Desire for Smart Growth: A Survey of Residential Preferences in the Salt Lake Region of Utah

As an alternative to sprawling development, smart growth combines proximity to work, proximity to shopping and other destinations, neighborhood housing mix, shared and paid parking, complete street designs, and proximity to public transit. This article uses a stated-choice experiment to determine residents' attitudes toward these various aspects of smart growth in the Salt Lake region of Utah. Utah is a conservative state, where attitudes toward auto-oriented suburbia may be more positive than in other parts of the United States. So, one might wonder whether changing national attitudes toward smart growth, documented in several surveys, apply to residents of the Salt Lake region. In this stated-choice experiment, respondents were asked to choose between pairs of housing scenarios with different attributes and different prices. Mixed logit (random parameters logit) was used to relate individuals' choices to attributes, prices, and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. The results show that, generally, respondents have positive attitudes toward most aspects of smart growth but still express preferences for single-family neighborhoods with free parking in their own driveways or garages. Different life cycle cohorts have different preferences. Proximity to work is more important for childless young adults. Young families with children place higher value on living in a neighborhood with only single-family homes and transit access. Retired empty nesters favor a mix of housing types over single-family housing on one-acre-plus lots. The results suggest that while residents of the Salt Lake region like suburban neighborhoods with primarily single-family houses, they would also like to have improved accessibility to amenities in the suburbs.     

The irresistible force of freedom of speech meets the immovable object: trade mark law in South Africa

Legal context. The right of freedom of expression is a fundamentalright entrenched in the Bill of Rights incorporated in the SouthAfrican Constitution. While intellectual property rights donot enjoy this status, they are internationally recognised rightsgranted by a law of general application and may thus in termsof the Constitution limit the fundamental rights protected inthe Bill of Rights, and more particularly the right of freedomof expression. Where the enforcement of trade mark rights comes into conflictwith the right of freedom of expression, the two rights mustbe weighed up against one another and the competing interestsof the owner of the trade mark against the claim of expressionof a user without permission must be considered. The departurepoint of the weighing up process is that neither right is superiorto the other. Key points. This article discusses an action brought by SabmarkInternational, which claimed that Laugh It Off Promotions CCinfringed its registered trade mark BLACK LABEL in respect ofbeer by using a corruption of this mark with strong politicalundertones as ornamentation on T-shirts sold by it. It was claimedthat the offending use diluted Sabmark's registered trade mark.In an appeal, the Constitutional Court rejected the claim onthe basis that Sabmark had not shown that the offending usewas likely to cause economic damage to it. Practical significance. The case in effect equated trade markrights with rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights and thusgave important recognition to intellectual property rights.It created a precedent in intellectual property law, if notin South African law in general, in that the constitutionalcourt overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)and in effect ruled that the SCA had not interpreted the relevantprovision of the Trade Marks Act correctly.