In this task, you are given an article. Your task is to summarize the article in a sentence.

Ex Input:
First, it shows that building houses is more profitable than building shops - at least in some parts of the UK.
And second, that controversial supermarket "land banking" (buying up swathes of land for potential retail development) has largely run its course.
It is likely that other supermarkets will follow suit, releasing land for housing and smaller retail developments.
Which could be good news for a government keen to see lots more houses built.
I asked Alan Stewart, Tesco's chief financial officer, how many houses could be built.
"It certainly will be thousands, I think it will depend on council by council, site by site exactly what the development turns out to be," he said.
Sources close to the business tell me that as many as 10,000 homes could be built on the sites Tesco has just sold, from Bath to London and the south-east of England.
"These sites were all bought because we intended to put a store [in] and then develop residential around them," Mr Stewart told the BBC.
"We wanted to ensure that we would work with the communities and the council in order to develop and build housing and the other projects as quickly as possible and in a way that is sympathetic to the community."
The 14 sites sold are just a small part of the 49 projects Tesco announced earlier in the year it was abandoning.
The others remain largely unsold and derelict, leading to criticisms from local MPs such as Pat McFadden, MP for Wolverhampton South East, who said the local community felt let down.
I asked Mr Stewart if he had sympathy with the critics.
"Of course, and I think it's in these sort of sites and these communities [that] it's very difficult.
"These were difficult decisions we made [to abandon the developments].
"They weren't made without a lot of contemplation, a lot of thought and we'll do everything we can to try to get the developments that were expected in these areas, developed as quickly as possible.
As quickly as possible, yes, but Mr Stewart knows that selling lucrative sites in the south-east of England is somewhat easier than more marginal sites across the north of England, for example.
As yet, there is still no timeline for selling the rest of the sites, which for the moment will remain padlocked and unused.

Ex Output:
This morning's announcement that Tesco is selling 14 former supermarket sites to a property developer is significant for two reasons.


Ex Input:
Only a third (33%) of people believed being able to speak Welsh made someone Welsh, according to the study by internet-based market research firm YouGov.
In a survey of more than 1,000 people in Wales, more than 90% thought being born in the country made someone Welsh.
Second on the list was having two Welsh parents, with 87% backing the option.
The only other factors to gain majority support were "growing up in Wales" (68%) and having a Welsh parent (61%).
Only about four in 10 people believed someone "considering themselves Welsh" made them Welsh.
Matthew Smith, of YouGov, said: "What makes a person Welsh is a question that raged for a while - especially in light of sports stars representing the country despite seemingly having light links with it.
"However, it is clear from our research that what makes a person Welsh is quite a broad church.
"The key thing seems to be a person's heritage - be it being born in Wales, having a Welsh parent or growing up here."
YouGov carried out online interviews with 1,005 adults aged 18 or over in Wales between 23 and 27 September.

Ex Output:
Most Welsh people think you have to be born in Wales to be Welsh, new research has said.


Ex Input:
But depending on the outcome of the vote on 8 November, one of the two can expect to be thrust into a major financial role.
Donald Trump has said that if he becomes president, he will hand control of his business empire to Ivanka and her brothers, Don and Eric.
If Hillary Clinton wins the race for the White House, the intention is for her and husband Bill to step down from the board of the Clinton Foundation and for Chelsea, currently its vice-chair, to take over its day-to-day operations.
Both candidates' plans have come under fierce scrutiny from critics, who say they involve big conflicts of interest.
So what are the risks and why should they be allowed to get away with such arrangements?
Well, first of all, there is absolutely no law that prevents them.
Previous presidents, from Lyndon B Johnson on, have avoided any hint of impropriety by placing their business interests into what is known as a blind trust. This means that the president gives up the right to manage his (or her) money personally, handing the task over to independent trustees.
In LBJ's case, he set one up in 1963, after assuming the presidency in the wake of John F Kennedy's assassination. He and his wife, Lady Bird, owned a TV station, KTBC, in Austin, Texas, and wanted to avoid regulatory problems without having to sell it.
In 1978, the Ethics in Government Act formalised the rules on blind trusts, but left them entirely voluntary as far as presidents are concerned.
Mr Trump has spoken about putting his holdings into a blind trust, but then said that his three oldest children would be in charge of the company, which would not pass the independence test.
"I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it," he said earlier this year. "If that's a blind trust, I don't know.
"But I would probably have my children run it with my executives and I wouldn't ever be involved."
In any case, even if Mr Trump no longer controls those assets directly, he could hardly be expected to forget what they were, so he would remain vulnerable to allegations that his political decisions were designed to favour his business interests.
The Clinton Foundation, which came into being in 2001, poses a different set of problems.
Former US presidents tend to set up some kind of charitable centre on leaving office, usually with a presidential library attached, and Hillary's husband Bill was no exception.
But, of course, there has never before been a presidential candidate married to an ex-president, so the foundation has turned into a headache for Hillary.
Donors to the foundation have included a number of foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria and Qatar, as well as various rich individuals and companies.
Critics of the Clintons say these donations, many of them made while Hillary was Secretary of State, represent attempts to influence US policy.
And for those opponents, if Hillary wins, putting Chelsea in charge would not be an acceptable solution, even though the foundation's president, Donna Shalala, has pledged that many of its programmes will be spun off as separate non-governmental organisations and foreign donations will no longer be accepted.
And there is another big spanner in the works for both presidential candidates: the US constitution has a provision that could make life very difficult for either of them.
The constitution's Emoluments Clause states: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
It's easy to see what the point of that was. Having created a republic and enshrined the ideal of equality, the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the US acquiring an aristocracy or being beholden to foreign powers that might undermine those ideals.
But it also seems to say that no-one in senior public office should have any foreign income.
Does that apply to the Clinton Foundation, with its record of foreign donors? And more directly, does that also apply to the Trump Organization, which has joint property ventures and licensing deals stretching from Panama City to Istanbul?
In theory, yes. In practice, it probably depends on that little phrase, "the consent of the Congress".
Any foreign deal or donation involving either of those bodies could easily spawn a Congressional investigation into a possible breach of the constitution. And once the juggernaut started to roll, it could lead all the way to impeachment.
For either Chelsea or Ivanka, life is set to get a whole lot busier after 8 November. But unless their activities are genuinely outside parental control, Mrs Clinton or Mr Trump cannot be sure of escaping unscathed.
Who is ahead in the polls?
48%
Hillary Clinton
44%
Donald Trump
Last updated November 8, 2016

Ex Output:

Despite the pressure that the US presidential election campaign has placed on their parents, Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump maintain that they are good friends.


