[NSGS] New Democrats HQ

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Also, since this is definitely related: What's the party's opinion on my Calaverde Homelessness Act?

[Dejanic]

Also, since this is definitely related: What's the party's opinion on my Calaverde Homelessness Act?

If an occupant has not found employment within six months of establishing residency, they will be evicted.

I don't like this line. I mean lets say said homeless person has no qualifications, possibly no job experience, and resides in an area where unemployment is high, then it isn't going to be easy to find a job. Tbh I don't see why there should be a time limit of 6 months, or a time limit at all.

As long as the occupant is looking for work actively, then there should be no eviction thread what so ever. Why make them homeless again?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Also, since this is definitely related: What's the party's opinion on my Calaverde Homelessness Act?

If an occupant has not found employment within six months of establishing residency, they will be evicted.

I don't like this line. I mean if said homeless person has no qualifications, possibly no job experience, and resides in an area where unemployment is high, then I don't see why there should be a time limit of 6 months, or a time limit at all.

As long as the occupant is looking for work actively, then there should be no eviction thread what so ever.

That line was mainly to make it at least the tiniest bit easier for the right to swallow, though I agree with you. It having been submitted, however, I don't think it can be edited.

Or can it?

[Dejanic]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I can actually think of various things I'd like to add to. I wrote that bill in quick succession after the one to legalize weed, and basically burned out my brain on it.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

Yeah, I'm counting on the entirety of the Left plus us. But all right then, I'll go ahead and do that.

[Atlanticatia]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

I don't know if I'd vote for that bill if homeless people would be evicted because they haven't yet found a job. It is like punishing people for being poor. For example a person who is just recovering from a drug addiction and was homeless may take a bit more than 6 months to get back on their feet and go through treatment, let alone properly look for a job.

[Dejanic]

I can actually think of various things I'd like to add to. I wrote that bill in quick succession after the one to legalize weed, and basically burned out my brain on it.

It depends on how far you want to develop it really.

You can either just focus on this basic homeless bill, which focus' soley on solving the immediate homeless problem, and then making another bill later on. Or you can just make a giant bill.

I think it'd be a good idea to perhaps propose free subsidized educational programs for the homeless. Perhaps also government can also work with businesses to encourage apprenticships for these people, as opposed to just leaving them to look for jobs without any further support. This will ensure that these people can gain the qualifications and/or training they want/need.

Okay, my IRL Soc Dem is coming out here. Maybe I need to calm down a bit.

[Dejanic]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

I don't know if I'd vote for that bill if homeless people would be evicted because they haven't yet found a job. It is like punishing people for being poor. For example a person who is just recovering from a drug addiction and was homeless may take a bit more than 6 months to get back on their feet and go through treatment, let alone properly look for a job.

When I said "it'll easily pass anyway" I was talking about IF he amended it to remove the eviction line. Blair wouldn't vote for the bill if it kept that line in.

It was poor wording to be fair.

[Arkolon]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

I don't know if I'd vote for that bill if homeless people would be evicted because they haven't yet found a job. It is like punishing people for being poor. For example a person who is just recovering from a drug addiction and was homeless may take a bit more than 6 months to get back on their feet and go through treatment, let alone properly look for a job.

The occupants would have to be looking for a job straight away anyway, that's how they would apply to government housing. And perhaps funnel the homeless people into working at the homeless shelter? That way the homeless people are employed and housed and the government would not need to staff most of the shelters themselves. A cheaper alternative, for sure.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It's your own bill, you can amend it.

It'll easily pass anyway, since it'll definitely have ND, LDP AND DL support, and probably WA and FDP support.

I don't know if I'd vote for that bill if homeless people would be evicted because they haven't yet found a job. It is like punishing people for being poor. For example a person who is just recovering from a drug addiction and was homeless may take a bit more than 6 months to get back on their feet and go through treatment, let alone properly look for a job.

I changed it, calm yourself. Dejanic is right, the Left alone can pass it with resistance from the Right.

[Dejanic]

I don't know if I'd vote for that bill if homeless people would be evicted because they haven't yet found a job. It is like punishing people for being poor. For example a person who is just recovering from a drug addiction and was homeless may take a bit more than 6 months to get back on their feet and go through treatment, let alone properly look for a job.

The occupants would have to be looking for a job straight away anyway, that's how they would apply to government housing. And perhaps funnel the homeless people into working at the homeless shelter? That way the homeless people are employed and housed and the government would not need to staff most of the shelters themselves. A cheaper alternative, for sure.

Perhaps. But I think the long term goal would be getting them jobs so they can get their own flats or apartments or whatever and live independently. Them working at the homeless shelter should only be a temporary thing.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I can actually think of various things I'd like to add to. I wrote that bill in quick succession after the one to legalize weed, and basically burned out my brain on it.

It depends on how far you want to develop it really.

You can either just focus on this basic homeless bill, which focus' soley on solving the immediate homeless problem, and then making another bill later on. Or you can just make a giant bill.

I think it'd be a good idea to perhaps propose free subsidized educational programs for the homeless. Perhaps also government can also work with businesses to encourage apprenticships for these people, as opposed to just leaving them to look for jobs without any further support. This will ensure that these people can gain the qualifications and/or training they want/need.

Okay, my IRL Soc Dem is coming out here. Maybe I need to calm down a bit.

It's a pretty firmly leftist bill, honestly. And I envisioned as just an initial bandage, a way to get a majority of people off the streets. Far more detailed actions can be taken later.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The occupants would have to be looking for a job straight away anyway, that's how they would apply to government housing. And perhaps funnel the homeless people into working at the homeless shelter? That way the homeless people are employed and housed and the government would not need to staff most of the shelters themselves. A cheaper alternative, for sure.

Perhaps. But I think the long term goal would be getting them jobs so they can get their own flats or apartments or whatever and live independently. Them working at the homeless shelter should only be a temporary thing.

Should there be a provision that a person living in free government housing, once they begin making a certain salary or have achieved a certain amount of stability, will be given a length of time to find a new residency?

[Britanno 2]

Should there be a provision that a person living in free government housing, once they begin making a certain salary or have achieved a certain amount of stability, will be given a length of time to find a new residency?

Yeah, people shouldn't be evicted as soon as they get a job.

[Britanno 2]

Personally. I'd oppose rent controls, for largely the same reasons as Mollary. I'd prefer restrictions on unfair rent increases, and a push for more long term tenencies.

Ok, but how high should the limit be?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Should there be a provision that a person living in free government housing, once they begin making a certain salary or have achieved a certain amount of stability, will be given a length of time to find a new residency?

Yeah, people shouldn't be evicted as soon as they get a job.

No, of course not, that's not in the bill at all. Theoretically, they could live there the rest of their lives. And my thought is, that while this free actual housing is intended to be long-term, it shouldn't be one hundred percent permanent.

[Dejanic]

Perhaps. But I think the long term goal would be getting them jobs so they can get their own flats or apartments or whatever and live independently. Them working at the homeless shelter should only be a temporary thing.

Should there be a provision that a person living in free government housing, once they begin making a certain salary or have achieved a certain amount of stability, will be given a length of time to find a new residency?

Yeah, they'll need a bit of time to save some money back so they can afford rent payments/food/bills/a deposit, etc.

I'm guessing we'd have affordable "council" accommodation of sorts, that the ex-homeless could move into once they've begun to earn money. In this type of accommodation they'd probably pay a flat low level of rent or something. They could either stay here for the long term, or look into the private housing sector.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Personally. I'd oppose rent controls, for largely the same reasons as Mollary. I'd prefer restrictions on unfair rent increases, and a push for more long term tenencies.

Ok, but how high should the limit be?

What's the average rent in Central America at the moment?

Honestly, I'd support a rent cap. Because I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that most people renting are probably middle class or lower. Landlords probably have enough money as it is, owning property and whatnot.

[Dejanic]

Personally. I'd oppose rent controls, for largely the same reasons as Mollary. I'd prefer restrictions on unfair rent increases, and a push for more long term tenencies.

Ok, but how high should the limit be?

Well I'm talking about restricting unfair rent hikes. So say if you've rented for 6 months, and then your landlord decides to increase your rent by 15 percent.

In terms of actual specific numbers. That's something we'd have to research into and work out. Perhaps our finance spokesperson can help.

[Arkolon]

Ok, but how high should the limit be?

Well I'm talking about restricting unfair rent hikes. So say if you've rented for 6 months, and then your landlord decides to increase your rent by 15 percent.

In terms of actual specific numbers. That's something we'd have to research into and work out. Perhaps our economic spokesperson can help.

I'm sure proportional increases would suffice. Problem with setting a limit for unfair rent hikes is that landlords could theoretically start increasing rent by 14.99% a month, and that would be perfectly legal because it's below the cap. The reason they wouldn't be doing this now is that there are no pressures that would protect them from doing so. I'm super tired, so I may not be thinking straight, and I may come back on what I just said, so bear with me here.

15% sounds fine. If property prices or land values explode over night, maybe have landlords ask a governmental commission to raise prices a little more. In such a scenario (although rarer), the price increase cap would do the same economic damages as price floors.

[Dejanic]

15 percent is pretty huge. I mean I'm talking if say your renting for 600 a month for 6 months, then your landlord raises your rent by 15 percent. That's an increase of 90, which is pretty huge, and hardly a fair upkeep with inflation.

I think this is something we're going to have to look at in more detail. We need to prevent abuse, but at the same time respect the fact that in certain areas of the country, house/rent prices will naturally increase at fast rates. There probably isn't a flat solution for all this.

I think working on longer contracts is something that's important though. I think a tenant should have a legal right to a 1 year minimum contract (of course they can leave earlier if they wish, and they can be evicted if they don't keep up with their rent agreement). But at the same time, if a tenant wishes to have a shorter contract, that option should exist. They should just have the right to demand for a 1 year minimum contract.

The biggest problem with the rented sector is short 6 month contracts which end with constant unfair rent hikes.

[Britanno 2]

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/inve ... nt-control

This makes for interesting reading, and if you scroll down to the bottom you can see the laws each nation has on rent control. It doesn't let me create an account on my iPad for some reason, but when I get access to my laptop I'm gonna see what more I can find.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residentia ... _Act,_2006 - may also be relevant.

[New Werpland]

Also, since this is definitely related: What's the party's opinion on my Calaverde Homelessness Act?

Oh can I submit a proposed design for the homeless shelters? I have sketchup

[New Werpland]

Ok I've made an attempt at fixing up the Militia incorporation act in the below spoiler, what do y'all think?

---

Militia incorporation Act

---

Author:Clemond Abaroa(LDP)
Sponsors: "Great Nepal" (FDU)
To preserve the peace in Calaverde.

---

Section 1: Definitions

Treasonable Militia - Militias that refuse to be incorporated into the National Armed Forced.

Loyal Militia - Militias that follow the law, and agree to be incorporated into the National Armed Forces.

Section 2: Policy on Treasonable Militias

From here on Treasonable militias are illegal, and considered enemies of the state until they lay down all firearms.

Section 3: Incorporation of Loyal Militias

A. Militias that wish to be incorporated into the military must follow the rulings below.

1. The militias must set up a temporary but long term camps in regions as agreed upon by the government and the militia leaders, away from any major populated cities. Jurisdiction for the camp site is shared between the militia and the government.
2. The weapons of the militias are kept in secure containers in a mutually agreed location only accessible with two codes one provided to the militia commander and one to the government. Jurisdiction for the storage locations is shared between the militia and the government and no access for any individual is permitted without written consent from both parties and both parties have right to be present during such access.
3. Whilst in the camps, government will provide rations and other facilities as it would should it have been a military base with obvious exception of weaponry and munitions.
4. A special commission composed of representatives of the government, the military, the militia commanders, and the militia members will oversee the integration process and make any arrangement with regards to disagreements or negotiations. The commission will also make determination with regards to pay during the time in the camp.
5. Within the deadlines agreed upon by the special commission, the military will carry out physical, psychological and other tests as it would with recruits to classify into: integration into army proper, integration into a reserve unit or discharge.

B. After all above steps for incorporation have been carried out by the members of the militia, and National Armed Forces personnel, the Loyal militia is by law no longer a militia but a part of the National Armed Forces, and is thus liable to all rulings considering the National Armed Forces
C. There will be a Deadline of 6 months from the passing of the bill in which the Militias that claim to wish to be incorporated, must begin the incorporation process, after 6 months all remaining non incorporated militias will be deemed as treasonable, by law the government must warn such militia of the deadline at least 3 times before deeming them enemies of the state for going over the deadline.