There is no New York Times wedding section, but (residents) still want to be known in their community. The underlying goal with every implementation is: how can you make sure this is a money maker for the community?

We're building the ability for the community to be informed.

That's what they do. They'll make eight-point runs on you. That's why they're No. 1 in (the) section.

Lovers must not, like usurers, live for themselves alone. They must finally turn from their gaze at one another back toward the community. If they had only themselves to consider, lovers would not need to marry, but they must think of others and of other things. They say their vows to the community as much as to one another, and the community gathers around them to hear and to wish them well, on their behalf and its own. It gathers around them because it understands how necessary, how joyful, and how fearful this joining is. These lovers, pledging themselves to one another "until death," are giving themselves away, and they are joined by this as no law or contract could join them. Lovers, then, "die" into their union with one another as a soul "dies" into its union with God. And so here, at the very heart of community life, we find not something to sell as in the public market but this momentous giving. If the community cannot protect this giving, it can protect nothing...

Since there are no changes in the allotment of residences, I think it bodes well for the residents.

However, there is no doubt that there will be some significant impacts and residents need to be prepared for some disruption and inconvenience. It is unfortunate that local council tax payers have been caught up in a national dispute which is outside the direct control of Bristol City Council.