Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning
November 14, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessDigitalization creates new opportunities for citizen engagement in urban planning. I gave a short presentation on the topic at the Digitalization in Urban Planning event in Helsinki.
The event was organized by CHAOS Architects, a tech company. Its AI cloud platform allows citizens to share ideas about their city and co-create it with their community. The platform contains engagement-driven applications and third-party APIs that process business intelligence for better interaction and decision-making.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks
July 27, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:
- 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
- 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
- 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
- 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
- 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
- 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
- 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
- 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
- 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
- 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read Carefully. The Insurance Coverage You Thought You Were Getting May Not Be The Coverage You Got
November 27, 2013 —
Bret Cogdill — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCA recent U.S. District Court case in Colorado highlighted the importance for an insured to read and understand the terms of its insurance policy. The case 2-BT, LLC v. Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC, Civil Action No. 12CV02167PAB, was a controversy between an insured’s expectations for coverage, and the terms and exclusions of the insurance policy.
2-BT is a heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) contractor, which utilizes soldering devices and heat sources among other tools for its trade. 2-BT needed liability insurance to cover its work, and found a provider, Preferred Contractors Insurance Company Risk Retention Group, LLC (“PCIC”). 2-BT read PCIC’s online materials, which stated “PCIC’s personalized underwriting process allows us to tailor coverage to properly outfit the contractor with excellent coverage and rates.”
2-BT filled out a policy application, which included a description of the type of HVAC work it performs, initialed several sections, and signed it. One of the initialed paragraphs on the application, “Policy Exclusions,” stated that damages arising from “fungi/bacteria,” “open flame,” and “use of heating devices,” was not covered. PCIC issued a policy to 2-BT, which included a section titled, “Additional Exclusions” that excluded coverage for mold and damage related to heating elements among others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bret CogdillBret Cogdill can be contacted at
cogdill@hhmrlaw.com
Bridges Crumble as Muni Rates at Least Since ’60s Ignored
June 26, 2014 —
William Selway and Brian Chappatta – BloombergNo state is needier than West Virginia when it comes to fixing crumbling highways, airports and water works, with annual repair needs of $1,035 per resident that’s three times the national average.
Yet even with borrowing costs hovering close to four-decade lows, lawmakers rejected a January proposal to sell $1 billion of bonds to repair roads that run through the Appalachian Mountains. Budget cuts were a more immediate concern, they said.
Across the U.S., localities are refraining from raising new funds in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression left them with unprecedented deficits. Rather than take advantage of Federal Reserve (FDTR) policy that’s held benchmark interest rates at historic lows since December 2008, they’re repaying obligations by the most on record.
Mr. Selway may be contacted at wselway@bloomberg.net; Mr. Chappatta may be contacted at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Selway and Brian Chappatta, Bloomberg
Housing in U.S. Cools as Rate Rise Hits Sales: Mortgages
April 28, 2014 —
John Gittelsohn and Prashant Gopal – BloombergAfter a roller-coaster decade of boom-bust-boom, the U.S. housing market is going downhill just when many economists thought annual sales would be heading up.
Sales of previously owned properties in March tumbled 7.5 percent from a year earlier to the slowest pace in 20 months, while purchases of new houses sank 14.5 percent from February, according to reports this week. Mortgage applications to buy homes plunged 19 percent from a year earlier, indicating slowing demand during what is typically the busiest season for deals.
The housing market’s underlying fragility is emerging as outside influences that fueled a two-year rebound are receding. Mortgage interest rates are rising from record lows as the central bank withdraws its stimulus, and investors, who had helped drive national prices up more than 20 percent as they went on a buying spree, are now retreating.
Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn and Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Pennsylvania Modular Home Builder Buys Maine Firm
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFExcel Homes, a modular home builder based in Liverpool, Pennsylvania, has bought Keiser Homes, a modular home builder based in Oxford Hills, Maine. Excel sought to increase their capacity, which acquisition of the Oxford Hills facility allows. Excel had previously shown an interest in the property of an Oxford Hills modular home builder that had closed, Oxford Homes, but a decrease in sales of modular homes lead Excel to reconsider the purchase.
Excel Homes plans on doubling the current output of the Oxford Hills facility and will be hiring additional employees. The purchase included all of Keiser’s machinery, trucks, trailers, equipment, and the customer list.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blackstone Said in $1.7 Billion Deal to Buy Apartments
January 21, 2015 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergBlackstone Group LP (BX), the biggest owner of U.S. single-family houses, agreed to buy 36 apartment properties across the country for about $1.7 billion as it expands its rental business, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction.
The low-rise, garden-style properties are being sold by Praedium Group, a New York-based real estate investment firm, and contain about 11,000 apartments, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the deal is private. About half of the buildings are in California, Washington, D.C., and Boston, with the rest located around the U.S., they said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
Privacy In Pandemic: Senators Announce Covid-19 Data Privacy Bill
May 11, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer Dillion"Data! Data! Data!. . . I can't make bricks without clay." This classic statement from Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Copper Beeches takes on a new meaning in the COVID-19 pandemic. With the plans to begin contact tracing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic slowly moving towards the forefront, a valid and important issue presents itself: how do we treat and protect the data we so desperately need to trace, track, and address the pandemic? U.S. Senators Wicker, Thune, Moran, and Blackburn introduced a possible solution to this problem with the COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act, as announced on April 30, 2020. So what does the Act entail? What information is protected? What action would businesses need to take towards individuals, such as consumers or even employees, in order to comply with this new legislation?
WHAT IS THE COVID-19 CONSUMER DATA PROTECTION ACT?
The Act is meant to address the concern regarding data collection and privacy due to large companies, like Google and Apple, adjusting the software within their devices to facilitate digital contact tracing. The Act can be broken up into three parts - the treatment of information; the privacy notice requirements; and the transparency requirements.
First, the Act prohibits the collection, processing, or transfer of certain categories of data without notice and the affirmative express consent of the individual, in order to:
- Track the spread of COVID-19,
- Trace the spread of COVID-19 through contact tracing, or
- Determine compliance with social distancing guidelines without the requisite notice to individuals and their express consent.
To accomplish this, the Act also restricts entities in their ability to collect excessive information, stating that an entity cannot collect information beyond what is reasonably necessary to conduct any of the three COVID-19 related purposes listed in the statute. The entity must also provide reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security policies and practices to protect the information collected. Furthermore, in the event that the entity stops using the information for any of the three COVID-19 purposes, it must delete or de-identify the information it has collected.
Next, the Act describes the requirements for notice to individuals. In order to legally collect, process or transfer the information, the entity needs to provide the consumer with prior notice of the purpose, processing, and transfer of the data through their privacy policy within 14 days of the enactment of the law. This policy would have to:
- Disclose the consumer's rights in a clear and conspicuous manner prior to or at the point of collection,
- Be available in a clear and conspicuous manner to the public,
- Include whether the entity will transfer any of the information it collects in order to track or trace COVID-19 or determine compliance with social distancing,
- Describe its data retention policy, and
- Generally describe its data security measures.
Notably, many of these are already requirements common to many privacy policies, including the disclosure regarding the transfer of an individual's information.
In addition, an individual must give their affirmative express consent to such collection, processing and transfer. In other words, an individual must "opt-in" to having their information collected. This would be done through a checked box or electronic signature, as the law prohibits entities from inferring consent through a failure by the individual to take an action stopping the collection. Furthermore, the individual would also need the ability to expressly withdraw their consent, with the entity then having to cease collection, processing, or transfer of the information within 14 days of the revocation. In essence, due to the restriction on transferal, this may result in businesses opting to delete or de-identify data upon a revocation.
Finally, the entity would have to abide by certain reporting and transparency requirements, namely a monthly public report stating how many individuals had information collected, processed or transferred, and describing the categories of the data collected, processed or transferred by the entity and why. This is akin to the California Consumer Privacy Act's treatment of categories of information, though it would require this information to be released on an ongoing, monthly basis.
WHAT DATA IS COVERED?
Notably, the Act only affects a very limited scope of data. The Act covers geolocation data (exact real-time locations), proximity data (approximated location data), and Personal Health Information (any genetic/diagnosis information that can identify someone). This could cover information like Bluetooth communication or real-time tracking based on a cell phone's geolocation features. Notably, Personal Health Information does not include any information that may be covered under HIPAA or the broader categorization of "Biometric" data (i.e. retinal scans, finger prints, etc). Furthermore, and more generally, "publicly available information" is excluded, which includes information from telephone books or online directories, the news media, "video, internet, or audio content" as well as "websites available to the general public on an unrestricted basis." The latter of which potentially would push any and all information made available through social media (i.e. Facebook or Twitter) into the definition of "publicly available information."
HOW IS IT ENFORCED?
Generally, the law would be enforced by the FTC, under the provisions regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices, similar to other enforcement actions arising out of privacy policies. Notwithstanding, state attorney generals may also bring actions to enforce compliance and obtain damages, civil penalties, restitution, or other compensation on behalf of the residents of the state.
WHAT SHOULD MY COMPANY DO?
If your entity plans on collecting information for tracking COVID-19, measuring social distancing compliance, or contact tracing, it is advisable to include language in your privacy policy now. This could be as simple as adding an additional provision within your privacy policy stating that the entity will retain information to conduct one of the three COVID-19 purposes as laid out in the statute. In addition, this also means that should the entity collect and use employee information for contact tracing, tracking the spread of COVID-19 or ensuring compliance with social distancing measures, it will need to disclose some of the specifics of that process to the employees and have them opt-in for the process. Finally, for contact tracing purposes, any individual that shares their diagnosis will have to opt-in for the entity to legally collect, process, and transfer that information to others.
While the time to reach compliance is unknown, it is more important than ever to form a compliance plan for privacy legislation if you do not already have a plan in place. If you decide to prepare with us, our firm has created a 90 day California Consumer Privacy Act compliance program (which can be expedited) where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, and we will provide a free initial consultation. For further inquiries or questions related to COVID-19, you can consult with a Task Force attorney by emailing NDCovid19Response@ndlf.com or contacting our office directly at 949-854-7000.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
