[DEFEATED] Freedom To Farm

[Lord Dominator]

"I see no reason to treat farmers any different than any property holder."

[United States of Americanas]

So farmers can have dangerous structures and skate by building codes while creating massive odors as well and continue to skirt the law? NOPE!

You won’t see a yes vote out of me until both dangerous structures and odors are removed from the types of nuisance lawsuits.

Better yet, scrap that whole paragraph. Let it be up to the individual nations high court to decide whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not.

I can guarantee if this legislation passes people will be moving away from farming areas to the point that farms will have a near zero employment rate outside of the family that lives on said farm.

Also this legislation doesn’t clearly define a farm. So someone’s meat rendering plant and slaughterhouse could end up protected by this.

There’s a reason why they put those way off the map and don’t even publish the address. They’re a sin against the kingdom we live in. They don’t want people living near it.

A regular farm should have some protections. But this is legislation that allows lawlessness.

We will not tolerate shoddily built buildings nor will we tolerate farms that do not properly contain odors. It’s not hard, it takes a little bit of science and containment vessels.

Have a manure pit? Great, put a domed cap over it with air filters and then pump the sludge out into tanker trucks to be hauled away for proper disposal.

This legislation let’s farms have open manure pits stink up the whole neighborhood and the neighborhood can’t do anything about it.

*points up at grain elevator with no emergency safety mechanism* see that, 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!

Sorry for being long winded. TL:DR version VOTE NO

[Jurassika]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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."

[Revolutionary Atlantica]

"Agricultural land should not have a higher or more sacrosanct status than urban land as a matter of course. Agriculture must be democratically controlled much like the rest of the economy - often the decisions which are correct in a utilitarian perspective are opposed by the interests of reactionary landowners. Furthermore, the clauses surrounding 'accepted' and 'not overtly harmful' practices are vague and subjective. Unfortunately, the majority of nations do not consider industrial crop farming or the rearing of animals for slaughter to be unacceptable or overtly harmful, however, that does not change the fact that these practices are destructive to soil, aquifers, and wider ecosystems, meaning that depending on interpretation, this bill may well paradoxically endanger agricultural capacity in the future whilst claiming to protect it. In addition, it is confused in its idea that agricultural land can never shrink in size as more effective and sustainable techniques are used, and efforts are made to tackle food waste.

In summation, this so called 'Freedom' bill, which truly limits the freedom of the vast majority, is badly ill conceived and should be voted down."

[Gagium]

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."

[Revolutionary Atlantica]

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."

"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."

[Gagium]

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."

"You bring up a fair point, though it would seem as if odors that deprive individuals of enjoyment of their land would pose an adverse effect on public welfare (And perhaps arguably health), as stated in the resolution's definition of 'accepted and standard agricultural practices'. 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."

[Gagium]

"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."

"To my understanding, such structures would not have the legal right to be free from challenge under the resolution, rather owners of such structures would regardless be able to be challenged due to the resolution's provided definition of accepted agricultural practices. Nevertheless, this resolution only prohibits nuisance lawsuits, and has no effect against other sorts of legal challenges that would rise about due to dangerous structures."

[Separatist Peoples]

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."

"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."

[Palsada]

Shame about the delegates deciding not to like this.

Individual nations are voting for it 1400-1100

[Gagium]

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."

"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."

[Nerdherdia]

While the sentiment for rural protection is shared, the vagueness in wording of the proposal could lead to unfair trials against suburban/urban building projects that are derivative of growing populations. The proposal requires more detail and exceptions for necessary expansion before we can consider voting for it.

[Morover]

Shame about the delegates deciding not to like this.

Individual nations are voting for it 1400-1100

“Individual nations are voting for it in direct violation of GAR#122”

[Kenmoria]

Shame about the delegates deciding not to like this.

Individual nations are voting for it 1400-1100

(OOC: That is why we have the delegate system, as individual nations may look merely at a feel-good title and vote for without considering the consequences.)

[Araraukar]

"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."

[Separatist Peoples]

"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."

"That...isn't remotely how it works. There are well-meaning nuisance claims that seek to prevent a particular use of land from a particular use even when that use stems from an accepted agricultural practice. Storage of manure is an excellent example. Just because a farmer is using an industry standard of manure storage does not mean that the use does not also deprive a neighbor of enjoyment of their land, and that a suit seeking the farm make additional efforts to mitigate odor would be malicious."

[Old Hope]

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.

[Dontriptia]

Against. This is not an international issue.

[Gagium]

"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."

"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."

[Maowi]

"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."

'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.'

[Kenmoria]

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.

(OOC: Although I acknowledge that the statement from the United States of Americanas isn’t quite accurate; it also isn’t completely wrong. The proposal, by only allowing complaints about noise when public health and safety are seriously threatened, disallows implicitly suing about unacceptable noise or smell when there isn’t a risk for health. However, such negative sensory stimuli can still be damaging, and complaints about them ought to be taken seriously, not prohibited.)

[Gagium]

"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.'

"Of course, ambassador. And this would very much make sense and thus mean that nuisance lawsuits focusing on dangerous structures would not be possible. However, there's one slight issue there, and that is clause 3, which very clearly states, 'Prohibits nuisance lawsuits against those engaging in agricultural activities who use accepted and standard agricultural practices that have been in prior operation.' As I've argued before and mentioned numerous times within these closed forums of the General Assembly, dangerous structures clearly are in violation of standard and accepted agricultural practices."

"Your delegation instead may need to review GAR#122."

[Mockia]

I actually vote FOR this proposal, and will implement it even if it doesn't pass. I'm Mockia, I can do whatever I want.

[Inven]

(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, "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.

I disagree. Freedom to farm meaning that the environment will be ruined.