Analysis of as new park case study Essay Example for Free

Analysis of as new park case study Essay Analysis of as new park case study Introduction                   The planning process involves developers, communities, engineers, planners, and government. The involvement of all the stakeholders in planning process ensures that a project is positively implemented in the public interests (Carmona, 2010). The new project would commence as an improvement the old city. The old city was widely used by women and children. Although it was developed 30 years ago, it still remained as the best choice for the people living at its vicinity. It formed the best recreation centre for people during warm winter season. The new park would replace the old trees, grass, and build new shades and buildings that would be used to shade people during hot weather. The case involved closed down of the old city for 2 years and relocation of people living around the city to place where there were no social amenities such as schools and recreation centre. The case represents of unethical issues that pertains to urban planning evident through the developers.                   The ethical issues include closure of the city and denying people their recreational facility. The new park development would deny people a chance to enjoy their recreational facilities, which is professionally unethical to a developer. In addition, the developer would be destroying people’s heritage on old trees and grass. The modern buildings would destroy the old trees and grass heritage in the new park. Moreover, it is not ethical to transfer people from their own comfort zone where they enjoyed social amenities such as schools, parks and other infrastructures such other shopping malls to a place where they no longer enjoy the amenities. The act is believed to on self- interests that do not care about other community. In planning process, it is important for planners and developers to consider professional ethics while executing their city planning so that respect between communities and the affected people is maintained (Allen, 2009).                   In this case, the most probable solution would be first to develop the area where the two communities would be relocated before relocating them. It would be most appropriate if the government could start by developing infrastructures such as roads, schools, hospitals, and recreational centres before displacing people in towns if the new park would not be avoidable. On the other hand, a new park could be developed elsewhere and the old one be renovated to maintain national heritage. Moreover, the old park renovation should not be closed for a long period and should developers should allow people to access the park even under constructions. The renovation of the park would ensure that the national heritage on traditional trees and grass would not be destroyed thus maintain it as way of protecting the countries indigenous species. This would ensure that people are not relocated from their original comfort zone. Consequently, development of area that the two communities were transferred would ensure that the communities’ living standards would not be affected except their geographical shift. The move would maintain the respect between the communities, planners, developers and engineers as their lives will not be affected.                   The solution approach where the planners would ensure that all the social amenities are developed before relocation would ensure that the professional code of ethics on the conscious on the right of a third party would be upheld (American Planning Association, 2009). In addition, the code of ethics on fairly dealing with all the people involved in the process will be highly upheld. However, the value of professional code of ethics on heritage will be violated through electing a new park and indigenous trees will be destroyed. The planners will have made sure that the decision making process involves all the party and thus no one would be negatively affected by the new project. Similarly, the second approach of electing the new park elsewhere would ensure professional code of ethics for planners to ensure social justice and responsibility not to disadvantage people would be upheld. This solution would ensure that people are not relocated and at the same t ime the national heritage is maintained. The value of heritage that is attributed to indigenous trees will be upheld while that of excellence design and updated design will be violated (American Planning Association, 2009).                   Both solutions would minimize the negative impacts of the planning in the city. However, the best solution will be to design and construct the new park elsewhere near the old park. The solutions to planning dispute safeguard the rights of the people and the professional ethics of the planners (Staatskoerant, 2011).The old park can only be renovated so that the heritage of the city will be upheld. Similarly, there would be relocation of people to new areas and thus they will be fairly treated and their lives will not be affected. In addition, the solution will ensure that people are not denied their rights to enjoy themselves during winter. Renovation for the old park could be done during summer when people are not using the park so that they would not be limited access during winter. The move will impact positively to people living there and would retain the respect of communities to developers.                   The solution would limit the planners, developers and engineers from implementing their own design and planning of the city. In addition, the people would not have a chance to enjoy a modern facility. However, there would still be a chance for them to construct a new park elsewhere in the city and increase the number of parks. One that would be rich in heritage and there other one would be modern. Although space and area allocation may be a problem, a new park elsewhere would stand out for this case. Conclusion                   In conclusion, it can be noted that planners, developers and engineers should highly consider professional ethics when carrying out new projects that would impact negatively to the public. All planning processes should involve all stakeholders and fair implementation of the project should be considered to avoid unethical issues that are evidenced in the case of new park development. References Allen, J. (2009).  Event planning: Ethics and etiquette : a principled approach to the business of special event management. Mississauga, Ont: Wiley. American Planning Association,. (2009). AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Planning.org. Retrieved 13 May 2014, from http://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode.htm Carmona, M. (2010). Public places, urban spaces: the dimension of urban design. Oxon: Routledge. Staatskoerant,. (2011). Code of ethics and professional conduct for the urban and regional planning profession. Gov.za. Retrieved 13 May 2014, from http://www.gov.za/documents/download.php?f=147400 Source document

An Interview With a Korean-American on Cultural Differences Essay examp

An Interview With a Korean-American on Cultural Differences In this interview Ben Bagley asks Theresa Han about the difference between Korean and American culture. Theresa is a teenager who recently moved to the United States so she has an excellent perspective for understanding the differences and similarities between these countries. [BAGLEY] This is Ben Bagley, and I'm going to interview Theresa Han about Korea. Could you introduce yourself? [HAN] My name is Theresa Han, I'm from South Korea, I'm 18 years old, and I'm a freshman in College. [BAGLEY] How long have you lived in America? [HAN] I think a little bit less than 3 years. [BAGLEY] Where did you live in Korea? [HAN] I lived in Pyoung Tek, It's right below Oosan, where the American Air force is located. [BAGLEY] What were the people like where you lived? [HAN] They're really busy. Fathers go to their work; Mothers if they have a job go to their work, and students go to school, so they don't have enough time to communicate with each other, like time to spend together, because mostly students come home like 10:00pm-11:00pm. [BAGLEY] What did you do with your friends? [HAN] We mostly go to each other's house, rent a movie or something, watch it, and do homework usually, because we have a whole bunch of homework. On the weekends we would go downtown; it's kind of like a shopping mall. It's a street. There are small restaurants, small cloths shops and all that stuff. It was kind of fun, but nothing special I think. [BAGLEY] What did you do in your free time? [HAN] Mostly watch TV I guess. [BAGLEY] What was Korean TV like? [HAN] Like on Japanese TV they have a whole bunch of dramas, so there are Korean dramas, there is regularly a music program, like 3 music programs on 3 different channels. I mostly watched them, like almost everyday. [BAGLEY] Was American TV available in Korea? [HAN] Yeah, there's channel 2, so I know like 'Wheel of Fortune' or whatever. And 'The Simpsons' was on channel 15, it was the educational channel, but ?The Simpsons?Ewas on it in Korean, so I sometimes watched it. [BAGLEY] And was that dubbed or with subtitles? [HAN] I think it was dubbed in Korean, because I had never heard how Homer really talks. [BAGLEY] What is Korean music like? [HAN] There are a lot of kinds of music. Like rock, like f... ...uitoes. [BAGLEY] Which country has a greater temperature difference throughout the year? [HAN] In Korea the summer is so hot, and the winter is so cold. Really cold, so they are so different. In America the temperatures stay closer together, it?s way better. [BAGLEY] Are there any other big differences between Korea and America? [HAN] I think the school system, because basically you go there, I went to school usually by 7:30am and came home 7:00pm. But some students stay longer, like even 10:00pm if you are a senior and about to go to college because there is kind of, like parents and teacher think their kids or students should go to college. Like have to go to college. They?re gonna pressure them to study a lot, so when you?re a senior you start to study a lot and you don?t sleep that much. Usually I think some people sleep 3 or 4 hours per day and just study. No free time. [BAGLEY] And they stay at school and study? [HAN] ?Till like 10:00pm but after school ends they come home and study like until 2:00am or 3:00am [BAGLEY] Would it be ok if I publish this interview on the internet? [HAN] Sure [BAGLEY] Well, Thank you very much for your time.

Have Gun, Will Travel…to Work

Question 1: Assume that either the Second Amendment or state law gives you a legal right to keep a gun in your car. Do you also have a moral right to do this? Do you have a moral, not only a legal, right to own a gun? Do you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a public parking lot regardless of what the lot’s owner wants? No, I do not have a moral right keep a gun in my car regardless to the Second Amendment or state law gives me the right to keep a gun in my car. Although having a gun in your car is your legal right, the company policy may state it is prohibited.The difference between moral and legal is that your legal right supersedes moral rights. In today society the law over rides the moral aspect of most situations. If you are parked in a public parking lot and it is posted clearly no weapon allowed on the property then you must abide by their rules. Question 2: In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park ca rs with guns in them in the company parking lot? If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers?If employees don’t have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them to stow guns in their cars anyway? Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots? Employees do not have the right to disobey company policies regardless of their moral beliefs. When you are employed by a company, no matter how large or small they are, they have some form of written policies on what they expect of the their employees. Most companies have some type of mission statement about maintaining a safe work place environment.No it would not be a good idea for companies to allow guns to be stored in employees cars if there is a policy of no weapons in place. Companies have very good reason for been concerned with weapon in their parking lots because there are over five hundred work place homicides per year; in addition, 1. 5 m illion employees are assaulted at work, many of them by coworkers or former employees. Question 3: Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take â€Å"a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment† or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self-defense?Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing this issue? Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle? No, I do not agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take â€Å"a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment† or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self defense. The Second Amendment gives the owner of the property the right to refuse weapons on their private property.I feel everyone believes in the Second Amendment but some people feel more strongly about this issue than others and it is a political issue. The state legislature should not get involved when it pertains to the issue of private property such as company property policies. These types of matters should be left up to the company and their policy makers. Question 4: Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose, if it wished, to allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but into the workplace itself.Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment? Some companies allow employees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but into the workplace itself such as police officers, security officers, banks, pawnshops and anywhere the company policy states that guns are allow with the permission of the company. This would not be a violation of the rights of other employees because it is the policy of the company.With such a policy there would have to be some sort of qualification, licensing, and liability. Question 5: What would a libertarian say about this issue? What considerations would a utilitarian have to take into account? What conclusion might he or she draw? A libertarian believes identify justice with an ideal of liberty. Liberty is the prime value, and justice consists in permitting each person to live as he or she pleases, free from interference of others. So, on the matter of gun control in the work place, a libertarian would say, â€Å"If he or she wants to carry a gun then no one should interfere†.Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. In this matter a utilitarian would believe that the greatest happiness of all constitutes the standard that determines whether an action is right or wrong. Question 6: If you were on a company’s board of directors, what policy would you recommend regarding handguns, rifles, or other weapons in employees’ cars? In making your recommendation, what factors would you take into account?Would it make a difference how large the company was, the nature of its workforce, or where it was located? If you support banning firearms from the parking lot, what steps, if any, do you think the company should take to enforce that policy? I would recommend the policy of weapons free workplace which would include handguns, rifles, and other weapons in employees’ cars on company property. I would factor in the type of business, the nature of the workforce and where it’s located and then make a sound discussion.If necessary, I would have armed security officers for the safety of the employees and therefore the no weapons policy would still apply. Question 7: Explain whether (and why) you agree or disagree with the following argument: â€Å"If employees have the right to keep guns in the parking lot, then they also have a right to bring them into workplace. After all, we’re only talking about licensed, responsible owners, and same rationale applies: An employee might need a weapon for self-protection. What if a lunatic starts shooting up the company? † I disagree with part of this statement and agree with the other part.I agree with the statement because this is how people think, if they are allowed to bring their guns in the parking lot why not push the boundary and take it inside the building. Yah, you’re talking about licensed, responsible owners, and same rationale applies: An employee might need a weapon for self-protection. What if a lunatic starts shooting up the company? † What if the people allowed to carry that gun on property becomes the lunatic? When policies are put into place there’s usually a reason or a prevention method. Allowing people to have a weapon that close if they get mad or fired would be irresponsib le on the company’s part.

Compare and Contrast two U.S. Presidents - Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan Free Essay Example, 1750 words

History and Political Science: Compare and Contrast two U. S. Presidents [Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan] The role of President of the United s is one of the most visible and demanding jobs in the world. Each new President brings to the job a different mix of character traits, experience and skills which then help to determine the style of his administration and the type of leadership that the country experiences. This paper compares and contrasts two very different President: Harry Truman (1884-1972) who was President from 1945-1953, and Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) who was President from 1981-1989. A brief summary of the historical context and main achievements of Truman and then Reagan is given, and after this, the two Presidents are compared, bringing out similarities and differences in the areas of domestic policy, foreign policy and legacy for the future. Finally conclusions are drawn which demonstrate that both men were effective Presidents, but Ronald Reagan did the better job. Harry Truman, a Democrat, became President towards the end of the Second World War. He made one of the most fateful decisions in the history of mankind when he gave permission for the use of the atom bomb on Japanese cities, in an effort to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. We will write a custom essay sample on Compare and Contrast two U.S. Presidents - Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Having served himself as a soldier in France in the First World War he had direct experience of the dreadful casualties of trench warfare with mechanized traditional weapons, and he was reluctantly persuaded that the atom bomb would be a means to an end, pushing the enemies to surrender. The tactic was effective, but the cost in human life shocked the world, and the shadow of nuclear weapons has influenced world history ever since. After the war Truman proved to be a diligent supporter of the victims of the war. He helped put together the Marshall plan which sent aid to millions of starving people and contributed to the rebuilding of war-torn Europe. By 1950 tensions with the Soviet Union had begun to reach worrying levels, and this is the background to the ideology which the President developed and which came to be known as â€Å"the Truman Doctrine. † In a speech on the subject of the threat of Communism to Greece and Turkey, he developed the idea that the United States should actively intervene in world politics to contain the spread of Communism beyond its post war boundaries. Truman summed up this notion with the words: â€Å"I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure. † (Truman, 1947, quoted in Bostdorff: 2008, p.