular building rises only 25 stories. (The taller the building, the more complex the challenge, given wind and seismic stresses.)
To the Kullman Buildings Corp., which lost a potential contract and apparently has since gone out of business, Forest City benefited from its partner's alleged sneaky tactics.
As Kullman alleged in its lawsuit, FCR "was effectively able to circumvent Kullman's refusal to turn over the ownership rights in this system by the fact that Kullman's key employees collaborated a plan to work directly with FCRC under the formation of a new rival company."
Kullman not only refused to give up some rights to proprietary technology, it sought a royalty rate higher than Forest City would pay, and its CEO sought to change another key contract feature.
Forest City ceased negotiations and soon signed a contract with a new firm, XSite Modular, which agreed to a deal with different contours, including a lower price and less control of intellectual property than Kullman had sought.
XSite is staffed by former Kullman employees recruited by the recently-fired Kullman second-in-command, even as at least one was participating in communications on behalf of the firm regarding the Forest City contract.
Kullman sued XSite and six employees. The defense, denying the allegations, pointed out that employees had not signed non-compete agreements and that Kullman had failed to identify specific proprietary technology.
While the plaintiff's claims likely overreached--if Forest City had already decided to drop Kullman, could the defendants have caused the loss of that future contract?--Kullman argued that the defendants, among other things, faced a common-law duty not to act against the interests of their employer while still working there.
Forest City was not named in the suit, nor did it provoke the formation of XSite. Still, FCR played a key role, supplying testimony and, according to documents in the suit, agreeing to pay the defendants' legal fees.
(Click on graphics to enlarge)
Charged sequence, shrouded settlement
Though Forest City's relationship with Kullman began in mid-2009, the lawsuit highlights negotiations that began in late December 2010. Forest City was discussing a second contract with Kullman, a Lebanon, NJ-based firm specializing in modular construction for the education, residential, healthcare, and hospitality industries, among others. (Here's Kullman's web site, via the Internet Archive.)
Kullman, also known as Kullman Offsite Construction, built the Shake Shack at Madison Square Park in Manhattan, among other projects, using modules produced in a factory, with fixtures installed, trucked to the site for swift construction.
The new contract involved helping Forest City create "a business entity to develop, own and implement a system of designing, manufacturing and constructing" modular buildings far taller than the four stories the company had previously built. The cost per square foot might be less than half that of conventional construction.
After some negotiations in January 2011, FCR decided against working with Kullman. In a sequence that provoked "concern" from a New Jersey judge, Forest City soon signed with XSite.
Kullman ultimately sued on multiple grounds, including unfair competition, employee piracy, and breach of duty of loyalty.
In court papers, FCR stated that the decision to drop Kullman was not related to the later decision to sign with XSite. Indeed, no evidence in the case file suggests that FCR instigated the formation of XSite.
Rather, the new firm was spurred by the firing of Kullman's second-in-command--who'd had a difficult, even toxic, relationship with her boss--and her recruitment of employees dissatisfied with the CEO and dismayed about the firm's financial instability.
However, the plaintiff charged that Forest City ultimately benefited from XSite's alleged improper behavior: for example, even as Kullman was seeking the FCR contract, a key Kullman staffer, later to join XSite, discussed the new firm's plans with XSite's president, both using Kullman's online GoToMeeting account.
The defendants were either employed by or collecting compensation from Kullman as plans were finalized for the new company that would later win the contract Kullman had previously sought.
Did XSite behave improperly as charged, and did Forest City gain the fruits of that behavior? The judge never got to rule on that.
Nor did the judge evaluate XSite's defense, which, among other things, cited the alleged "erratic" behavior of Kullman CEO Avi Telyas, his firm's "unrealistic" demands, and a failure to identify proprietary technology.
The parties--Kullman, XSite, and the individual defendants-- settled in Superior Court in Hunterdon County, NJ, on August 16, three months after the suit was filed. The settlement requires confidentiality.
By then, both sides likely had reasons to reach a settlement. A temporary restraining order, which gave credence to the plaintiff's claims of potential harm, had since July 12 fully stalled the alliance between Forest City and XSite.
Kullman, however, faced a financial squeeze. Though settlement terms were not disclosed, the balance of forces, as I suggest below, favored XSite and Forest City.
High-stakes development and a threat
Documents in the case, examined after multiple visits to the case files in New Jersey, suggest how Forest City's pursuit of cost savings can get tense.
In a memo, Brooklyn architect James Garrison, who had been working with the New Jersey-based Kullman as a consultant, warned the firm to negotiate carefully, given that Forest City was "among the most ruthless and difficult developers in the city."
Garrison shortly afterward withdrew from the project, saying the proposed compensation, in a package deal Kullman had presented to Forest City, was inadequate.
He conveyed his departure to FCR executive MaryAnne Gilmartin, the company's Atlantic Yards point person. Gilmartin, after communication with Telyas, had believed Garrison was on board, accepting a fee far lower than Forest City had, in a pre-recession (and non-modular) iteration of its plan, projected it might pay.
Gilmartin, angry at the breakdown in negotiations, issued a threat, which Garrison described in an email to Telyas. "I had an unpleasant conversation with MaryAnne," he wrote. "I was told they know the same people I know and they'll make sure to fuck me whenever possible."
Settlement opens path to promised housing
Since the settlement, Forest City has been free to work with XSite, a firm and partnership not previously known to the public. XSite staffers agreed to work from Forest City's MetroTech offices.
Beyond the under-construction arena, the developer promised 16 Atlantic Yards towers, most with subsidized housing, key to gaining political support. The towers have been delayed, so modular construction could be the key to progress.
Alternatively, the modular plan may be a tactic that pushes construction unions into concessions, just as Forest City temporarily halted construction on the Beekman Tower in Lower Manhattan to renegotiate union contracts.
Also, however serious its modular plans, Forest City may not take the risk of building its long-delayed first tower via such a emerging technology.
The developer in August filed a permit for that first tower (33 stories, 375,000 sf), at the northeast corner of Dean Street and Flatbush Avenue bordering the arena, but the document hints at conventional construction.
A paradigm shift?
Should Forest City figure out how to successfully build modular towers at record-setting heights, the developer could save tens of millions of dollars per building compared to conventional construction--though only after amortizing significant start-up factory costs.
FCR, according to documents in the suit, would become more than a developer, establishing a new factory "within a reasonable distance from the Atlantic Yards Project" to build modules not only for its own projects, but also for other developers. According to a New York Times report in March 2011, FCR was scouting manufacturing sites in Long Island City.
Success would mark a major advance for Forest City, which now builds conventionally, with well-compensated union labor and subject to weather and other site constraints that can impose delays and inhibit quality control. The impact on the community from prefab construction, a Forest City executive has suggested, would be diminished because of shorter construction timetables.
Apartment modules would be assembled in a factory where workers, though in a union, earn far less than union labor at outdoor construction sites. Modular construction, by addressing the vexing challenge of bringing more affordable high-rise buildings to New York City, might revolutionize the construction industry, the Observer suggested 3/17/11.
Developers are scrambling to save money, planning to negotiate directly with unions and even start their own construction companies, Crain's New York Business reported 9/18/11.
Kullman video.)
Potential negative consequences
While the cost savings from prefab could deliver profits to the developer, the lowered expenditures likely would upend projections of new Atlantic Yards tax revenue to the city and state, part of the justification for public subsidies.
A switch also might infuriate unions that vocally supported Atlantic Yards. That's why an FCR official said last month that talks were scheduled with a key union leader.
There's much to discuss. In March, the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater NY told Patch, "We have obvious concerns about the safety and quality of modular construction for larger buildings as well as its impact on estimates for job creation, wages and benefits that have been central to the economic justification for projects advancing,"
Settlement savings speculation
Given that the judge in the lawsuit issued a full temporary restraining order in July, XSite, likely after consultation with Forest City, had incentive to reach settlement in August.
However, Kullman, which by that time had lost business, laid off nearly a quarter of its staff, and was expecting more layoffs, likely had even more incentive, given the battle against a team with deeper pockets.
The settlement terms--presumably money to Kullman, the plaintiff--were not made public. (I queried Kullman's lawyers and Telyas was told that the settlement requires confidentiality.)
However, should Forest City's venture be even partly successful, the litigation may have been worth it. Compared to the contract Kullman sought--but to which Forest City never agreed--the deal XSite signed represented a significant discount, saving the developer $3 million for each of the first three planned towers, and more after that.
Crucially, with that contract Forest City keeps full ownership of emerging intellectual property: the design of the system to produce modular units for buildings of such heights. Kullman had wanted to share ownership of such methodology.
Though Kullman's lawyers asserted the potential damages were significant, the still speculative nature of very tall modular buildings would complicate that claim. Moreover, if Kullman was no longer in the running for the contract, that would diminish the alleged harm caused by its former employees.
XSite, unlike Kullman, may have been better positioned to sign a lower-value contract; as a small firm, it has a low overhead and single-client focus.
For Kullman, whatever the size of the settlement, it wasn't enough to make up for the lost contract and the firm's general financial troubles. (CEO Telyas, in a 1/28/11 email in the case file, had described the Forest City project as "the bulk of my time.") The firm's web site went dark in late September and its business phone doesn't work.
Kullman expected a deal from Forest City that went beyond the consulting work to which XSite agreed; a document from the plaintiffs indicated that Kullman had planned to produce the steel frames for the modules at its factory in New Jersey.
Big potential savings, but only if challenges met
It's unclear when and whether Forest City's modular plans will come to fruition. Forest City's Gilmartin told the Observer that the developer will decide by the end of the year whether the first tower will be modular.
The modular payoff, though a gamble, could be dramatic. Rather than take 18 months or more to build a tower, Forest City aimed--in its initial Kullman study--to erect a 35-story building in under six months. (The new permit indicates a 33-story building.)
At a goal of $161 per square foot (sf), excluding such things as foundation work and elevators, modular construction would cost well below conventional construction costs--at least after the set-up costs for a factory were amortized. (Forest City officials have said modular would cut hard costs 20-25%.)
According to documents unearthed by Brooklyn Assemblyman Jim Brennan in 2007, Forest City at that point anticipated hard costs ranging from $259 to $369 per gross sf, even as other developers cited hard costs of $350 to $400 per sf, at least for high-end condos with union labor. For Atlantic Yards, Forest City would build both condos and mixed-income rentals, with the latter expected to cost less than condos.
Still, the path isn't simple. Brooklyn architect Garrison, who initially worked with Kullman as a consultant, warned in a memo in the case file that, "to be cost effective, [modular buildings] require development totally outside of normal building practice."
Garrison, who was not a party to the case, told me that he thinks modular faces significant challenges: "The American modular industry typically builds up to four stories. It has not yet built a 30-plus-story modular tower or anything nearly that tall. The challenges are those of engineering, assembly, and production. "
So, whatever team Forest City has assembled, it may still be early in the process. "Industrialized buildings hold great promise, but it's not going to happen overnight," observed Garrison. "Forest City is going to have to invest and get involved over a reasonably long time to get the outcome they want."
The Atlantic Yards twist
The story revealed in the legal filings confirms comments made by real estate analyst Richard Moore, in a 7/1/07 New York Times article about Atlantic Yards. While Forest City was known for careful planning, he observed, even the most skilled developers lack a crystal ball for long-term projects.
"I could see this project taking many forms over the years," Moore told the newspaper.
Below, a more detailed reconstruction of the case.
Beginning in 2009
The modular option emerged on Forest City's radar screen in 2009, the year when, in the wake of global economic turmoil, the developer made cost savings a priority. FCR successfully revised separate agreements with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), saving well over $100 million.
Along with the arena, Forest City pledged to start the first residential tower (known as Building 2 or Tower Two) and deliver some of the promised affordable housing. But the building's been delayed more than a year, as Forest City sought new subsidies and other savings.
One potential solution was prefab, so the developer approached Kullman. "In late 2009, I was informed by Avi Telyas that a client was interested in looking at solutions for a modular building of 30-50 stories in Brooklyn," stated Michael Pitt, an architect from the United Kingdom who worked with Kullman as a consultant, in legal papers.
Kullman had never built a structure above four stories. Pitt had designed a nine-story building in the UK, then the tallest modular building of its time. He then produced a 12-story building. Other designs were not built, but one described a 40-story building in London, "where an effective solution for buildings of this height was produced," according to Pitt's certification in the lawsuit.
Kullman background
Kullman, the world's oldest modular company, had a long but interrupted history in the prefab business.
Kullman Industries, established in 1927, was long known for building diners, but expanded to branch banks, equipment shelters, and even U.S. embassies. However, an embassy planned for Dushanbe, Tajikistan was ultimately canceled, provoking Kullman's bankruptcy in 2005.
Telyas, who acquired and grew the robotics firm Bayside Motion Group in 1986, sold that company, then called Bayside Controls, to the much larger Parker Hannifin Corporation, in 2005.
In 2006, Telyas bought Kullman's assets and renamed it Kullman Buildings, introducing lean manufacturing techniques to speed production. A Harvard Business School graduate and trustee of the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, Telyas built a booming business in the first few years.
Perhaps its most prominent project (as in this YouTube video, screenshot at left), was the summer 2007 construction of five three-story dormitory buildings, installed in just ten working days at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA.
Design report
The FCR discussions that began in late 2009 led to a contract about five months later. On 5/20/10, the Atlantic Yards Development Company, an arm of Forest City, agreed to pay Kullman $173,000 to "provide schematic design services for a 35-story mixed-use residential tower utilizing Consultant's Modular Insitu-Formed Concrete System (IFCS)."
Kullman hired Arup Design Engineers as structural engineer; Michael Pitt as architectural consultant; and Mohamed Al-Hussein as the crane specialist. That study, according to Pitt, analyzed five different concepts he provided, plus a variation of one concept with Arup-suggested modifications.
Kullman's report, which analyzed the various options and made preliminary production and cost proposals, was completed by October 2010. It recommended proceeding with the option that included the Arup modification.
All documents produced were "works for hire," Forest City's property, though Kullman could retain ownership of pre-existing standards (documents, drawings, processes, specifications), "except to the extent modified or improved" in connection with the services contracted.
Ambitious next step
The next step for Forest City and Kullman would be the pre-construction plan. Under a new contract, which Kullman first proposed on 12/30/10, the firm would help Forest City create "a business entity to develop, own and implement a system of designing, manufacturing and constructing" tall modular buildings.
Two phases were contemplated. The first phase, R&D (research and development), would take six months. Kullman would work with Forest City and designated architectural, engineering, and technical team members to produce design details for the project; address and resolve factory start-up issues; determine staffing and overhead requirements; and develop a protocol to ensure that the project met building code requirements.
The contract also contemplated developing a strategy for local union negotiations, a sign that Forest City recognized a significant hurdle.
The second phase, the operations phase, could last many years. Forest City would operate a business to design and manufacture modular units, with consultation by Kullman.
Durign the R&D phase, Forest City would pay Kullman's costs. During the operations phase, the developer would pay a royalty fee, at least initially.
Developing the line
Kullman, according to its CEO, offered the ability to build a better factory. "Ultimately, I believe this will be one of our key competitive advantages in that we can design lines that will assemble modules in less hours than anyone else," Telyas wrote to Roger Krulak, a Forest City executive, on 1/3/11. "This is how Toyota kicks butt."
Part of that team, to report through Kullman, was architect Garrison, a veteran in modular projects and a 2010 winner of an AIA New York Chapter Design Award,
Garrison recognized the challenges ahead. In a detailed message to Telyas on 1/8/11, Garrison proposed design and construction changes in the proposed tower. "This alone illustrates our value to this project," he wrote. "None of the alternative firms discussed can provide this level of service. Our knowledge... will make the building and factory production process much more efficient."
Garrison stressed the "care with which this building is detailed and put together." He warned of a modular building built for the City University of New York by another team that could not be occupied because it was so "poorly executed."
Cost pressures and IP
However, Garrison resisted Forest City's cost constraints. The developer's proposed $500,000 fee to his firm, as part of the Kullman consultant package, was "simply not enough for any firm to adequately complete the CD [construction documents] package for a 380K sf apartment bldg," he wrote.
If an adequate fee were not available, he told Telyas, "then we have to consider an alternative delivery model."
In that memo, Garrison added what seems, in hindsight, a prescient warning about intellectual property. "With regard to protecting future leverage with FCR it is imperative that we copyright and retain the ownership of documents," he advised Telyas. "If they can use the documents you and I become unnecessary. If they want ownership of the documents there must be a whole different fee structure."
"I understand the position Forest City has put us in but I fear that you are blinded by the desire for this deal," he cautioned Telyas. "FCR is among the most ruthless and difficult developers in this city. If it is not in their interest they will not honor their commitments and therefore any promises for the future are useless.
Developer "ruthless and difficult"?
Was Garrison exaggerating about Forest City? Consider the developer's success in revising the MTA and ESDC deals, or in failing to hire the promised Independent Compliance Monitor for the Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement.
Also, the developer's Ridge Hill project benefited from alleged corruption in Yonkers, and while Forest City gave a no-show job to a lobbyist who was later indicted, the company was not charged.
Forest City executive Bruce Bender in December 2010 was taped having a profane exchange with state Senator Carl Kruger, now charged with corruption. Bender wanted Kruger to deliver new subsidies for Atlantic Yards work the developer was expected to do.
Also, a Forest City partner in the effort to attract immigrant investors seeking green cards in exchange for Atlantic Yards investments was caught in several misrepresentations last year. However, neither that partner nor FCR have faced consequences from the federal agency in charge of the EB-5 immigration program.
Seeming progress, but architect withdraws
Telyas and Gilmartin continued to negotiate. In a 1/10/11 email, Telyas proposed a package that he said included significant discounts on some fees previously discussed.
Gilmartin seemed pleased. "This has been a huge lift all-around," she responded later that day. "We appreciate this and look forward to working collaboratively with you to build a viable and long-term urban modular business."
(Gilmartin, at left in photo by Adrian Kinloch, with ESDC staffers Steve Matlin and Rachel Shatz, at 7/22/09 informational meeting on Atlantic Yards.)
However, Garrison had not agreed to the $500,000 fee that Telyas and Gilmartin discussed. Telyas was pressuring him, so he decided to contact Gilmartin separately. Garrison told her he couldn't make it work at the fee Forest City wanted.
"She basically became irate, and said my proposal was unreasonable," Garrison recalled in an interview. And then she issued the threat that Garrison reported in that 1/10/11 email to Telyas.
Did he take the threat seriously? "I don't, because they don't really know the same people as I do," Garrison observed. "But I do think it was delivered seriously."
Gilmartin's anger, acknowledged Garrison in response to my query, might have been provoked--as court documents indicate--by believing she'd been misled about his willingness to sign on. "But she knows what the market is," he said.
Gilmartin, admittedly "intense," is the city's 35th most powerful woman, according to Crain's New York Business. As a boss, she told The Real Deal, "I imagine at times I'm overbearing and exhausting. Hopefully at times, uplifting, funny and inspirational."
Was architect's proposal reasonable?
Garrison, a veteran in the modular field, said that Forest City offered $500,000, while the best he could do was $1 million, already a significant discount on typical fees.
The defense in the lawsuit saw the sequence differently, paraphrasing a statement by Gilmartin:
The next significant hurdle in the negotiation was the very high fee to Garrison Architects, brought to the project by Mr. Telyas. There were also issues as to whether Mr. Telyas was going to get a fee from Garrison. In mid-January, FCRC believed it had reached a deal with Mr. Telyas, but Garrison suddenly backed out, throwing the entire situation into flux.Did Garrison's seek a "very high fee"?
According the Atlantic Yards financial projections acquired by Assemblyman Brennan, Forest City in 2007 expected to spend more than twice as much--nearly $2.5 million--on its architectural base fees for Tower 2 (335,000 sf), and much more on related architectural costs. (Click on graphic to enlarge.)
However, those are not necessarily precisely comparable, given the different methodologies at issue.
Two days after his conversation with Gilmartin, on 1/12/11, Garrison formally withdrew from the project. In a cordial memo to three Forest City executives (but not Gilmartin), he wrote:
Having designed several modular buildings I can say that they are intricate and if they are to be cost effective require development totally outside of normal building practice. They are more like product or automobile design where assembly and detail may be considered together.He closed by noting that he'd made his firm's work available to Telyas. "It will speed you on your way," he wrote to the FCR executives. "Best of luck."
For that reason they take more development time than a normal building....
Unfortunately we simply could not give the project the time we believed it requires to be successful within the fee limits prescribed... Mary Anne [Gilmartin] has explained that we may be able to make up any losses in the future but I hope you can understand that this simply is not possible given the size of our office.
Deputy fired, toxic history
Meanwhile, there was turmoil at Kullman, leading to the formation of XSite. On 1/13/11, Telyas fired his deputy, Amy Marks (aka Kulka-Marks), for what is described in one case document as insubordination that had "accelerated."
Marks, in a legal certification, stated that it was "without warning or cause" though she expected he'd take revenge on her for challenging his behavior.
The legal file presents an unresolved stew of charges and counter-charges. There was apparently a close, complex, and ultimately toxic relationship between Telyas and Marks, who previously headed sales and business development at her family's construction business. She teamed with Telyas "when she saw a rare business opportunity," according to a 2008 article in Real Estate New Jersey and helped generate a 166% revenue increase at Kullman in two years.
In legal papers, Marks stated that Telyas relied heavily on her and used her as a personal confidant--but also was verbally abusive and discriminated against her as a woman. She filed a counter-claim charging gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Other defendants backed Marks and blamed Telyas for the company's financial precariousness.
By contrast, an associate of Telyas, in an email message included in the file, lodged harsh criticisms of Marks's impact on the company and on Telyas personally.
The defendants' counter-claims were never evaluated. Kullman, in legal papers, did not address the counter-claims but called them a sideshow, arguing that the defendants' written certifications should be disregarded because they ignored a court order to appear for depositions, thus avoiding cross-examination about those issues.
Indeed, the judge severed the counter-claims from the core lawsuit, moving them to a separate court, a seeming rejection of the defense argument that "unclean hands" should preclude Kullman's effort to obtain equitable relief.
In another twist not fully explained in the documents I saw, Marks wasn't fully fired. A few days after Telyas dismissed her, he offered to keep her on the payroll until she obtained a new job or decided to return to work.
Marks agreed, according to Kullman's papers. (That episode was unmentioned in defense papers I saw.) Marks asked to be removed from Kullman's payroll on or around 2/9/11--well after she'd formed XSite and contacted Forest City. She was paid through 2/18/11, after the XSite contract was signed, according to Kullman's papers.
Surreptitious planning?
Shortly after Marks was fired, according to Kullman's papers, she and co-defendant Michael Hathaway, Kullman's Director of Pre-Construction and Estimating, began what the plaintiffs alleged as a civil conspiracy.
Hathaway left work early the day Marks was fired, claiming a doctor's appointment, and on another, claimed a doctor's appointment for his wife.
The defense, noting that planning to join a competitor is not a breach of the duty of loyalty, stated:
Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that any of the individual defendants did more than make plans to join a new employer, XSite, while they were employed at Kullman.Hathaway and Marks did admit they attended an online meeting using Kullman's GoToMeeting account. During that 1/18/11 meeting, Marks stated, they "discussed my business plans, which were then in a very early stage of development." They did not discuss "any of Kullman's business information."
"Kullman cannot possibly maintain that such discussion caused it any damage," the defense stated, acknowledging that the firm could claim "a technical violation" of company policy regarding use of equipment. The implication was that they were discussing only preliminary issues, not how that new company might work with Forest City on the project currently being negotiated by Kullman and the developer.
The meeting, according to the plaintiff's lawyers, lasted more than three hours. Given that Forest City is now XSite's only client, and the new company, according to Marks, has neither pushed to market itself nor create a website, it's questionable that the potential to work with Forest City never came up.
But that issue never went to trial.
On the next day, 1/19/11, a third party spotted Marks and Hathaway meeting offsite and reported that to Kullman.
Getting closer to a deal
Kullman's Telyas, however, still expected a deal. On 1/24/11, he sent Gilmartin a reminder regarding the unresolved agreement. "Also, it has been many months since we were paid for the work that we have completed to date," he wrote. "I need your assistance in processing a long overdue payment."
The next day, 1/25/11, apparently in response to communication from Gilmartin, Telyas sent suggested revisions to their draft agreement.
Gilmartin responded later that day with "proposed language to address your concerns." Her tone was encouraging, as she wrote, "let's plan to discuss tomorrow after the kickoff."
Despite that sign of friendliness, in a certification in the lawsuit, Gilmartin stated, "Through the course of our discussions, we developed numerous concerns about proceeding with Kullman, and particularly about our interactions with Avi Telyas."
Not quite coming to terms
Gilmartin's proposed language went only part of the way to addressing Telyas's goals and suggested that FCR and Kullman were never on the same page.
Though Forest City had initially proposed to pay Kullman royalty fees for eight years, on an annual basis, Gilmartin agreed to more generous terms: the firm would be paid fees for ten years, on a quarterly basis.
On the issue of intellectual property (IP), however, the parties remained at odds. Telyas, apparently mindful of Garrison's warning, objected that the modular methodology be owned by Forest City.
The developer did not relent, but agreed that for ten years it would not license the proprietary IP to any other modular builder. If Kullman identified a potential modular project, Forest City would have the right of first refusal to do that work, or charge Kullman a license fee to use the proprietary IP.
Nor did the developer agree to Telyas's request that, if the project under negotiation fell through, any newly developed IP would revert to Kullman.
Fees unresolved
The parties met at a 1/26/11 kickoff meeting in Forest City's offices in Brooklyn, but the issue of fees remained unresolved. Also, Telyas alarmed his hosts by indicating that he wanted to substitute his name for that of Kullman on the agreement.
Only individuals, not companies, can apply for patents, so Telyas may have been anticipating future processes would be eligible for a patent. It also may have been a belated recognition that Kullman's business--at least according to his adversaries in the lawsuit--was run with less attention to protecting IP than rival companies.
That change began to scotch the deal, according to Forest City. Gilmartin stated that, once Telyas at that 1/26/11 meeting indicated that he wanted to substitute himself as the party to the agreement, that gave the firm "further pause" about working with him.
In a message the next day, 1/27/11, Telyas cited a $161/sf target cost model, meeting Forest City's goal to cut construction costs roughly in half. He sought a royalty fee of $3500 per module. (A module is not an apartment--a building with 400 units could have 1000 modules.)
Telyas also requested that royalty fees be paid for 12 years, not ten, and wanted those fees to be applied not only to units produced by Forest City but also to units produced by others for the developer using the new system. He requested a minimum quarterly payment of $750,000.
Regarding IP, Telyas proposed that Forest City and "Inventor" (himself) would jointly own and retain patents and IP. However, if Forest City chose not to proceed beyond the R&D phase, he would get back the rights to the developed IP.
That proposal didn't fly. Such terms, Gilmartin stated, "were completely unacceptable," and FCR that day decided not to work with him.
Beyond that, XSite's lawyers argued in response papers, Kullman had no standing to claim that the defendants interfered with a hoped-for continuing relationship between Kullman and Forest City, because Telyas had already modified the contract to make himself the counter-party.
From contact toward contract
When was the competing bid hatched? The timeline is fuzzy; the plaintiff charged there was significant overlap between Kullman's pending bid and XSite's formation, while the defense emphasized a gap in time.
Marks, in her legal papers, stated, "Approximately two or more weeks after my [1/13/11] departure from Kullman, I searched the Internet for the contact information for some representatives of FCRC." (Marks "had involvement" with the 2010 for FCR study, according to the plaintiff's papers, so she was known to the developer. Gilmartin stated she had met Marks only once.)
Two weeks exactly would mean the contact occurred on Thursday, 1/27/11, the day Forest City said it had decided to drop Kullman. However, documents in the case suggest that Marks made contact six days later, on Wednesday, 2/2/11.
Marks spoke to Gilmartin, who asked her to send her resume. A day later, Gilmartin called again, requesting her resume. Gilmartin invited Marks to meet with her and other Forest City staffers the next day, 2/4/11, on the 37th floor at 8 Spruce Street, Forest City's new, Frank Gehry-designed Lower Manhattan apartment tower.
At the meeting, according to Marks, she was told Forest City was done with Kullman. Marks said she planned to start her own company. Forest City asked her to consult on the Tower Two prefab project.
Marks already had been contacted by Kullman employees requesting that she keep them in mind if she left, she stated. So she knew she could put a team together, especially since no Kullman employees were subject to a non-compete agreement. Marks said she used no confidential information in the negotiation.
In an email later that day, Gilmartin thanked Marks "for making time today" and said she'd attached a document detailing the scope of work once planned by Kullman, a document previously sent by Telyas to Forest City. Because there was no attachment, Gilmartin actually sent the document the next day, Saturday, 2/5/11.
On Monday, 2/7/11, Marks and Hathaway went to Brooklyn for a meeting at Forest City's offices. "My participation in the meeting was in the nature of an interview," stated Hathaway, "as Forest City was essentially considering hiring a team, on a consulting basis, to assist it with its project." He took a personal day off.
Had Forest City decided by 1/27?
The defense papers, as well as a certification from Gilmartin, indicate that Forest City had decided to drop Kullman by 1/27/11.
However, the plaintiff's papers cite evidence that leaves a question mark. In a 2/7/11 message, Marks told Gilmartin she was bringing Hathaway with her to a meeting that day at MetroTech:
He is a member of my team and is familiar with the project as well. He is taking a day off from Kullman, so this would of course be confidential that we are meeting. I'm assuming Roger Krulak will not be meeting with us, since [Hathaway's] presence would get back to Avi [Telyas].If Krulak, another Forest City executive, was still in contact or discussions with Telyas, that suggests that FCR either hadn't yet decided to drop Kullman or, if it had, Krulak and/or Telyas had not been informed.
New company emerges
Marks, in a document dated 2/7/11 but mailed to Gilmartin 2/8/11, sent a consulting proposal on behalf of a firm at that point named "Prefab Tech." The team was moving so fast the company didn't have a name.
That day, according to plaintiff's papers, Hathaway again left work early, claiming a dental appointment. The next day he took another sick/personal day.
On that day, 2/9/11, Marks established the firm XSite and claimed the web address XSiteModular.com, though no web site has been set up.
The XSite Modular Team is the most experienced team in the United States in modular building design, construction and installation. Our team has designed and installed modular buildings on five of the seven continents... If you think you are in a modular building, it's not an XSite Modular building.There are, of course, no XSite Modular buildings yet, just buildings produced by the team members at other jobs. According to the plaintiff's papers, "The photographic images utilized by XSite in its 'representative work' include photographic images of modular buildings designed and built by Kullman."
The promotional page offered two company addresses: one is Marks's home address in New Jersey, the other, without a phone number, at One MetroTech Center in Brooklyn, home to Forest City.
Getting to the contract
On the same day Marks claimed the XSite web address, 2/9/11, she queried Gilmartin about when FCR would have a contract for her and Hathaway to review.
On 2/11/11, Gilmartin sent Marks two versions of the consulting agreement; in the second version, according to the plaintiff's papers; Kullman was still identified as the consultant, so "[p]resumably, the XSite contract was nothing more than a modification of Kullman's proposal." The participation of Hathaway, still at Kullman, was a condition of the proposed agreement.
The contract was modified after further negotiations. In a 2/14/11 email with the subject line, "It's contract day!" Marks sent a revised agreement, noting that Telyas's name and Kullman had finally been excised from the document.
She noted that she had to bump salaries/benefits up to get two staffers to commit, given that they had not had raises in five years and seen a 10% salary cut at Kullman. Also, given that one staffer had to travel from Pennsylvania, Marks wrote, "quite frankly the Brooklyn commute takes some selling."
"My goal is that everyone can resign as of Tuesday and we can start on March 1 as discussed," Marks wrote.
A different deal
In the final agreement, signed 2/15/11, XSite agreed to a target cost of $161/sf. The agreement would last 24 weeks, expiring on 8/12/11, but could be extended.
Forest City would pay a royalty fee of $500 for each modular unit, but only for the first three building and only for units constructed within five years. Forest City had tentatively agreed to a ten-year deal with Kullman, without specifying the fee, though Telyas sought $3500 per unit.
Forest City would keep all work product emerging from the alliance with XSite.
As part of the contract, XSite agreed that staff assigned to the R&D Phase would be present "during normal business hours in FCRC's offices [in Brooklyn] not less than three (3) full business days per week, not including Fridays."
Three Kullman staffers resigned on February 17; one, according to the plaintiff's papers, collected contact information from KBC factory workers, potentially helping to establish a new factory.
Controversy emerges
Only in mid-March--a month after the XSite contract was signed--did word of Forest City Ratner's modular plans reach the New York Times, which put the news on the front page 3/17/11, then ran a follow-up the next day.
The controversy did not mention Kullman's battle with XSite, which had not surfaced publicly.
Rather, it concerned Forest City's ambitious plan to build modular, given that the technology was untested at such heights, as well as the dismay expressed by construction unions at the loss of potential jobs.
The case goes to court
Kullman filed suit on 5/13/11 in state court in New Jersey, home to both companies. (As noted, XSite also has an office in Brooklyn.)
Gilmartin on 5/20/11 filed a certification arguing against a temporary restraining order (TRO), stating that FCR had terminated its negotiations with Kullman before talking with Marks.
However, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Allison Accurso that day issued a partial TRO, preventing the defendants from using confidential pricing information to compete with Kullman and to return any documents belonging to Kullman.
However, she did not stop XSite from working with Forest City.
The judge added, "I have some concern about documents that the individuals have retained admittedly without being requested that they return them."
"The other thing I have concern about is in terms of the timing," Accurso stated, "the circumstance of Ms. Kulka-Marks's being terminated from the company... which I believe was on January 13th, and Forest City Ratner deciding not to use Kullman and then enter into a contract with XSite are very, very close in time."
IP issues
According to an affidavit from Telyas, Marks and her team were put in a position to design the tower for Forest City based on Kullman's pre-existing studies and technology, and in violation of Kullman's contractual and other intellectual property rights.
published a manual of its techniques.
Moreover, the defense said, Kullman had not objected to other former employees starting businesses in the same field.
According to Marks, Telyas often said he saw no reason to apply for patents, because "he felt the value wasn't in the technology, it was in the 'secret sauce' of his management techniques."
As for Kullman's previous study for Forest City, according to the defense, the developer already fully owned the information, given that KBC's pre-existing techniques had been "modified or improved."
Hathaway, who was said to have taken Kullman information, acknowledged that he made an entire copy of his office computer's desktop, including both personal and professional work.
That may seem glaring; his defense was that he was not aware that it was prohibited, as such actions were so common for departing Kullman employees that the IT department helped.
The defense stated:
Clearly, Kullman is having trouble identifying any confidential information because the construction process in the modular industry is relatively standardized, and the differences between companies lies in the service they provide to their clients, and in their ability to coordinate the client's needs, with the design of the buildings, the domain of the architects and the engineers, and finally, work as a team to bring the project to fruition. This is the ability to develop personal relationships with clients and with the professionals, the ability to manage a project, and the ability to pull a project together in a timely fashion. These are not protectable interests; these abilities travel with the individuals who possess them, and clients are entitled to work with the companies that employ people whose abilities to accomplish these goals they respect. Clearly, here, FCRC, the one former client of Kullman, who decided, prior to meeting Ms. Marks, that it was not going to proceed to phase II of its project with Kullman, saw just those qualities in Ms. Marks, and because of these qualities, permitted her to build a team to assist them in breaking new ground in modular construction.(Emphasis added)
"Just those qualities" may also have included a greater willingness to meet Forest City's preferred contractual terms.
The response: IP emerging
To Kullman, the defense posture on intellectual property missed the point, In a brief, Kullman charged that key legal cases were "not even cited or addressed by defendants in their voluminous opposition papers." The plaintiff's brief argued:
FCRC was effectively able to circumvent Kullman's refusal to turn over the ownership rights in this system by the fact that Kullman's key employees collaborated a plan to work directly with FCRC under the formation of a new rival company.Kullman's lawyers argued that, however public Kullman had been with its information, it was disingenuous for the defense to argue that the methodologies and processes to be developed in the future would not be proprietary.
After all, the plaintiff said, the XSite agreement referred to a future proprietary system that would be owned by Forest City, and required to be kept confidential.
That dispute over IP was never resolved in court.
Pressure intensifies
As the suit proceeded during May and June 2011, Kullman laid off 45 employees--of about 200--due to the loss of work.
On 7/12/11, after further exchanges of legal papers, Judge Accurso intensified the TRO. She barred XSite from doing business with Forest City, thus fully stalling their modular partnership (see below).
Two days later, Kullman's attorney tried to up the ante, sending the court a letter indicating that "non-parties may be liable to plaintiff," citing Forest City, company CEO Bruce Ratner, and Gilmartin. However, they were never added to the suit.
Expedited discovery, in which each party requests information and documents from the other side, was supposed to occur later in July.
Instead, the parties moved toward settlement.
The day the lawsuit was settled, 8/16/11, Forest City filed for a building permit for Tower Two. As noted, the document does not point to modular construction.
Still, if there's a connection, the developer may have felt more confident about proceeding once the lawsuit was resolved.
Modular's long future
Long before Forest City got involved, Telyas and others in the field thought that modular had huge potential.
In 2007, at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, Kullman began a three-year sponsorship of the Kullman Center, an Innovation Lab dedicated to innovative ideas in industrialized construction. The center sponsored a spring 2008 symposium at Pratt.
"Industrialization of the building process has remained the great unfulfilled promise of our time," wrote architect Garrison in his introduction to Kullman's modular manual. "We now face a crisis of affordability in the construction industry. As a culture we have largely failed to deliver high-performance and durable buildings at an affordable cost."
Telyas, in a 2/27/09 article in the magazine On Earth, asserted, "Our goal is no less than trying to reinvent the construction industry." The narrator in the Muhlenberg video said Kullman was on a mission "to fundamentally change construction as we know it today."
His rival Marks, in a 2/15/11 email message to Gilmartin, thought similarly. "I am excited to be working with you and look forward to a long relationships with you as well as... everyone at FCRC," she wrote, after the XSite contract was signed. "We have an opportunity to really change the way FCRC builds high-rise buildings."


text:
We are required to hold for public inspection certain registers in relation to the licences and registrations issued by the council. Details of these registers are contained in this section.
A public register of all issued licences and application in process for premises licences, club premises certificates, temporary event notices, change to premises licence or club premises certificates and personal licences.
A public register of all licensed riding schools, animal boarding establishments and pet shops.
A public register of all licensed hackney carriage/private hire wheelchair accessible vehicles.
A public register of all issued licences and application in process for bingo premises, betting premises, arcades, lottery registrations, temporary use notices, occasional use notices, club machine permits and gaming machines.
This section details the registers available in relation to commercial trading activities.
This section contains useful information in the areas of public register of caravan sites, houses of multiple occupancy, contaminated land, environmental permits and radioactive substances.


text:
The Supreme Court has sided with Arkansas police officers who were sued over a high-speed, two state chase that ended in the deaths of the fleeing driver and passenger in 2004. (May 27) AP
WASHINGTON — Aided by video from police cruisers, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that police did not use excessive force when they shot and killed a driver and his passenger during a high-speed chase from Arkansas to Tennessee in 2004.
The ruling continued a long line of decisions in which the conservative-leaning court has sided with law enforcement officials on issues such as searches and arrests. Already this year, the justices have ruled that defendants can lose their gun rights after committing an act of domestic violence, drivers can be stopped based on anonymous tips, and homes can be searched over the objections of a tenant.
In the case of Donald Rickard, who led West Memphis, Ark., police on a 100-mph chase across state lines into Memphis, Tenn., a decade ago, all nine justices decided that police did not violate his constitutional rights by firing into his getaway car, killing him and his passenger, Kelly Allen.
Their decision was made easier after viewing grainy videos produced by cameras mounted on the dashboards of police cruisers. In the videos, Rickard's Honda leads police on a chase, putting other motorists at risk, and then seeks to flee even after cornered at gunpoint.
The lawsuit charging that six officers used excessive force was brought by Rickard's daughter. Two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, did not endorse all of the reasoning, such as whether all 15 shots fired at the car were justified or whether police did not violate Rickard's rights under the 4th Amendment.
But the overall opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was unanimous. "The officers here shot at Rickard to put an end to what had already been a lengthy, high-speed pursuit that indisputably posed a danger both to the officers involved and to any civilians who happened to be nearby," Alito said.


text:
Lowest Price Guarantee
The Easton E300 Hockey Wheel Bag 32'' is the typical hockey bag design but with a ABEC-3 wheel system for fast mobile transportation. Therefore, it's capable of performing all locker room chores. The exterior's construction is 600-denier nylon making it very abrasion resistant.
This bag features a great aesthetic look with Easton's silk-screened logo displayed on the front and both sides of the bag. The large main compartment allows easy access when loading or unloading equipment. The standard pull carrying handles and end grab handle make transportation comfortable and manageable.
- Model Number: A163188
- Measurement: 32'' L x 16" H x 16" W
Shipping Note:
Excluded from shipping promotions. Ground is only $9.75 per shipment. Please refer to the Shipping Page for further information. Must ship via FedEx/UPS only - No Postal Service
- Material:
- 600 denier nylon
- Graphics:
- Silk screened EASTON logos
- Main Compartment:
- U-shaped top flap for easy access and closure
- Handles / Straps / Wheels:
- Standard pull carrying handles
- End Grab Handle
- ABEC-3 wheel system


text:
Army staff sergeant comes home after 9 months in Afghanistan
An Army staff sergeant from the Tri-Cities is welcomed back home today after spending nearly a year overseas.
Brianna Carter was in Afghanistan for nine months.
She provided behavioral health assistance for thousands of soldiers.
Carter flew into the Tri-Cities last night.
This afternoon, members of Tri-City ACES (American Citizens Encouraging Support) surprised Carter and her family in Richland.
They walked up to their home with flags and sang songs of support.
Carter says reservists like her usually don't get a homecoming, so this was a very nice surprise.
"It's a little overwhelming, but it's such a great feeling to know that people care about us, people care about what we're doing, and that people haven't forgotten about us. Because there's times when we're over there and we think that people have forgotten about us, because we're halfway across the world. So it's very nice to know that people haven't forgotten about us" said Carter.
Carter's husband, who is also in the military, has been overseas four times.
The couple has three children.
Carter may have to return to Afghanistan, but not for at least six months.