Advertisement
by Lord Dominator » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:51 am
by United States of Americanas » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:06 am
by Jurassika » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:54 am
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:56 am
Jurassika wrote:The Democratic Union of Jurassika accepts that the wording may not be the best in this proposal but that the intent behind it is sound.
Farms will always be loud and smelly, and a nuisence to someone if they get too close. That is part of life really. The simple answer is to not build habitation near to farmlands.
Jurassika votes yes.
by Revolutionary Atlantica » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:12 am
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:18 am
United States of Americanas wrote:So farmers can have dangerous structures and skate by building codes while creating massive odors as well and continue to skirt the law? NOPE!
by Revolutionary Atlantica » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:21 am
Gagium wrote:United States of Americanas wrote:So farmers can have dangerous structures and skate by building codes while creating massive odors as well and continue to skirt the law? NOPE!
"With all due respect, ambassador, have you taken a few seconds to sit down and actually read the proposal being voted on? I'd recommend reading the proposal's definition of 'accepted and standard agricultural practices', and then taking a look at the third operative clause again. This resolution would exclude those not abiding by accepted and standard agriculture practice from said protection from nuisance lawsuits. Dangerous structures and 'massive odors' both pose an adverse effect on public safety and welfare."
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:23 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Jurassika wrote:The Democratic Union of Jurassika accepts that the wording may not be the best in this proposal but that the intent behind it is sound.
Farms will always be loud and smelly, and a nuisence to someone if they get too close. That is part of life really. The simple answer is to not build habitation near to farmlands.
Jurassika votes yes.
"This is idiotic. Nuisance is not just a question of an irritating use. The irritating use has to rise to the level of depriving another of reasonable use of their land, and the cost of remedying the irritating use has to be less than the deprivation of the plaintiff's harm. That does not mean all farms that smell bad have to be shut down. That means farms that smell so bad it deprives you of the enjoyment of your land have to take some step to mitigate that.
"Nations should not send ambassadors that do not understand basic legal concepts to dictate international law."
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:26 am
Revolutionary Atlantica wrote:Gagium wrote:"With all due respect, ambassador, have you taken a few seconds to sit down and actually read the proposal being voted on? I'd recommend reading the proposal's definition of 'accepted and standard agricultural practices', and then taking a look at the third operative clause again. This resolution would exclude those not abiding by accepted and standard agriculture practice from said protection from nuisance lawsuits. Dangerous structures and 'massive odors' both pose an adverse effect on public safety and welfare."
"Is it not the fact that dangerous or harmful structures and modes of operation have been part of agriculture for generations? That is not an argument to say that those structures should have the legal right to be free from challenge, in fact it emphasises the fact that they must be challenged."
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:09 am
"This is not true. Accepted and standard agricultural practices are accepted and standard because of their efficacy at producing results, not born of managing competing land use interests with neighbors."Gagium wrote:Regardless, most, if not all, complaints that would take form in (well-meaning) nuisance lawsuits against agricultural entities would stem from issues outside of accepted and standard agricultural practices."
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:37 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"This is not true. Accepted and standard agricultural practices are accepted and standard because of their efficacy at producing results, not born of managing competing land use interests with neighbors."Gagium wrote:Regardless, most, if not all, complaints that would take form in (well-meaning) nuisance lawsuits against agricultural entities would stem from issues outside of accepted and standard agricultural practices."
by Nerdherdia » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:43 am
by Morover » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:43 am
Palsada wrote:Shame about the delegates deciding not to like this.
Individual nations are voting for it 1400-1100
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:02 pm
Palsada wrote:Shame about the delegates deciding not to like this.
Individual nations are voting for it 1400-1100
by Araraukar » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:35 pm
Gagium wrote:"Hence the well-meaning. Any nuisance lawsuit based on the personal belief that their land should be used differently rather than due to any nuisances stemmed from agricultural practices is not well-meaning in intent."
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:33 pm
Gagium wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"This is not true. Accepted and standard agricultural practices are accepted and standard because of their efficacy at producing results, not born of managing competing land use interests with neighbors."
"Hence the well-meaning. Any nuisance lawsuit based on the personal belief that their land should be used differently rather than due to any nuisances stemmed from agricultural practices is not well-meaning in intent."
by Old Hope » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:40 pm
United States of Americanas wrote: go read some news articles about how those explode occasionally. Build it up to national building codes and international safety codes or don’t build it at all!VOTE NO
Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "accepted and standard agricultural practices " as those agricultural practices which don't pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:59 pm
Araraukar wrote:Gagium wrote:"Hence the well-meaning. Any nuisance lawsuit based on the personal belief that their land should be used differently rather than due to any nuisances stemmed from agricultural practices is not well-meaning in intent."
"Dangerous structures are not part of normal agricultural practices. That this proposal seeks to normalize dangerous structures - which may be dangerous to animals and workers as well as neighbours or even the public infrastructure - by making them immune to lawsuits, is simply not acceptable."
by Maowi » Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:25 pm
Gagium wrote:Araraukar wrote:"Dangerous structures are not part of normal agricultural practices. That this proposal seeks to normalize dangerous structures - which may be dangerous to animals and workers as well as neighbours or even the public infrastructure - by making them immune to lawsuits, is simply not acceptable."
"That's not the intent of the resolution nor supported by it whatsoever. This resolution only effects nuisance lawsuits (lawsuits wherein the plaintiff claims that the defendant is causing a nuisance); Any other sort of legal action taken by private citizens or government entities would not be prohibited or even restricted in the least bit by this resolution. Regardless, all that aside, dangerous structures are indeed not part of accepted/standard agricultural practices, and such wouldn't even be protected from nuisance lawsuits under the resolution."
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:34 pm
Old Hope wrote:United States of Americanas wrote: go read some news articles about how those explode occasionally. Build it up to national building codes and international safety codes or don’t build it at all!VOTE NO
How about you go read the proposal?Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "accepted and standard agricultural practices " as those agricultural practices which don't pose a substantial, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare; be it intentional or negligent.
A practice that causes things to explode uncontrollably is definitely a practice posing a substantial and adverse affect to public safety.
by Gagium » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:06 pm
Maowi wrote:Gagium wrote:"That's not the intent of the resolution nor supported by it whatsoever. This resolution only effects nuisance lawsuits (lawsuits wherein the plaintiff claims that the defendant is causing a nuisance); Any other sort of legal action taken by private citizens or government entities would not be prohibited or even restricted in the least bit by this resolution. Regardless, all that aside, dangerous structures are indeed not part of accepted/standard agricultural practices, and such wouldn't even be protected from nuisance lawsuits under the resolution."
'May I direct you to clause 1 of the proposal at vote?
"When focusing on agriculture nuisances may include noise, odors, visual clutter and dangerous structures."
'I trust the nation of Gagium shall take actions to ensure its WA department complies fully with the 'Read the Resolution Act' to which the Morovian delegation made reference. Meanwhile, we will be voting against.'
by Mockia » Sun Jun 02, 2019 5:07 pm
by Inven » Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:30 pm
San Carlos Islands wrote:(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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement