NationStates

The World Assembly,

Recognising the need of non-overpriced homes for people to live a confortable life.

Aware of the problem of sky rocketing real estate prices and the need to gradually lowering prices of real estate

Fearing that high real estate prices hinder low income people from having their own houses and middle income families in a lot of debt.

HEREBY:

1. Putting a cap on people from buying real estate in area with population density over 7000 persons per kilometre square at 300 metre square per person in a single year for people who have lived continously in city of buying real estate for more than or equal to 5 years.

2.Putting a cap on people from buying real estate in area with population density over 7000 persons per kilometre square at 100 metre square per person in a single year for people who have lived continously in city of buying real estate for less than 5 years.

3. Putting a cap on people from buying real estate in area with population density over 7000 persons per kilometre square at 2000 metre square per person in a lifetime.

4. Allowing only buildings more than 30 storeys to build in areas with population density more than 10000 people per kilometre square.

Welcome to the World Assembly.

Right off the bat, you’ll want to remove "2020" from the title, as that makes it illegal due to real life references. You’ll also want to remove the periods and replace them with commas, except at the end of the proposal. W.A. laws are supposed to read like one big run on sentence.

But moreover, is there any basis to these numbers? They just kind of look random to me.

As a final note, while I can appreciate putting property measurements in metres (metric gang unite), I’m pretty sure real estate is usually described in terms of feet, even in metric countries (or at least it is in mine). Not sure how much this affects the draft, but something to think about, perhaps.

“Perhaps this is because real estate in Kenmoria mostly consists of buying different levels of housing in corporate compounds, but I’m not quite sure on the purpose of this. How does preventing people from buying real estate in certain areas increase affordability?”

Denathor wrote:But moreover, is there any basis to these numbers? They just kind of look random to me.

As a final note, while I can appreciate putting property measurements in metres (metric gang unite), I’m pretty sure real estate is usually described in terms of feet, even in metric countries (or at least it is in mine). Not sure how much this affects the draft, but something to think about, perhaps.

(OOC: Metric group rise! Anyway, I recommend to the author that they remove measurements from their proposal entirely. Although it is useful to include precise numbers in order to make legislation clearer, the diversity of the GA is such that doing so almost always creates more problems than it would solve. Instead, place the reasoning for those numbers where the numbers previously were.)

OOC: This was submitted. I have marked it illegal for branding as it included the line "Last edited by Kazoo Basin on Wed Sep 16" and because I can't make sense of what the mandates are supposed to be.

Also it is advisable to write clearly and use the present tense in the third person singular, IE puts not putting. IMO "The World Assembly ... hereby putting *something*" makes no sense and is not a valid operative clause.

More relevantly. Your cap for buying real estate appears to be set at a level lower than the existing population density but it's hard to be sure.

(OOC: I strongly recommend withdrawal of the proposal for further drafting. This is a workable idea, but has a very small chance of passing unless it is subject to feedback and criticisms from the players that dwell around here.)

OOC: 100 square metres is an area of land that is 10 metres by 10 metres. You would need minimum of 25 metres by 25 metres (or 625 square metres) to build a small family house and still meet the requirement of minimum distance from your neighbour's house, where I live. So 100 square metres is diddlysquat that you can maybe plant a tree on, but it won't be useful for building.

I also don't get the point of having to live somewhere for 5 years before able to buy enough land to build a house - the best way to get people to move somewhere is to let them buy land to build a house, so...?

Also, why does this keep talking about cities as somewhere to live to meet the requirement, while apparently applying outside of cities too? And preamble talking about families in debt - duh, house building is expensive - while an active clause talks about buildings over 30 storeys high. I've yet to see a single family home over 3 storeys high, so 30 sounds very much excessive. If it's meant to refer to an apartment building, those are not generally speaking built by the future inhabitants, and are generally leased or owned by companies (at least the land on which they're built) instead of private citizens.

This would also appear to force nations to allow foreigners own land, if they've lived in a city for 5 years?

All in all, this tries to do too much, gets concepts muddled up and will need a lot of work to clarify exactly what the author wants it to accomplish.