Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Jan 25

21

Fireworks…boom for a few or a bust for many?

Posted by Joyce Clark on January 21, 2025
Posted in City of Glendale • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Fireworks are like rubbing salt in a wound for many residents of the Valley from Scottsdale to Buckeye, Cave Creek to Queen Creek. The major reason for the intense dislike is the misuse of them. Fireworks that shoot into the sky are illegal, yet many revelers persist in using them. They are noisy and a fire hazard. Add to that the extremely long periods when it is legal to shoot them off. It makes for a combination that many Valley residents are fed up with.

Here is the law as it exists:

“36-1606. Consumer fireworks regulation; state preemption; further regulation of fireworks by local jurisdiction

  1. The sale and use of permissible consumer fireworks are of statewide concern. The regulation of permissible consumer fireworks pursuant to this article and their sale or use is not subject to further regulation by a governing body, except as follows:
  2. In a county with a population of more than five hundred thousand persons (This applies to Maricopa County), a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following:

(a) Regulate, consistent with the standards set forth in NFPA 1124, the sale of permissible consumer fireworks within its corporate limits.

(b) Prohibit the sale of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than April 25 through May 6, May 20 through July 6 and December 10 through January 3 of each year and two days before the first day of Diwali through the third day of Diwali each year.

(c) Prohibit the use of permissible consumer fireworks on days other than May 4 through May 6, June 24 through July 6 and December 26 through January 4 of each year and the second and third days of Diwali of each year.

(d) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of preservation lands owned by a city or town that has purchased more than fifteen thousand acres of land for preservation purposes.

(e) Prohibit on all days during a stage one or higher fire restriction the use of permissible consumer fireworks within a one-mile radius of the border of any municipal or county mountain preserve, desert park, regional park, designated conservation area, national forest or wilderness area.

(f) Prohibit on all days the use of permissible consumer fireworks between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., except:

(i) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on December 31 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on January 1 of each year.

(ii) Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. on July 4 of each year through 1:00 a.m. on July 5 of each year.

  1. In a county with a population of less than five hundred thousand persons, a city or town within its corporate limits or the county within the unincorporated areas of the county may do all of the following: ( I have deleted this portion as it does not apply to Maricopa County.)
  1. A governing body that chooses to regulate, consistent with the requirements set forth in NFPA 1124 and subsection A of this section, the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks may not require any additional signage requirements for the sale or use of permissible consumer fireworks other than those signage requirements stipulated in NFPA 1124, except that additional signage that is eight and one-half inches by eleven inches in size, that is on cardstock paper in landscape orientation, that lists the days of that year that are described in subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section relating to the time frame surrounding Diwali and that contains the following language on a contrasting background may be posted by the retail sales display of permissible consumer fireworks:

State of Arizona Consumer Fireworks Regulations Arizona Revised Statutes section 36-1601, et al. The use of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:                                                                                                                                                          May 4 – May 6, June 24 — July 6 and December 26 — January 4 

                                              The sale of permissible consumer fireworks as defined under state law is allowed:   

             April 25 – May 6, May 20 — July 6 and December 10 — January 3 

                                        All other fireworks are prohibited, except as authorized by local fire department permit.

The sale and use of novelties known as snappers (pop-its), party poppers, glow worms, snakes, toy smoke devices and sparklers are permitted at all times. Permissible consumer fireworks may not be sold to persons under sixteen years of age. Check with your local fire department for additional regulations and dates before using.

  1. This article does not prohibit the imposition by ordinance of further regulations and prohibitions by a governing body on the sale, use and possession of fireworks other than permissible consumer fireworks. A governing body may not allow or authorize the sale, use or possession of any fireworks in violation of this article.”

There are three major problems with this law. The first is, in Maricopa County, it is permissible to use fireworks for 22 days a year. That’s nearly a month. Is this necessary? No. I don’t know about you but growing up we celebrated the 4th of July and New Year’s Eve only. We didn’t celebrate for weeks at time. Why does the state legislature allow the sale and use of fireworks for weeks? It appears that some state legislators have interests within the fireworks manufacturing and sales communities. They apparently have had enough influence to ram through extended sales and use periods to increase profit margins in that industry. In other words, all for a buck.

The second issue is the inclusion of more holidays than necessary. Cinco de Mayo? Diwali? When people come to America for a better and more prosperous life they should assimilate. They are becoming American and need to embrace American culture. That, in and of itself, is a whole separate issue. Again, inclusion of other holidays, not part of our American culture, does not encourage immigrants to assimilate.

I am of Polish descent. When my Polish grandparents came to America, they did not presume to establish Polish holidays in this country. They became Americans and fully embraced what it was to be an American. The only two times fireworks should be permissible are New Year’s Eve and the 4th of July from the hours of 7 PM to midnight. That’s it. No exceptions.

The third issue is the types of fireworks being used. When we were kids and celebrated these two holidays, we ran around with sparklers and the adults used ground-based firecrackers. No one used aerial fireworks. The current law stipulates that aerial fireworks are prohibited in Arizona for sale or use. Yet people use them extensively. Since they cannot obtain them in Arizona, they go to Mexico or other states where it is legal to purchase them. For instance, the residents behind our home use aerials. The problem is that when the police are called, they have to see the offence in order to cite. By the time officers arrive the illegal act has long stopped. No police department has the resources to deal with illegal fireworks. That is just a fact of life. So everyone throws their hands up in utter frustration.

In addition, aerial fireworks can be dangerous and a fire safety hazard. We all have either heard or read about someone’s house or patio that caught fire because of the embers of aerials ending up on a roof. Add to that, loud aerials scare pets. Most of us who do have dogs put them inside during fireworks periods. During these periods more dogs run away than any other time of year.

What can be done? The people must rise up to speak and to push the Arizona legislature to change the law. How? A group of people should lead this charge by drafting changes in the law and then circulating those changes in the form of an initiative petition to bring this issue and the proposed changes to a vote of the people. It’s not easy and requires a lot of work and organization but others have done it successfully on other issues. There are a lot of people fed up with the use of illegal fireworks and the excessive time periods when they can be used.

We saw in our last national election that when enough people band together, they can effect change.

© Joyce Clark, 2025   

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Jul 19

29

One more swipe at the state legislature

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 29, 2019
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Phoenix Metro issues  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 7 Comments

One more swipe at the state legislature

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

In a previous blog I shared how the state legislature mandates fiscal policies that often harm cities. This issue is more nuanced. It is the issue of short-term rentals. In fact, the Arizona Republic has a front page story today about this very subject.

Two years ago, Debbie Lesko, now a congressional representative for Glendale and the surrounding area, sponsored a bill which became known as the “AirBnB Bill.  Governor Doug Ducey signed it into law. The original intent was give property owners the ability to rent out a bedroom as a way of making extra money.

Sometimes we have to be careful what we wish for as there are often unintended consequences. This bill has delivered more consequences than anticipated. What has occurred is far different from the bill’s original intent. In places like Sedona investors are buying homes or building new ones and turning them into mini-hotels. This action is unsustainable and destabilizing. One consequence has been to reduce the amount of available long-term rentals for those who work in a community. It has also reduced school age populations as long-term renters with families are frozen out of the market in favor of short-term, far more lucrative rentals.

This turn of events has hit Arizona’s major tourist destinations the hardest but it has also set up every city in the metropolitan area to become a victim during major sporting events such as the Super Bowl, Final Four and major NASCAR races. Homeowners from all over the state are now complaining about issues such as increased traffic and noise in their once quiet neighborhoods.

A bill sponsored by Representative John Kavanaugh passed through the legislature this year. It was designed to deal with these very issues but a funny thing happened on its way to passage by the state legislature…it was emasculated. The very restrictions on investor-owned rentals and limiting the number of guests per rental that would have alleviated the situation were stripped from the bill.

No doubt this is a difficult question. At what point do rental properties diminish existent homeowners’ quality of life? How are we to balance a property owner’s right to do what he or she wishes to do with the property against quality of life issues for nearby residents leading to a loss of their property value? Who prevails and how? Perhaps the state legislature’s passage of the original Air BnB Bill mandating how cities can regulate short-term rentals within their communities was ill advised. After all, Arizona is the only state in the Union to have imposed this mandate on cities. We should wonder why no other state has messed with this issue. Sometimes local control is the best control.

© Joyce Clark, 2019         

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Nov 17

29

Another state mandate reduces cities’ income

Posted by Joyce Clark on November 29, 2017
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale Economic Development • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | No Comments yet, please leave one

Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

As I had indicated in my previous blog, “Erosion of council authority”, I did indeed pull 9 Consent Agenda contracts off for a separate vote in keeping with my stance that it is a usurpation of council authority. For each vote I formally recorded my ‘no’ vote. Per usual, the rest of council voted to approve those 5 year contracts. However there was another block of items that I want to bring to your attention.

Consent Resolutions #28 through #36 were all Mobilite applications to place small cell sites at various city right-of-way locations for a fee of $5,000 over a ten year period ($500 a year per site). Currently every municipality in the state has the right to negotiate the fees it charges telecom providers for locating cell sites in its community. That is about to change big time.

The Arizona legislature at the behest of the telecom industry and its lobbyists is about to stick it to every Arizona city with the successful passage of HB 2365. The bill mandates that as of February 9, 2018 Arizona’s cities can no longer impose their own fee structure on cell site locators. Instead the legislature has banned cities’ ability to negotiate their own fee structure and instead has created a flat fee of $50 a year which is the maximum amount any city may collect for a cell site.

On February 10, 2018 Glendale will no longer be able to collect a $500 per year licensing fee for each cell site. Instead it will be allowed to collect no more than $50 per site…one tenth of its current fee. Generally over a ten year period Glendale realizes an estimated million dollars that goes into its General Fund. As current ten year contracts are completed and renewed and as new leases are paid Glendale stands to receive between an estimated $100,000 to perhaps $200,000 over a ten year period. That is a radical decrease in income into our city’s General Fund.

The legislature accommodated a very rich and powerful industry…the telecom industry. It is one of the industries making money hand over fist and can certainly afford the higher licensing fees. One has but to look at your monthly cell phone bill to intuitively come to that conclusion. Multiply your monthly bill by thousands, no — millions, of customers and you can see that their revenues are very healthy indeed. And, yes, you do pay tax on your cell phone bill. Do you really expect to see your tax portion of the bill reduced by a few dollars to reflect the smaller fee your provider is paying? Don’t count on it.

This is not the first time the legislature has worked against the interests and concerns of Arizona’s municipalities. There is a list as long as your arm.  Just one example is the Highway User Revenue Fund, commonly known as HURF. When you fill up the tank on your vehicle a percentage of the cost per gallon is a state tax. The tax paid goes into HURF. It is a separately held state fund to be used exclusively for the construction, maintenance and repair of state highways, regional and local transportation and streets. A portion of HURF is included within state shared revenues.

State shared revenues, by percentage, are to be shared between the state, counties and municipalities. There is a specific formula for its division and distribution. The state acts as the central collection point and then is charged with distribution with its partners. It was enacted to make tax collection less complicated and confusing by creating just one collection point…the state.

By the way, the state has also been very slow historically in distribution of portions of state shared revenue. Another part of state shared revenue is the income tax we all pay annually to the state. I doubt many people know that the state shares that revenue two years after it is collected. A pretty neat trick as those funds sit in a state held investment account somewhere for a year or two, earning interest which it does not share.

Historically when the state gets into financial trouble and needs more revenue, instead of reducing costs it turns to piggy banks such as HURF and reduces the percentage that is shared with counties and municipalities. Currently these entities do not receive their full share of HURF from the state and have not received their full share for years.  They have lobbied for years to reinstitute their full and fair share to no avail.

So, there you have it. Yet another state legislative mandate has taken aim at municipalities’ revenue generation and enacted a law that benefits a very powerful lobby.

© Joyce Clark, 2017                 

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Mar 17

7

An unmistakable sound of desperation

Posted by Joyce Clark on March 7, 2017
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River Arena • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 18 Comments

Disclaimer: The comments in the blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

Today, March 7, 2017 NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman penned a letter of utter desperation to Arizona’s senate president and speaker of the house followed almost immediately by a statement by Andrew Barroway, Coyotes majority owner and chairman. Here is the link: http://www.abc15.com//sports/sports-blogs-local/nhl-commissioner-to-state-legislature-coyotes-must-have-a-new-arena?utm_source=SilverpopMailing .

Let’s think about Commissioner Bettman’s statement for a moment. In 2003 when the Coyotes played their first game in Glendale’s new arena, built specifically for them, Gary Bettman gushed about Glendale. He praised Glendale. He couldn’t heap enough praise on Glendale.

The original owner of the Coyotes, Steve Ellman, had no deal requiring the City to subsidize the team. Ellman, not only ran the team successfully, he filled the arena regularly and consistently with big ticket concerts. Then Ellman sold his interest to Jerry Moyes. Moyes appeared to have bled the team dry until like a sun-baked prune it had nothing more to offer to him…and so, in 2009 he went to Glendale and asked for an annual subsidy. Glendale said “no” and Moyes followed through on his threat to put the team in bankruptcy while trying to craft a side deal to sell the team to Canadian billionaire Jim Balsillie, who wanted to relocate the team to Hamilton, Ontario. 

In 2009 in a desperate move to keep the team in Glendale, the NHL took over the team and charged Glendale $25 million a year to manage it. Bettman was Glendale’s partner, Glendale’s buddy. Again, he couldn’t say enough good things about Glendale and its willingness to work with him and to keep the team in Glendale…and Arizona.

Glendale invested $185 million in construction of the hockey arena with debt service over 30 years, the final commitment is about $325 million…cha ching.

Glendale paid the NHL $50 million over 2 years to manage the team and keep it in Glendale and Arizona…cha ching.

Glendale paid IceArizona $15 million a year to manage the arena, again to keep the team in Glendale and Arizona…cha ching.

And this is how Commissioner Bettman recognizes the city for its investment and loyalty. Pardon me…but what a crock.

Along comes Anthony LeBlanc and his merry band of Canadian investors. By the way, have the team owners ever paid back the $70 million they borrowed from the league to buy the team? LeBlanc, et.al., in a snit fit, have apparently chosen revenge against Glendale because the city council had the temerity to cancel the owner’s arena management contract and the lucrative subsidy it provided. Didn’t it bother you, Mr. Bettman, that the team couldn’t provide straightforward answers to the city regarding their finances? Didn’t it give you pause?

Glendale was golden, until now. You never wrung your hands about the Glendale arena when it was built in 2003 or when Moyes declared bankruptcy in 2009. You never wrung your hands up until now. Mr. Bettman, did the majority Canadian owners of the Coyotes threaten to leave Arizona and move to Canada? Is that the straw that caused you to send a last minute, begging letter to the Arizona legislature supporting the Coyotes’ attempt to extort money from the legislature to support construction of yet another sports venue on the backs of Arizona taxpayers? Is your desire to stay in Arizona at all costs founded on its lucrative media market and a move to Canada would eliminate that?

I’m sure the members of the Arizona legislature have wondered how the Coyotes ownership will come up with $170 million as their share of the funding that SB 1149 requires when the Coyotes admit to millions in sustained losses every year, over the last few years. Which city is willing to become the host city and pour another $55 million down what appears to be a rat hole? Certainly there is no support among Arizona’s taxpayers to shell out another $170 million in sales tax to support this scheme.

It simply flies in the face of logic to build another hockey arena in Arizona when there is already a wonderful facility built specifically for the Coyotes. The growth of the Metro Phoenix area is in the West Valley and believe me there are plenty of demographically affluent, potential fans here. Could the possibility of poor management, non-existent marketing and a lousy product on the ice be the reason for the free fall in attendance?

Shame on you, Mr. Bettman. Glendale has proven itself repeatedly to be a reliable and stalwart partner in your desire to keep the Coyotes in Arizona. Now you turn your back on the city. If that’s how you treat friends, I pity anyone on your enemies list.

© Joyce Clark, 2017               

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Apr 14

23

Is the golden goose cooked?

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 23, 2014
Posted in City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale and the Super Bowl • Glendale finances  | Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

On April 22, 2014 on a vote of 16-10 HB 2547 was rejected in the Arizona Senate. It would have partially reimbursed Glendale for public safety expenditures related to hosting the upcoming Super Bowl in 2015. This is an event that generates large sales tax revenues all over the state and especially in the Phoenix Metro area.

Here are realities some Arizona senators conveniently ignored. The state, the county, the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority (AZSTA), the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee and the Bidwills all breathed a sigh of relief when Glendale stepped up to the tune of $35M for infrastructure improvements surrounding the stadium and accepted construction of the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale when no other city in the Phoenix Metropolitan area was willing to do so.  Glendale held its tongue when publicly slapped in the face by the naming of the stadium as the University of Phoenix Stadium.

Glendale looked forward to its first Super Bowl hosting experience and assumed that new sales tax revenues would cover the costs associated with being a host city. It was a pilot project and learning experience. Glendale did an outstanding job of hosting and has been praised as a model experience. Glendale spent $2.2M in 2008 as a host city. It earned sales tax revenue of $1M losing $1.2M in the process. It was an expensive lesson.

If anyone believes that public safety was the only cost to Glendale for hosting the 2008 Super Bowl, they are fools. Don’t forget at a minimum to include sanitation and transportation. Glendale sanitation had extra duties in assuring that the venue was clean and neat for a minimum of two weeks.. Glendale’s transportation staff coordinated all of the transportation logistics during the NFL Experience and on game day. Then there were the countless hours of Glendale staff time in preparation for the event and the countless meetings with NFL and Arizona Host Committee officials. Glendale put a lot of skin into the 2008 game yet it was cities like Scottsdale, Tempe and Phoenix that reaped gorilla sized sales tax revenues.

Some of these Arizona senators were lied to with impunity. They were told that Glendale made money on the 2008 Super Bowl. I was there. I was on the city council. I saw the figures. Glendale did not make money. I was one of only two councilmembers who voted against hosting it again in 2015 for the very reason that Glendale lost money. I said publicly at the time that without a reimbursement mechanism in place I could not support hosting it again.

If anyone believes that $2M will cover the costs of hosting the Super Bowl in 2015, next year, they, too, are fools. City Council intended to build up a fund of $4 to $6M over 6 years to cover the anticipated expenses. Everything from gas, to salaries, to vehicle use, to supplies has gone up. Then council became preoccupied with the Coyotes mess and was raped by the NHL to the tune of $25M a year for two years. The set aside fund never materialized.

Finally, this year Glendale crafted a bill to recapture its costs as a host city. The original figure requested was $4M and it watched as the bill was steadily watered down to $2M accepting that something was better than nothing.  In the meantime AZSTA, the Host Committee and the Bidwills came up with their own bill requesting $10M. It never made it to the Arizona House of Representatives’ floor for a vote. It died an ignominious death.

So where were they? Why didn’t AZSTA, the Host Committee and the Bidwills buck up and support Glendale? When their bill died did they just pick up their marbles and leave the fight? You bet they did. They view Glendale as a red-headed stepchild  – a child that doesn’t play well with others. After all, how dare Glendale not make its hotels bow to the pressure and cap their room rates? They blamed Glendale for not dictating terms to private hotel entities. They also claimed, falsely, that Glendale would not provide the necessary, stipulated parking needed for game day. Not true but in their view Glendale, quite simply, had become a pain in their butts.

Mayor Weiers and Vice Mayor Knaack publicly acknowledged at the April 22, 2014 council meeting that Glendale cannot continue to absorb the costs of hosting the Super Bowl without reimbursement. They made it quite clear that it is an unsustainable proposition. I applaud the fact that they have put everyone on notice and unless a reimbursement mechanism is created Glendale will not be in the business of hosting future Super Bowls. It’s about time. It’s nice to finally have some public company on this issue. Way to go Mayor Weiers and Vice Mayor Knaack. The ball is in AZSTA’s, the Host Committee’s and the Bidwill’s court. It’s their turn to play nicely and to acknowledge that Glendale is a valuable asset to them. After all, they can’t pick up their marbles (er, stadium) and go away, can they? Ironic, isn’t it? They may have cooked their golden goose.

© Joyce Clark, 2014

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.