[PASSED] Homelessness Mitigation and Protections Act

[Xernon]

"Bananaistan opposes the provisions outlining the transfer of wealth from hard working socialists to feckless capitalists, and we urge the proposers to amend this. At what point is a nation "economically unable" to build houses? Is it before or after it refuses to adequately tax its own inhabitants or spends its money on frivolities like nuclear weapons?"

We thank the delegation from Bananaistan for their comments. We find ourselves essentially in agreement The intent here was to focus monetary assistance for poorer nations or nations that are experiencing fiscal crises. The wording however is indeed very vague, and we shall fix that when we publish the next update (likely tonight).

[Tinhampton]

Your Article 4a, as it stands, allow member states to ban any of their inhabitants from "spaces designated for public use" on the basis that they "pose[] a clear risk to public safety in accordance with [their] laws." Since member states are not by resolution restricted in declaring anybody to "pose a clear risk to public safety" (including homeless people who may have no other choice without government assistance but to live and sleep on "public... sidewalks"), nor in providing any reasons for why such a risk may be posed, they may freely do so, provided that it occurs in accordance with law.

4a, as it stands, would give member states significant license to declare that people who are homeless, refuse to put their litter in the bin, openly speak out against their government - or, for that matter, carry out just about any other action which the government doesn't like - all "pose a clear risk to public safety in accordance with [their] laws" and therefore ought to be placed under house arrest (or forcibly moved into a shelter). Of all the "additional solutions" to end homelessness I could think of, this is one of the most terrifying.

[Xernon]

Your Article 4a, as it stands, allow member states to ban any of their inhabitants from "spaces designated for public use" on the basis that they "pose[] a clear risk to public safety in accordance with [their] laws." Since member states are not by resolution restricted in declaring anybody to "pose a clear risk to public safety" (including homeless people who may have no other choice without government assistance but to live and sleep on "public... sidewalks"), nor in providing any reasons for why such a risk may be posed, they may freely do so, provided that it occurs in accordance with law.

4a, as it stands, would give member states significant license to declare that people who are homeless, refuse to put their litter in the bin, openly speak out against their government - or, for that matter, carry out just about any other action which the government doesn't like - all "pose a clear risk to public safety in accordance with [their] laws" and therefore ought to be placed under house arrest (or forcibly moved into a shelter). Of all the "additional solutions" to end homelessness I could think of, this is one of the most terrifying.

We thank ambassador Smith for their astute observation. The intent here is to provide an exception to the clause in cases where an inhabitant poses a threat to the physical safety and well-being of those around them. I'll work to clarify that and update this thread when that is done.

[Xernon]

I have edited the proposal with changes that incorporate the feedback given by the delegations from Bananaistan and Tinhampton. We thank both delegations for their comments and eagerly welcome more feedback from them and the rest of the community.

[Xernon]

Hi all, it's been over two days since I've received feedback on this proposal, so I wanted to bump it for your attention.

Your constructive feedback has been instrumental in getting the resolution to this stage, and I am incredibly thankful to each of you that has commented and pointed out issues/problems. Please continue to do so if you see issues, and I'll do my best to address them. In the event that I don't receive more feedback, I'll change the status of the proposal to "Near Submission" by Sunday and aim to submit on Wednesday.

[Xernon]

Just a final call/reminder that this will be submitted in approximately 36 hours. If you have any comments for me, please lay them forward, and I will address and incorporate them. Thank you so much to everyone who has given me feedback and ideas -- you have been super helpful and kind and I greatly appreciate it.

[Goobergunchia]

We have a couple of minor questions.

Regarding clause 3, does "local housing agencies" extend to sectional branches of the Ministry of Housing, or would this provision require the delegation of authority to provincial and sub-provincial governments?

Is clause 7f intended to protect commercial and industrial property, or second homes that are frequently vacant?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Xernon]

We have a couple of minor questions.

Regarding clause 3, does "local housing agencies" extend to sectional branches of the Ministry of Housing, or would this provision require the delegation of authority to provincial and sub-provincial governments?

Is clause 7f intended to protect commercial and industrial property, or second homes that are frequently vacant?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

I thank Ambassador Evif for their questions. Regarding clause #3, it is up to member nations to fulfill it how they see fit. Personally, I believe the more localized the housing authority is, the more knowledgeable and better able it is to tackle homelessness, but a federalized Ministry of Housing with sectional, local branches also works perfectly fine. The intent here is to to simply establish local housing authorities to provide services to homeless individuals and help address homelessness.

With regards to clause 7f, it essentially protects all properties and property owners from unfair and arbitrary property confiscation. In other words, governments cannot displace individuals from their properties without fair compensation or legal reason. I hope this answers the Ambassadors questions

[Bananaistan]

With regards to clause 7f, it essentially protects all properties and property owners from unfair and arbitrary property confiscation. In other words, governments cannot displace individuals from their properties without fair compensation or legal reason. I hope this answers the Ambassadors questions

"This is problematic. The WA has for good reasons failed to recognise private property rights yet. Slipping it in through the back door in an otherwise inoffensive proposal about homelessness is bad. This should be changed forthwith. Keeping the means of production out of the hands of the proletariat has nothing to do with homelessness, and the same can be said for keeping millionaires in their mansions.

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will have no choice but to oppose this proposal on this account."

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

[Xernon]

With regards to clause 7f, it essentially protects all properties and property owners from unfair and arbitrary property confiscation. In other words, governments cannot displace individuals from their properties without fair compensation or legal reason. I hope this answers the Ambassadors questions

"This is problematic. The WA has for good reasons failed to recognise private property rights yet. Slipping it in through the back door in an otherwise inoffensive proposal about homelessness is bad. This should be changed forthwith. Keeping the means of production out of the hands of the proletariat has nothing to do with homelessness, and the same can be said for keeping millionaires in their mansions.

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will have no choice but to oppose this proposal on this account."

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

I have a lot of respect for the delegation of Bananaistan; however, I disagree in that I really don't view the mandate in clause 7f as controversial. It simply seeks to protect individuals from illegal and arbitrary/forced property seizures.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

And yet Xernon has submitted already...

[Bananaistan]

"This is problematic. The WA has for good reasons failed to recognise private property rights yet. Slipping it in through the back door in an otherwise inoffensive proposal about homelessness is bad. This should be changed forthwith. Keeping the means of production out of the hands of the proletariat has nothing to do with homelessness, and the same can be said for keeping millionaires in their mansions.

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan will have no choice but to oppose this proposal on this account."

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

I have a lot of respect for the delegation of Bananaistan; however, I disagree in that I really don't view the mandate in clause 7f as controversial. It simply seeks to protect individuals from illegal and arbitrary/forced property seizures.

"It protects far more than individuals - it protects the entire capitalist class of exploitative corporations making it virtually impossible for any member state of the WA to transition from capitalism to socialism.

"Forcing socialists to bail out reckless capitalists during the inevitable busts of the boom and bust cycle they can never break out of was bad enough, this is just beyond the pale."

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

And yet Xernon has submitted already...

OOC: Alas.

[Xernon]

OOC: Other feedback to come later.

And yet Xernon has submitted already...

Regardless, we still welcome all feedback.

OOC: I submitted before Bananaistan posted, and it is important to note that I did put this on Final Call for about 3 days and the only comment that came in that time was from Goobergunchia.

"It protects far more than individuals - it protects the entire capitalist class of exploitative corporations making it virtually impossible for any member state of the WA to transition from capitalism to socialism.

"Forcing socialists to bail out reckless capitalists during the inevitable busts of the boom and bust cycle they can never break out of was bad enough, this is just beyond the pale."

It really does not do that, though, lol. It provides no bailouts whatsoever, and there is an exception in the case of foreclosures. I understand where you are coming from, but I believe that you may be over-reading into the clause. In any regard, I respect the delegation from Bananaistan's opposition and I still thank them for their help in the drafting process (and outside of it as well).

[Huago]

It is absurd to spend the money that taxpayers have earned to help these homeless people who are able to work. If there are some who are unable to work, such as the disabled, our country is absolutely capable of supporting those who are unable to work.

[Xernon]

Hi all, I have decided to withdraw the proposal and edit clause 7f to better address the concerns of the delegation from Bananaistan. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused for delegates that have already approved the resolution.

I am putting this back in Final Call for, let's say, 24 hours. If possible, please do checkout the resolution and let me know if you find any other areas that may need tweaking. I'd much rather that I tackle those now than have the WA pass this only to later repeal it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Please don't set arbitrary deadlines. The GA is not a very fast forum, people will read your proposal and offer feedback on it; this process takes time. We don't have legislative counsel or staffers.

[Feyrisshire]

"We still can see problems that Clause 7(f) represent.

"Inhabitant" is vague and not defined and can range to represent a number of situations, such as the "inhabitant" being a poor constituent living in a cottage or working-class tenants in an apartment, to a property owner of say, a 2 million square feet mansion (his residential property) even if theoretically that property owner is still the "inhabitant" by reason that he lives there.

The problem however is that "legal justification" is unduly narrowly defined to mean foreclosure and in a plain reading of Clause 7(f) would bring us to an egregious interpretation that we would need to give "fair compensation" to a property owner of a 2 million square feet mansion just as we would with a poor owner of a small cottage (which would be just).

This is in contravention with the spirit of the resolution esp. with Clause 7 that "member-states shall endeavor to achieve their homelessness reduction milestones" as this prevents member nations to pursue innovative and dynamic ways to achieve homelessness reduction milestones such as confiscation of property without fair compensation or legal justification to provide housing.

In the hypothetical case above for example, simply confiscating the 2 million square feet mansion and giving it to homeless constituents would be in compliance more with the spirit of this resolution than giving "fair compensation"."

[Xernon]

"We still can see problems that Clause 7(f) represent.

"Inhabitant" is vague and not defined and can range to represent a number of situations, such as the "inhabitant" being a poor constituent living in a cottage or working-class tenants in an apartment, to a property owner of say, a 2 million square feet mansion (his residential property) even if theoretically that property owner is still the "inhabitant" by reason that he lives there.

The problem however is that "legal justification" is unduly narrowly defined to mean foreclosure and in a plain reading of Clause 7(f) would bring us to an egregious interpretation that we would need to give "fair compensation" to a property owner of a 2 million square feet mansion just as we would with a poor owner of a small cottage (which would be just).

This is in contravention with the spirit of the resolution esp. with Clause 7 that "member-states shall endeavor to achieve their homelessness reduction milestones" as this prevents member nations to pursue innovative and dynamic ways to achieve homelessness reduction milestones such as confiscation of property without fair compensation or legal justification to provide housing.

In the hypothetical case above for example, simply confiscating the 2 million square feet mansion and giving it to homeless constituents would be in compliance more with the spirit of this resolution than giving "fair compensation"."

We thank the delegation from Feyrisshire for their comments. I'll preface this by stating that "inhabitants" is a commonly used term in GA resolutions used to refer to those residing within a country. Given that it is a relatively well known, self-explanatory word, I have not had any feedback regarding it nor seen any need to define it. Now, with regards to clause 7f, I understand your concerns, however, I don't necessarily agree with how you're interpreting its alignment with the overarching goal of the resolution. This resolution seeks to address homelessness. Homelessness is a global problem in every sense of the word -- it affects rich and poor countries alike, and while the circumstances may differ, the end result is the same -- homelessness leads to negative impacts on the health, well-being, and productivity of homeless individuals and their nations in turn. I state all of this to explain that the purpose of this resolution is to address homelessness first and foremost. Clause 7f protects all inhabitants from losing their home. It protects both the poor as well as those more well off, but ultimately it is the poor that have the most to gain out of this clause as they oftentimes lack the resources necessary to lobby their governments against illegal seizures. As you stated there is a legal exception in place and fair compensation exception, and I think they're fairly well-defined. Now, very respectfully, if you're suggesting that a homelessness strategy be seizing homes from those more well off and utilizing them to house the poor, I will have to disagree. First, this type of mandate would not be sustainable. Second, it is arbitrary and it is absolutely not the angle from which I am legislating this proposal. As the mandates of this resolution show, our delegation is not afraid to propose bold solutions to 1.) prevent homelessness, 2.) reduce homelessness, and 3.) guarantee homeless individuals basic human rights and protections. But we also try to propose solutions that are fair, not disruptive, and designed to help the maximum number of people possible.

[Greater Cesnica]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, "Homelessness Mitigation and Protection Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Caymarnia]

The following is released from the Caymarnian delegation:

Office of the President of the Caymarnian Democratic Republic

Caymarnia has been forced to tackle the problem of homelessness ever since the fall of the Mad Emperor, with portions of the capital destroyed by fighting between the imperial loyalists and our revolutionary armies. My government came to power with the express idea of improving the lot of the Caymarnian people, free of eugenicist tyranny and elitist disregard for the common citizen, and so we have attempted to do. One of the first edicts of the National Council of the People's Will, ratified by the Central Committee of the Communist Liberation Party of Caymarnia, was to institute a "free housing" system - constructing prefab apartment blocks in two new districts of Caymarnigrad to house those affected by the uprising, as well as converting the estates of the former nobility into homeless shelters (including Castle Tsiolivosky, the former imperial residence), while also working to rebuild those districts destroyed in the fighting. I myself lost my home during the war, left only with a camp bed in my old office at army headquarters.

After speaking with our ambassador, as well as attending the vote on the matter in the National Council of the People's Will, I believe that wider assistance for those without the shelter of walls will be for the greater benefit of the people, and as such, Caymarnia adds its voice for the resolution. As stated in prior votes regarding national welfare, a nation is built by its people, especially its working people. The workers are the future of the nation, and it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that they are treated in accordance with their importance to the State.

Juan Carlos Madero
President of the Republic

[Amerion]

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Homelessness Mitigation and Protections Act, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

'No Rec' or No Recommendation indicates a vote where, in the absence of a recommendation from the Office of WA Legislation, the Admiral Delegate General voted according to the majority stance of World Assembly members in the South Pacific.

[Remoleni]

The State of Remoleni is against such and similar laws. The country is not obliged to pay for the living and food of citizens who have no desire to work. We are against the reduction of homeless people so much.

[Xanthorrhoea]

The State of Remoleni is against such and similar laws. The country is not obliged to pay for the living and food of citizens who have no desire to work. We are against the reduction of homeless people so much.

I understand you probably mean that you're against welfare in general, but this is an odd way to phrase it.

Firstly, the proposal explicitly supports homeless people to get work or acquire the skills to do so (see clauses 5 and 7e). From what you've stated, it seem like you'd be in favour of more people working.
Secondly, the way you've worded things, it seems like you'd rather have more homeless people in your nation, which would cost you more?

I assume you meant to say that you don't want to pay for any kind of welfare if you can avoid it? Which is certainly a position you are entitled to have, however much I disagree.

Edit: I just noticed your nation is "democratic socialists," which is hilarious to me.

[Texkentuck]

Ignore all the naysayers to the proposal. If we were members of the WA this proposal would get our support.

Schirkophf
UCCR

[Xernon]

Ignore all the naysayers to the proposal. If we were members of the WA this proposal would get our support.

Schirkophf
UCCR

The State of Remoleni is against such and similar laws. The country is not obliged to pay for the living and food of citizens who have no desire to work. We are against the reduction of homeless people so much.

I understand you probably mean that you're against welfare in general, but this is an odd way to phrase it.

Firstly, the proposal explicitly supports homeless people to get work or acquire the skills to do so (see clauses 5 and 7e). From what you've stated, it seem like you'd be in favour of more people working.
Secondly, the way you've worded things, it seems like you'd rather have more homeless people in your nation, which would cost you more?

I assume you meant to say that you don't want to pay for any kind of welfare if you can avoid it? Which is certainly a position you are entitled to have, however much I disagree.

Edit: I just noticed your nation is "democratic socialists," which is hilarious to me.

Thank you both! I appreciate it!

And to all the World Assembly Delegates and members, I am incredibly grateful for the strong showing of support thus far. Thank you.