Meadville Community Revitalization Corporation launches community perception survey
The Meadville Community Revitalization Corporation (MCRC) is inviting all Meadville residents, business owners and community organizations to participate in a Community Perception Survey.
The survey opens Monday and will run through Feb. 21. It is an important first step in the group's efforts to seek a Main Street Matters designation through Pennsylvania's Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), officials said in making the announcement.
The survey is designed to capture public opinions on key aspects of Meadville's downtown, including issues such as downtown's comfort and appearance, economic conditions, community attitudes, available activities and accessibility.
Insights gathered from the survey will help guide revitalization strategies to make Greater Downtown Meadville more vibrant, welcoming and prosperous.
'Our goal is to ensure the future of downtown Meadville is shaped by the people who know it best — our community,' said Andy Walker, executive director of MCRC. 'By completing this survey, residents and business owners have the chance to share their perspectives and priorities, which will not only strengthen our application for the Main Street Matters program but also guide long-term revitalization efforts that make downtown Meadville a better place to live, work and visit.'
The Main Street Matters program is a state initiative aimed at supporting downtown cores and surrounding neighborhoods with tools to create healthy and vibrant communities. According to DCED's website there are currently nine downtown's across Pennsylvania that have Main Street designations.
If awarded the designation, Meadville could benefit from funding opportunities that support planning efforts, business development, aesthetic improvements and public safety enhancements.
As an added incentive, participants who include their email address in their survey response will be entered into a drawing for $25 'Downtown Dollars' gift cards, redeemable at participating businesses. A third winner will be selected from those who engage with the survey through the MCRC's Facebook page — visit @meadvillecrcorp for details.
The survey can be completed online at https://bit.ly/MeadvillePerceptionSurvey as well as by filling out paper copies which will be available at Meadville City Hall, Active Aging, the Meadville Public Library and many downtown businesses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
National Advertising Division Recommends Coterie Baby Discontinue Comparative Absorbency and Drier Skin Claims and Disclose Endorsements for The Diaper
Following a challenge by the Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division recommended that Coterie Baby Inc. discontinue certain comparative absorbency claims and improve endorsement disclosures for its product, The Diaper New York, NY, June 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Following a challenge by the Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division recommended that Coterie Baby Inc. discontinue certain comparative absorbency claims and improve endorsement disclosures for its product, The Diaper. P&G, maker of Pampers, challenged express and implied claims made by Coterie on its website and in influencer marketing for its premium diaper, The Diaper. The challenged claims include "Up To 4x Absorbency Compared to Leading Brands," "Up To 3x Drier Skin Compared to Leading Brands," and superiority claims such as being the 'most absorbent' and 'most high performing' diaper on the market. Superiority Claims At issue for the National Advertising Division (NAD) were Coterie's claims that The Diaper was '4x faster' at absorbing and '3x drier' than leading brands. These claims were based on two studies using synthetic urine to test absorption speed and rewet levels. After review of the studies' testing methods, as well as those provided by P&G, NAD found that the results are sufficient for Coterie to meet its initial burden of providing a reasonable basis that The Diaper product is 4x more absorbent and 3x drier when compared to certain diapers, but not to Pampers diapers. NAD found that P&G's studies, which had similar methodology but very different results, to be more reliable, and determined that Coterie's studies could not support a claim that The Diaper was up to 4x as absorbent and 3x drier when compared to the 'leading brands' since it did not demonstrate superiority over Pampers diapers. In addition, NAD determined consumers would reasonably expect the challenged 'up to' claim to mean that Coterie's The Diaper is 4x faster at absorbing than any Pampers or Huggies diaper, when in fact the 4x faster absorption is substantiated only when compared to Huggies diapers. Accordingly, NAD recommended that Coterie discontinue the claims 'Up To 4x Absorbency Compared to Leading Brands' and 'Up to 3x Drier Skin Compared to Leading Brands.' Endorsement Claims P&G alleged that Coterie did not include material connection disclosures in social media and blog posts by its endorsers, including a Facebook post asking, 'Which diaper is best?' and displays multiple brands, including Coterie, but does not name them. Coterie argued there is no endorsement until the consumer clicks through to the blog, where a disclosure appears. Here, NAD found that the Facebook post appears as an objective review, and it is only when a consumer clicks through to the blog post that they are informed that the post is a paid endorsement. The FTC Endorsement Guides state that native ads must be identifiable as advertising before consumers arrive at the main advertising page. NAD therefore recommended that Coterie clearly and conspicuously disclose its material connection to the endorser in its advertising, including originating social media posts that link to an endorsement. During the proceeding, Coterie voluntarily agreed to permanently discontinue certain challenged claims. As a result, NAD did not review these claims on their merits and will treat them, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued. In its advertiser statement, Coterie stated they 'will comply with NAD's recommendation.' All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive. Per NAD/NARB Procedures, this release may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes. About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than 20 globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, promote fair competition for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. To learn more, visit About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. The National Advertising Division reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and promoting fair competition for business. CONTACT: Name: Jennie Rosenberg Email: jrosenberg@ Job Title: Media Relations
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Retirement Contingency Plans Gen Z Can Start Working on Now
No one wants to spend their 20s or 30s thinking about what could go wrong decades from now. But if there's one thing we can learn from what boomers and Gen X are dealing with, it's that retirement doesn't always go as planned. Some older Americans spent decades saving diligently, only to watch the market tank right as they were ready to retire. And others were even forced to delay retirement altogether due to a variety of factors, like inflation and medical costs. Read Next: Check Out: But don't worry. If you're still young, you have plenty of time to do things differently. Here are a few smart (and not-so-obvious) retirement contingency plans Gen Z can start working on now. Your investments could be on track for years, and then suddenly crash 30% because of one global crisis. And though the stock market has always recovered eventually after major crashes in the past, the recovery time can take months or years. So if you don't want to be so dependent on your portfolio, consider investing in a high-income skill that can help you make money regardless of how the economy is doing, like content creation, coding or freelance photography. That way, you won't feel forced to pull money out of your retirement account at a loss if you know you can earn a few thousand a month on the side. Learn More: Retiring in a high-cost U.S. city can be difficult if you don't have much in your nest egg. If you'd rather have financial breathing room than stress about covering rent in a big city, consider moving abroad or downsizing. Even though you might not be retiring soon, you can start researching alternative retirement destinations now. That could mean scoping out low-cost cities in the U.S., learning about countries with digital nomad or retirement visas, joining Facebook groups or Reddit threads where expats share real numbers and experiences, learning about what it means to downsize, or calculating how much you'll need to retire comfortably, depending on your desired living situation. The idea of never working again sounds nice until you realize how long retirement can last, and how expensive healthcare, housing and just living can be. If you don't mind continuing to work after 65, semi-retirement can be a plan that works better for you than fully retiring. That can mean working seasonally or part-time doing something you enjoy, taking a few years off and returning to work later, or taking mini-retirements throughout your life instead of saving it all for the end. What makes semi-retirement worth considering is that it gives you more control and lets you stay financially afloat even if the markets don't cooperate. Even the most 'safe' investments can take a hit when the economy gets shaky. Stocks go through bear markets. Bonds lose value when interest rates spike. Real estate markets can crash. In other words, there's no such thing as a totally risk-free investment. That's why you should never put all your eggs in one basket when it comes to investing for retirement. So if you haven't already, work with a financial planner to help you create a mix of assets that can support you no matter what the market's doing. You'll also want to diversify your income streams so you can keep growing your retirement fund even if you lose your main source of income. You can have a diversified investment portfolio, a fully loaded retirement account and a six-figure income, but if you're still carrying high-interest debt into your 50s and 60s, it can drag down everything you've worked for. Especially in retirement, when you're no longer earning a full-time income, debt payments can feel heavier than ever. If you focus on paying off high-interest credit cards and minimizing lifestyle inflation in your 20s and 30s, you free up money that can go toward savings, investing or building the kind of flexibility you'll need later. It also makes it easier to retire on your own terms, without being tied to monthly payments that limit your options. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy I'm a Retired Boomer: 6 Bills I Canceled This Year That Were a Waste of Money This article originally appeared on 5 Retirement Contingency Plans Gen Z Can Start Working on Now Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court of Canada to hear appeal in long-running Facebook privacy case
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to review a ruling that concluded Facebook broke federal privacy law by failing to adequately inform users of risks to their data when using the popular social media platform. Last September, the Federal Court of Appeal found Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, did not obtain the meaningful consent required by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act between 2013 and 2015. The decision overturned a 2023 Federal Court ruling. The Court of Appeal said Facebook invited millions of apps onto its platform and did not adequately supervise them. It found that the Federal Court's failure to engage with the relevant evidence on this point was an error of law. Privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne called the Court of Appeal decision an acknowledgment that international firms whose business models rely on users' data must respect Canadian privacy law. Facebook applied for a hearing at the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeal took the wrong approach to consent and security safeguards under the privacy law. It said in a written application that, rather than evaluating Facebook's multi-layered efforts to obtain meaningful consent, the Court of Appeal focused myopically on the platform's privacy policy alone. The Supreme Court, following its usual practice, gave no reasons Thursday for agreeing to hear the case. A 2019 investigation report from then-federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien and his British Columbia counterpart cited major shortcomings in Facebook's procedures and called for stronger laws to protect Canadians. The probe followed reports that Facebook let an outside organization use a digital app to access users' personal information, which was then passed to others. The app, at one point known as "This is Your Digital Life," encouraged users to complete a personality quiz but collected information about the people who installed the app and data about their Facebook friends. Recipients of the information included the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which was involved in U.S. political campaigns and targeted messaging. About 300,000 Facebook users worldwide added the app, leading to the potential disclosure of the personal information of approximately 87 million others, including more than 600,000 Canadians, the commissioners' report said. The commissioners concluded that Facebook violated PIPEDA by failing to obtain valid and meaningful consent from installing users and their friends, and that it had "inadequate safeguards" to protect user information. Facebook disputed the investigation's findings. The company has said it tried to work with the privacy commissioner's office and take measures that would go above and beyond what other companies do. In early 2020, Therrien asked the Federal Court to declare Facebook had violated the law. A judge ruled the commissioner failed to establish that Facebook breached the law on meaningful consent. He also agreed with Facebook's argument that once a user authorizes it to disclose information to an app, the social media company's safeguarding duties under PIPEDA come to an end. In its decision, the Court of Appeal noted Facebook's contention that users read privacy policies presented to them when they sign up to social networking websites — something the judges called "a dubious assumption" given such documents can run to thousands of words. "Terms that are on their face superficially clear do not necessarily translate into meaningful consent," Justice Donald Rennie wrote for a three-member panel. "Apparent clarity can be lost or obscured in the length and miasma of the document and the complexity of its terms." In this case, Rennie said, a central question was whether a reasonable person "would have understood that in downloading a personality quiz (or any app), they were consenting to the risk that the app would scrape their data and the data of their friends, to be used in a manner contrary to Facebook's own internal rules (i.e. sold to a corporation to develop metrics to target advertising in advance of the 2016 U.S. election)." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 12, 2025. Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
