Multimodal Magnetic Resonance and Near-Infrared-Fluorescent Imaging of Intraperitoneal Ovarian Cancer Using a Dual-Mode-Dual-Gadolinium Liposomal Contrast Agent.

The degree of tumor removal at surgery is a major factor in predicting outcome for ovarian cancer. A single multimodality agent that can be used with magnetic resonance (MR) for staging and pre-surgical planning, and with optical imaging to aid surgical removal of tumors, would present a new paradigm for ovarian cancer. We assessed whether a dual-mode, dual-Gadolinium (DM-Dual-Gd-ICG) contrast agent can be used to visualize ovarian tumors in the peritoneal cavity by multimodal MR and near infra-red imaging (NIR). Intraperitoneal ovarian tumors (Hey-A8 or OVCAR3) in mice enhanced on MR two days after intravenous DM-Dual Gd-ICG injection compared to controls (SNR, CNR, p < 0.05, n = 6). As seen on open abdomen and excised tumors views and confirmed by optical radiant efficiency measurement, Hey-A8 or OVCAR3 tumors from animals injected with DM-Dual Gd-ICG had increased fluorescence (p < 0.05, n = 6). This suggests clinical potential to localize ovarian tumors by MR for staging and surgical planning, and, by NIR at surgery for resection

Tools for Tackling Corporate Landlords Part 1: Landlord REgistries, Licensing, and Proactive Inspections

Tenant advocates and government officials are expressing increased concerns about the expansion of corporate investment in their communities' housing systems. Today, at least 1.6 million housing units in the United States are owned by private equity (though this number is almost certainly an undercount due to a lack of ownership transparency). While this figure is concerning on its own, investor ownership is not evenly distributed throughout the country, with some neighborhoods and cities bearing the brunt of the effects.Analyses often focus on the legitimate reality that rising corporate housing investment creates unfair competition that effectively shuts out middle and working class families from homeownership. But it's also important to note that the impact of increased investor ownership is the most consequential for tenants, particularly those with very low incomes. Tenants of corporate landlords have reportedly experienced drastic rent increases, unfair or illegal eviction, increased fees, home maintenance neglect, and myriad other issues.Regulating corporate landlords is difficult, but not impossible. Private Equity Stakeholder Project's policy toolkit series aims to illuminate possibilities for combatting corporate landlords by examining policy frameworks and showcasing examples of successful past measures. While many roadblocks including low political will, state preemption, and well-funded landlord opposition do exist, there are also underutilized legislative opportunities ready to be deployed in order to mitigate the harmful effects of increased corporate ownership in cities and states

The Isolationism Of Senator Charles W. Tobey

Thesis (M.A.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 197

Tools for Tackling Corporate Landlords Part 3: Combatting Consolidation Through Pro-Competitive Policy Reforms: Portfolio Caps, Transfer Taxes, and Right of First Refusal Legislation

Tenant advocates and government officials are expressing mounting concerns over the acceleration of corporate investment in housing. Housing financialization first gained momentum following the 2007-2008 mortgage crisis when Wall Street firms acquired foreclosed homes en masse. In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the problem of speculative housing investment as the residential sector became an attractive option for growing capital in the face of overall economic uncertainty. Consequently, housing affordability and the rights of renters have become more pressing than ever, with concerned voices emerging from diverse political backgrounds.Private equity firms and large corporate landlords are quickly acquiring housing, increasingly consolidating America's housing stock into the hands of an ever smaller number of powerful corporations. This is true across housing types, with investors expanding ever further into single family housing, multifamily (apartment) housing, student housing, manufactured housing (mobile homes), and subsidized affordable housing.This report looks at policy efforts designed to combat the competitive advantage corporate landlords armed with huge pools of money, favorable regulatory environments, and robust technology hold versus individuals

Investing in the Housing Crisis: An exploration of the North Carolina public pension system's relationship with Landmark Partners and the Single Family Rental industry

North Carolina has a corporate landlord problem. Large investors now own over 40,000 single family homes in North Carolina1, squeezing out would-be homebuyers and burdening renters with rising rental costs and prolonged maintenance issues. Some of these corporate rental companies are owned or backed by private equity firms that receive funding from public pension systems, including the North Carolina Retirement System (NCRS). The North Carolina Retirement System has committed more than $3.2 billion to one such private equity firm, Landmark Partners, since 2014.$2.6 billion of these commitments to Landmark have been made since Dale Folwell became State Treasurer and took over responsibility for the pension fund in 2017. No other pension fund has invested more than $500 million in Landmark during the 2017 - 2022 time period.This matters because Landmark is a major investor in Progress Residential,4 the largest single family rental company in the U.S. with over 7,700 homes in North Carolina

Tools for Tackling Corporate Landlords Part 2: Challenging State Preemption of Local Affordable Housing Initiatives

Regulating corporate landlords is difficult, but not impossible. Private Equity Stakeholder Project's policy toolkit series aims to illuminate possibilities for combatting corporate landlords by examining policy frameworks and showcasing examples of successful past measures. While many roadblocks including low political will, state preemption, and well-funded landlord opposition do exist, there are also underutilized legislative opportunities ready to be deployed in order to mitigate the harmful effects of increased corporate ownership in cities and states.The second report in this series attempts to explain how state preemption functions to thwart local efforts to protect individuals, tenants and prospective homebuyers alike, from corporate housing consolidation. The report highlights the following key points:State governments have moved to preempt local initiatives to combat the nation's housing crises.Researchers found that efforts to protect citizens from pandemic related housing issues by local governments in states like California, Florida, and Illinois were stymied to a varying degree depending on the level of state preemption employed.Passing state legislation to abrogate state preemption of local issues like income non-discrimination, inclusionary zoning, and rent control is key to winning housing policy victories at the local level.To move policy at the state level, it is necessary to organize powerful, reliable constituencies that will compel politicians to make concessions on preemption and ultimately hold them accountable