[Draft] Enacting Building Safety

[Terttia]

A proposal that I thought of; I don’t see a resolution that regulates building safety.

Draft 1:

Enacting Building Safety
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Safety | Proposed By: Terttia

The World Assembly,

Lamenting the current condition of some member states’ buildings’ safety,

Hoping to enact uniform building safety regulations throughout member states,

Aspiring to protect the citizens of member states,

Seeking to improve the safety of buildings throughout member states,

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution
   
   
   1. a “building” as a pre-planned, enclosed structure on a plot of land designated for public use,
      
      
   2. “evacuation procedures” as pre planned procedures that ensure the evacuation of a building;
2. Establishes the World Assembly Commission for Building Safety (WACBS);
   
   
3. Empowers the WACBS with
   
   
   1. creating uniform signs and signals for the purposes of evacuation procedures
      
      
   2. researching and enacting uniform building safety codes taking in to consideration of environmental conditions, including
      
      
      1. structural integrity,
         
         
      2. evacuation procedures,
         
         
      3. fire safety, and
         
         
      4. electrical safety;
4. Mandates that member states align their building safety code with that of the WACBS, including private-turned-public buildings;
   
   
5. Exempts public-turned-private buildings from the WACBS’s building safety code;
   
   
6. Encourages member states to further legislate on the subject of building safety.

As of now, I believe there are more things that the WACBS could regulate in 3(b).

Edit 1: Added “exempts” clause.

Edit 2: Added “pursuing” clause.

Edit 3: Revised building definition.

Edit 4: Changed “pursuing” to “seeking” for word flow. Also added “to improve the safety of buildings throughout member states” to create subject-verb agreement and for clarity, added that that goal is sought in member states.

Edit 5: Placed quotation marks (“) around defined words for clarity.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Against, more unnecessary interference.

[Liberimery]

Why do Nations that are in areas with no earthquakes required to meet earthquake proofing?

[The New Nordic Union]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution
[...] a building as a pre-planned structure,

OOC: This definition is overly broad and encompasses nearly everything. A car is a pre-planned structure. As is a cake. As is a chair.

[Kenmoria]

“A lot of this seems to be micromanagement; building codes are often locally-set, not by a supranational organisation. Evacuation codes may differ based on environments and how local procedures work.”

[Maowi]

"I find myself in agreement with the Kenmorian delegation. As written, what this proposal addresses is not worthy of international law. If you are determined to continue with it, I'd suggest potentially scrapping the committee and instead mandating that member states enforce certain minimum standards of safety requirements for buildings. I see no reason why evacuation signs and signals and building safety codes have to be identical across every single member state. Perhaps a more generic approach, focusing on the desired effect of the aforementioned safety requirements rather than their details, could be beneficial here?"

[Terttia]

The intent of this proposal is to enact uniform building codes throughout the WA to standardize member states’ building codes as stated in the preamble, not micromanage the process.

[Kenmoria]

The intent of this proposal is to enact uniform building codes throughout the WA to standardize member states’ building codes as stated in the preamble, not micromanage the process.

(OOC: There’s no real reason to standardise member nation’s building codes, at least not to the level suggested by this proposal. Making member states’ buildings safer is a sensible goal, but I don’t think uniform building codes are the answer.)

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Seems somewhat extreme but reasonable... definitely worthy for people to vote on...(down)

[Terttia]

The intent of this proposal is to enact uniform building codes throughout the WA to standardize member states’ building codes as stated in the preamble, not micromanage the process.

(OOC: There’s no real reason to standardise member nation’s building codes, at least not to the level suggested by this proposal. Making member states’ buildings safer is a sensible goal, but I don’t think uniform building codes are the answer.)

I, on the other hand, find that without standardizing building codes, there will be a conundrum of building codes throughout the WA, making actual legislation hardly useful.

[Liberimery]

(OOC: There’s no real reason to standardise member nation’s building codes, at least not to the level suggested by this proposal. Making member states’ buildings safer is a sensible goal, but I don’t think uniform building codes are the answer.)

I, on the other hand, find that without standardizing building codes, there will be a conundrum of building codes throughout the WA, making actual legislation hardly useful.

To which I must again repeat, to what purpose, do you see that these codes must be in effect? Should I make earthquake proof structures in a part of the world where they are so rare that a tremor that can be felt by some people is a news worthy event? Should I require all houses be built on stilts on the off chance that a house in the middle of a desert might need to rise above flood waters not seen since the age of dinosaurs? Should I require central heating in a house built in the middle of a steamy rainforest so it’s occupants can weather the snowstorms?


Or should I just endure the inevitable homeless crisis that comes from a lack of affordable housing because every development is delayed to the speed of beuacratic micromanage that cost more builders investments on top of procuring all manner of useless safety designs for a myriad of scantly possible apocalyptic scenarios for the region managed. I should applaud your efforts to keep the WA’s wealthy elite safe from the heat of the homeless masses who are roasted alive in the shantytown fire that starts from one poor souls desire for one hot meal on a cold winters night. I should but I’m sure only you would be so myopic as to see why I won’t.

[Terttia]

Or should I just endure the inevitable homeless crisis that comes from a lack of affordable housing because every development is delayed to the speed of beuacratic micromanage that cost more builders investments on top of procuring all manner of useless safety designs for a myriad of scantly possible apocalyptic scenarios for the region managed.

a. a building as a pre-planned structure designed for public use,

I’m pretty sure that houses aren’t designed and built for “public use”.

(OOC: In RL, there are many stringent regulations and restrictions that protect the general public from construction mishaps, etc.)

[Liberimery]

Or should I just endure the inevitable homeless crisis that comes from a lack of affordable housing because every development is delayed to the speed of beuacratic micromanage that cost more builders investments on top of procuring all manner of useless safety designs for a myriad of scantly possible apocalyptic scenarios for the region managed.

a. a building as a pre-planned structure designed for public use,

I’m pretty sure that houses aren’t designed and built for “public use”.

(OOC: In RL, there are many stringent regulations and restrictions that protect the general public from construction mishaps, etc.)

My dentist as a child had an office in what was clearly a structure that was made for private dwelling and there’s all manor of buildings that were used for public accommodations which people converted to houses. To say nothing of private residence that exist over public houses and the loop holes that they have to deal.


OOC: How many are enforced on the world universally? Even unitary states leave building codes to the local governments because they tend to know better about what conditions are needed in that region.

[Terttia]

My dentist as a child had an office in what was clearly a structure that was made for private dwelling and there’s all manor of buildings that were used for public accommodations which people converted to houses. To say nothing of private residence that exist over public houses and the loop holes that they have to deal.

Good point with the dentist; I’ll add something in there that states that private turned public buildings must comply. As with the public turned private, I’ll also add in there that public turned private is exempted from the WACBS’s regulations.

OOC: How many are enforced on the world universally? Even unitary states leave building codes to the local governments because they tend to know better about what conditions are needed in that region.

Probably an immeasurable amount; one could spend a lifetime (most likely) trying to collate the number of building codes passed.

Additionally, I’ll also add that the WACBS must regulate according to environmental conditions.

[The New Nordic Union]

a building as a pre-planned structure designed for public use,

OOC: This is still not what I would expect the definition of a building to be; it is still far too broad, even with the added qualification of public use.

[Kenmoria]

a building as a pre-planned structure designed for public use,

OOC: This is still not what I would expect the definition of a building to be; it is still far too broad, even with the added qualification of public use.

(OOC: The definition includes: sewage systems, power lines, statues intended for public viewing, and a whole host of other structures. I suggest defining a building with a far more stringent set of requirements; looking at other definitions online for inspiration could help.)

[Maowi]

OOC: This is still not what I would expect the definition of a building to be; it is still far too broad, even with the added qualification of public use.

(OOC: The definition includes: sewage systems, power lines, statues intended for public viewing, and a whole host of other structures. I suggest defining a building with a far more stringent set of requirements; looking at other definitions online for inspiration could help.)

OOC: (Make sure you don't plagiarise, though.)

[Terttia]

OOC: This is still not what I would expect the definition of a building to be; it is still far too broad, even with the added qualification of public use.

(OOC: The definition includes: sewage systems, power lines, statues intended for public viewing, and a whole host of other structures. I suggest defining a building with a far more stringent set of requirements; looking at other definitions online for inspiration could help.)

Perhaps I will define building as “a building as a pre-planned structure with walls and a roof designed for public use,”. I think that narrows it down a lot.

Edit: I thought up of a better definition “a building as a pre-planned, enclosed structure on a plot of land designated for public use,”

[Liberimery]

My dentist as a child had an office in what was clearly a structure that was made for private dwelling and there’s all manor of buildings that were used for public accommodations which people converted to houses. To say nothing of private residence that exist over public houses and the loop holes that they have to deal.

Good point with the dentist; I’ll add something in there that states that private turned public buildings must comply. As with the public turned private, I’ll also add in there that public turned private is exempted from the WACBS’s regulations.

OOC: How many are enforced on the world universally? Even unitary states leave building codes to the local governments because they tend to know better about what conditions are needed in that region.

Probably an immeasurable amount; one could spend a lifetime (most likely) trying to collate the number of building codes passed.

Additionally, I’ll also add that the WACBS must regulate according to environmental conditions.

And again I have to ask What specific codes do you see that require international enforcement over local enforcement?! Saying you suspect there are codes that are enforced is not the same as codes you, the guy trying to restrict the flexibility of nations to build to their needs, believe are worth seizing power. You are not speaking to any specifics that can assuage skeptical nations that this is anything other than an over reach (OOC: And you flat out are refusing to point to any super-national body that requires strict one size fits all building codes.)