Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
--------
Question: A lawsuit filed this week in Eagle County District Court contends Vail town officials violated local rules when they approved a Triumph Development project to build high-density worker housing along Interstate 70 where the bighorns forage during winter. The residents also argue that a Vail Resorts employee on the local Planning and Environmental Commission, which approved the project on a 4-3 vote, should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Their lawsuit asks Judge Russell Granger to send the case back to town officials with instructions for proper decision-making. “Developers tried to come up with mitigation. But it doesn’t seem the mitigation measures are sufficient to comply with the code,” which requires the implementation of “all necessary mitigating measures,” attorney Kim Perdue said Thursday. “My understanding is that there are other sites … that would be better for residents and also not have catastrophic impacts on this herd,” Perdue said. This battle pits the mountain resort’s economic demands against the needs of wildlife, in this case Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Colorado’s state animal. Bighorns once numbering more than 2 million around the west have been declining, hammered by disease — including sickness spread by domestic sheep — as development eclipses bighorn habitat. The Colorado bighorn population has dwindled to about 6,800, down from about 7,600 in 2012 and 8,000 in 2001, state data shows. Vail Valley bighorns have decreased to about 5% of their historic numbers, along with other species, and the herd that forages east of Vail has been reduced by 40% over the past 12 years to around 50 bighorns. Meanwhile, mountain resort operators around the state have been developing properties and struggling to ensure enough housing for workers as tourism and recreation industries expand. Triumph Development has proposed to construct the housing for Vail on 5.4 acres at one end of a 23.3-acre parcel that Vail obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Local governments have broad discretion. The lawsuit targets town decision-making on narrow grounds, alleging that proposed “mitigation” measures are not sufficient to comply with town rules aimed at protecting the natural environment and wildlife. The developers’ proposals included the construction of a berm between the housing complex and a meadow where bighorns forage, limited lighting and restricted dog ownership. Residents walking to town would have to use an underpass designed for vehicles to cross I-70. The lawsuit also alleges town officials gave improper guidance to planning and environmental commission members by asserting they had no choice but to allow the development of the property, owned by Vail, because otherwise their action would amount to an illegal “regulatory taking” of the property. Vail officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. “We received the complaint, and we have forwarded it to our insurance carrier for review,” assistant town manager Patty McKenny said. Former Mayor Rob Ford, a longtime resident opposing the construction, said even people who recognize a need for affordable worker housing have been questioning Vail leaders’ decision-making. “It was not transparent. Residents were lied to. It is a poorly planned project, a crummy project,” Ford said. The conflict has escalated over the past two years. Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologists have provided guidance, warning that bighorns likely would suffer harm and questioning whether mitigation is possible. Vail officials have countered that the resort needs housing for service workers, in part to create a sense of community and reduce worker driving. Only 20% of Vail’s 8,500 workers live in town. Others commute as far as 75 miles. Houses in Vail cost $1.3 million on average. Renting an apartment typically costs around $1,200 a month. The Vail Homeowners Association has opposed the development. A 40-member group called Citizens to Protect Our Wildlife asked Gov. Jared Polis for help. The local chamber of commerce asked Polis to stay out of the matter unless he planned to support the construction. ___ Information from: The Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com

Answer: Lawsuit challenges Vail development in bighorn sheep habitat.


Question: Over 100 residents of the apartment buildings in southeast Colorado Springs have been told to leave in recent weeks, according to Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment officials. Making matters worse, residents who left said looters broke in and took belongings they left behind. A Colorado Springs Gazette reporter witnessed a person break a window Friday  at the buildings owned by Denver-based Slipstream Properties. Attempts by the newspaper to reach company officials for comment Friday were unsuccessful. Exposure to even minute amounts of asbestos can cause lung cancer and other deadly respiratory conditions. Slipstream Properties bought the buildings in 2018, raising hope that conditions in the apartments would improve after years of disrepair and code violations. The asbestos problem arose during recent renovations. Renovation work can disturb asbestos, which decades ago was used in a variety of building materials including insulation. “We’re trying to understand how widespread this is, how many apartment complexes there are,” said Curtis Burns, field operations unit supervisor for the state health department’s asbestos unit. The building owners could face fines of $25,000 per day of noncompliance with asbestos-handling regulations, Burns said.

Answer: Asbestos, looting plague Colorado Springs apartments.


Question: Baltimore Ravens cheerleader Olivia applies lipstick prior to the Ravens NFL football game in Baltimore, Maryland October 2, 2011. REUTERS/Larry Downing Lead has been banned in paint since 1978 because of its toxicity at low levels, but it still shows up in small amounts in some of the best-selling lipstick brands. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which did an analysis of a study of lead in lipstick conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, wants consumers to know that most of the 400 different lipsticks tested were positive for the substance (link.reuters.com/caz56s). “Recognizing that there is no safe level of lead exposure, we need to be protecting women and children from all levels of exposure,” said Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the campaign — a non-profit coalition of environmental- and cancer-prevention groups. Malkan’s group wants the FDA to set a limit for how much lead lipstick can contain and to study whether there are any dangers to having the substance applied to human lips, particularly the lips of children and pregnant women. “We know that ingestion of lipstick happens. It gets into our bodies,” she said, noting that lead accumulates in people. The group said that five of the nine lipstick brands with the most lead are sold by L’Oreal, the world’s largest cosmetics maker. L’Oreal’s “Color Sensational” Pink Petal had the most lead of any lipstick tested at 7.19 parts per million. By comparison, children’s products sold in the U.S. are forbidden to have more than 100 parts per million of lead. “The FDA’s independent study, which will be published in the May/June 2012 issue of the Journal of Cosmetic Science, confirms that lipsticks pose no safety concerns for the millions of women who use them daily,” L’Oreal said in a statement sent to Reuters. “The lead levels detected by the FDA in the study are also within the limits recommended by global public health authorities for cosmetics, including lipstick.”   The FDA, for its part, agreed there is no cause for alarm. “The FDA did not find high levels of lead in lipstick,” FDA spokeswoman Tamara Ward said. “We developed and tested a method for measuring lead in lipstick and did not find levels that would raise health concerns.”   Still, Malkan said the government should take some more steps to ensure the safety of those who use lipstick. An advisory committee to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has taken a position that there is no safe level of lead for children. So, why asked Malkan should it be OK for their to be lead in lipstick? And, in particular, for certain brands to have more than others? “There are no safety standards,” Malkan said. So, if you’re still lead conscious, consider how you’ll handle your lips and those you’ll be sharing them with this Valentine’s Day. (Editing by Beth Pinsker Gladstone and Steve Orlofsky)

Answer:
Could your Valentine's kiss give you lead poisoning?.