[DEFEATED] Freedom To Farm

[San Carlos Islands]

---

Freedom To Farm
Category: Advancement of Industry | Area of Effect: Tort Reform | Proposed by: San Carlos Islands

---

Believing firmly in the right to farm and defending the food security of all nations.

Asserting, therefore, the preservation of a maximum amount of agricultural land is necessary for the assurance of adequate amounts of healthful, and nutritious food.

Concerned that expansion of urban development in rural areas has created legal conflicts between agricultural and urban activities.

Realizing that many of these legal conflicts are merely nuisance lawsuits.

Distressed that these nuisance lawsuits have pushed many farmers out of business due to expensive legal costs.

Asserting, therefore, this loss of agricultural land is a threat not only to the rights, lives, and well being farmers; but also global food security.

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "nuisance lawsuit" as lawsuits wherein the plaintiff claims that the defendant is causing a nuisance. When focusing on agriculture nuisances may include noise, odors, visual clutter and dangerous structures.
   
   
2. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "accepted and standard agricultural practices " as those agricultural practices that don't pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.
   
   
3. Prohibits nuisance lawsuits against those engaging in agricultural activities who use accepted and standard agricultural practices that have been in prior operation.

First GA Resolution! Hope everything is in order.

[Morover]

"At first glance, this seems to be perfectly legal. However, I must say that your preambulatory clauses don't necessarily reflect your operative clauses, as far as I can tell. The preamble seems to suggest that the proposal will create legislation in order to prohibit urbanization, in order to preserve agricultural districts. While a prohibition on nuisance lawsuits may somewhat contribute towards this, it is, overall, somewhat ineffective and doesn't actually do anything."

"Overall, I simply can't see a reason for the proposal, as is."

OOC: Welcome to the GA

[Kenmoria]

“I believe you are missing a word or two in clause 2, as it currently doesn’t read very well and I’m having trouble working out what it is supposed to mean.”

[San Carlos Islands]

“I believe you are missing a word or two in clause 2, as it currently doesn’t read very well and I’m having trouble working out what it is supposed to mean.”

Fixed

"At first glance, this seems to be perfectly legal. However, I must say that your preambulatory clauses don't necessarily reflect your operative clauses, as far as I can tell. The preamble seems to suggest that the proposal will create legislation in order to prohibit urbanization, in order to preserve agricultural districts. While a prohibition on nuisance lawsuits may somewhat contribute towards this, it is, overall, somewhat ineffective and doesn't actually do anything."

"Overall, I simply can't see a reason for the proposal, as is."

OOC: Welcome to the GA

Do you have any suggestions regarding how to address this? What I'm trying to imply is not that this will prohibit urbanization, but urbanization inherently creates legal conflict between farming and urban activity, leading to the farmers being pushed of their land due to not affording the legal costs because of these nuisance lawsuits.

[San Carlos Islands]

"At first glance, this seems to be perfectly legal. However, I must say that your preambulatory clauses don't necessarily reflect your operative clauses, as far as I can tell. The preamble seems to suggest that the proposal will create legislation in order to prohibit urbanization, in order to preserve agricultural districts. While a prohibition on nuisance lawsuits may somewhat contribute towards this, it is, overall, somewhat ineffective and doesn't actually do anything."

"Overall, I simply can't see a reason for the proposal, as is."

OOC: Welcome to the GA

Okay. I changed some things up and I think I've addressed this.

[Kenmoria]

“I don’t see the need to define ‘agricultural activities’, as it is a common word being used in its usual sense. However, due to the potential of ambiguity, defining a ‘nuisance lawsuit’ could be useful.”

[Separatist Peoples]

(Image)

---

Freedom To Farm
Category: Advancement of Industry | Area of Effect: Tort Reform | Proposed by: San Carlos Islands

---

Believing firmly in the right to farm and defending the food security of all nations.

Asserting, therefore, the preservation of a maximum amount of agricultural land is necessary for the assurance of adequate amounts of healthful, and nutritious food.

Concerned that expansion of urban development in rural areas has created legal conflicts between agricultural and urban activities.

Realizing that many of these legal conflicts are merely nuisance lawsuits.

Distressed that these nuisance lawsuits have pushed many farmers out of business due to expensive legal costs.


Asserting, therefore, this loss of agricultural land is a threat not only to the rights, lives, and well being farmers; but also global food security.

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "agricultural activities" are farming, ranching, algaculture, aquaculture, apiculture, horticulture, viticulture, poultry farming, dairy production, the production of field crops, timber, pasturage, and any combination of the foregoing, processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with, but are secondary to, such husbandry or production.
   
   
2. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "accepted and standard agricultural practices " as those agricultural practices that pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.
   
   
3. Prohibits nuisance lawsuits against those engaging in agricultural activities who use accepted and standard agricultural practices that have been in prior operation.

First GA Resolution! Hope everything is in order.

[/quote]
"Nuisance lawsuits are based on the allegation of and procurement of proof that the defendant, the farmer, in this case, is engaged in actions that devalue the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of their own property. Painting such suits as mere attacks on farming is silly.

"Further, banning classes of tort causes of action based on land use entirely places other land owners at a financial disadvantage based solely on use. This would provide malicious property owners the chance to harm neighbors' land use without recourse. Opposed."

[San Carlos Islands]

“I don’t see the need to define ‘agricultural activities’, as it is a common word being used in its usual sense. However, due to the potential of ambiguity, defining a ‘nuisance lawsuit’ could be useful.”

Addressed.

[San Carlos Islands]

“I don’t see the need to define ‘agricultural activities’, as it is a common word being used in its usual sense. However, due to the potential of ambiguity, defining a ‘nuisance lawsuit’ could be useful.”

Addressed.

"Nuisance lawsuits are based on the allegation of and procurement of proof that the defendant, the farmer, in this case, is engaged in actions that devalue the plaintiff's use or enjoyment of their own property. Painting such suits as mere attacks on farming is silly.

"Further, banning classes of tort causes of action based on land use entirely places other land owners at a financial disadvantage based solely on use. This would provide malicious property owners the chance to harm neighbors' land use without recourse. Opposed."

I disagree, here's why.

1. This is illogical because urbanization encroaches on agriculture, not vice versa. The farmer was there first and has been engaging is his normal everyday practices for generations, the Resolution even specifies that it's practices been in prior operation cannot have a lawsuit brought against them. If these practices devalue someone's property, they shouldn't of built/moved there.

And because of this prior operation clause, they could sue for new practices.

2. OOC: RL These laws have been implemented successfully in every state in the US without real issue.

Furthermore; no, this resolution doesn't provide malicious property owners the chance to harm neighbors' land use without recourse because accepted and standard agricultural practices " are defined as those agricultural practices that don't pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.

[Separatist Peoples]

I disagree, here's why.

1. This is illogical because urbanization encroaches on agriculture, not vice versa. The farmer was there first and has been engaging is his normal everyday practices for generations, the Resolution even specifies that it's practices been in prior operation cannot have a lawsuit brought against them. If these practices devalue someone's property, they shouldn't of built/moved there.

"If the premise of litigation is that a particular use deprives another of lawful use of their property, who was there first isn't a factor. Especially since a hallmark of a private nuisance tort is a balancing of interests. If a farm is acting in a way that deprives neighbors of their enjoyment of their property, and they can accomplish the same use with an alternative, then there is no issue.

"As for the costs of litigation, well, litigation costs money. If you cannot afford litigation, settle. If your farmers cannot afford litigation and cannot settle, create an assistance fund or pro bono program rather than undermine a valid cause of action."

And because of this prior operation clause, they could sue for new practices.

"That was never not an option, as I understand it."

2. OOC: RL These laws have been implemented successfully in every state in the US without real issue.

OOC: Sure, certain homestead laws protect growing certain crops out of particular zones, but the private nuisance tort still exists for ancillary land use like fertilization in many, if not most, states.
And, for the record, in the US, coming to the nuisance at common law is not a defense.

Furthermore; no, this resolution doesn't provide malicious property owners the chance to harm neighbors' land use without recourse because accepted and standard agricultural practices " are defined as those agricultural practices that don't pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.

OOC: Accepted and standard agricultural practices can still be a private harm, even if they are not public harms. A great example of a private nuisance that a farm may cause without violating public health, safety, or welfare protections include odors from livestock or fertilizer, consistent noise early in the morning, or, if you want to get into public nuisance, routinely blocking roads during certain operations. Cow crossings come to mind, actually.

This is not an unreasonable policy goal, but I think the methodology is less than ideal. I might instead think of a way to create an exception to certain zoning restrictions to allow small-scale agricultural processes. Zoning and land use restrictions are more pervasive than nuisance laws as a barrier to small scale agriculture in my experience.

[Morover]

OOC: Uh, if you don't mind me asking, why did you submit this? You've gotten feedback from very few people, and it hasn't even been up for a day. I get being overeager (I was at first, too, and still am, to an extent) but this was a bit fast. While I applaud you for making a drafting thread beforehand, the drafting thread needs to be up for a bit to really get the full effect of it.

[Araraukar]

"There is not and has not been a universal right for a private citizen to own land. Thus there cannot be a universal right to farm wherever the hell you want. Or whatever you want, however you want. Furthermore, small scale agriculture is not and indeed cannot be free of the already existing WA resolutions, and ignorance and negligence are not viable defenses."

[Great Nortend]

It is well established in many common law jurisdictions that coming to a nuisance is no defence to actions ad nocumentum or quod permittat prosternere. This resolution will too greatly affect the right to the free and unencroached enjoyment of land and property.

[San Carlos Islands]

It is well established in many common law jurisdictions that coming to a nuisance is no defence to actions ad nocumentum or quod permittat prosternere. This resolution will too greatly affect the right to the free and unencroached enjoyment of land and property.

What about the right to free use of land and property?

[Separatist Peoples]

It is well established in many common law jurisdictions that coming to a nuisance is no defence to actions ad nocumentum or quod permittat prosternere. This resolution will too greatly affect the right to the free and unencroached enjoyment of land and property.

What about the right to free use of land and property?

"That right is rarely unlimited. Which is why zoning laws are so pervasive."

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: As you have submitted this, the tag ought to be [SUBMITTED] not [DRAFT]. However, I recommend for you to withdraw your proposal, because it was drafted for a far shorter time than was necessary.)

[Palsada]

(OOC: As you have submitted this, the tag ought to be [SUBMITTED] not [DRAFT]. However, I recommend for you to withdraw your proposal, because it was drafted for a far shorter time than was necessary.)

Well, let's see if the drafting process is even necessary.

If it passes, I dare say no.

[East Meranopirus]

(OOC: As you have submitted this, the tag ought to be [SUBMITTED] not [DRAFT]. However, I recommend for you to withdraw your proposal, because it was drafted for a far shorter time than was necessary.)

Well, let's see if the drafting process is even necessary.

If it passes, I dare say no.

The drafting process is very much necessary and I'm more than certain this won't pass.

The truth is, anything with a nice-sounding title and a decently-written TG campaign can get to vote. But that's where they'll fail if not drafted properly.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: As you have submitted this, the tag ought to be [SUBMITTED] not [DRAFT]. However, I recommend for you to withdraw your proposal, because it was drafted for a far shorter time than was necessary.)

Well, let's see if the drafting process is even necessary.

If it passes, I dare say no.

(OOC: This most likely won’t pass. If it does, then all that will have been achieved is putting legislation not up to the usual standard on the books. Although this will create a nice shiny badge for the author, it will also lead to a swift repeal and possible replace. That said, I don’t think this will pass.)

[Marxist Germany]

"I am appalled by your decision to submit this extremely early and have decided to vote AGAINST."

[American Pere Housh]

"The Confederate Republic supports this proposal as agriculture is one of our key industries.

WA Ambassador Michael Delcroix

[Republica JIM]

I vote against this proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Confederate Republic supports this proposal as agriculture is one of our key industries.

WA Ambassador Michael Delcroix

"That makes no sense, ambassador. If it is one of your key industries, you could impose such laws on your own. If it isn't our key industries, we have no need for such a law. Supporting a law that forces us to expand agricultural protections for competition against your key industry. Do you even think about your arguments before you make them, ambassador?"

[Kenmoria]

“When I first looked at the proposal, I thought you were referring to ‘nuisance lawsuits’ as lawsuits designed solely for the purpose of causing a nuisance to the owners of the agricultural land, and lacking actual basis in law. Now, I see that you are targeting lawsuits on the basis of nuisances, which are far more nuanced and, at least in Kenmoria, acceptable. Therefore, I declare my vote AGAINST this proposal.”

[Tinhampton]

Freedom To Farm

This proposal came to vote under the title "Right To Farm." Grudgingly in favour.