[DRAFTING] Affordable Housing Act

[Uruguistan]

*Any help would be greatly appreciated*

Proposed by: Uruguistan
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

UNDERSTANDING that housing is scarce and expensive in some nations, making it inaccessible to the poor.

NOTING that homelessness and quality of life will greatly improve under the Affordable Housing Act.

ACKNOWLEDGING for some nations it may br hard or impossible to provide.

KNOWING that the AHA may be a drain on a nation's economy and GDP.

The AHA will mandate that all WA member nation residential buildings have at least 1/10 of the building devoted to housing the poor, the disadvantaged, and the low-income families. However, this number can be adjusted depending on a nation's need. However, in nations with a shortage of space, that number can be accomplished by using recycled materials and building in underused or unused plots of land. Creation of a National Affordable Housing Commission in every WA member nation to regulate and maintain the housing blocks to ensure the quality of life, safety, and security.

This resolution hereby creates the Affordable Housing Act.

[Calladan]

A third of all housing dedicated to social housing? Calladan is an incredibily welfare happy state, what with the national health system we have, and the large benefit & welfare system we oeprate, but even I think that 1/3 of housing might be...... a tad over the top.

And how would these houses be administered? Would they be Housing Associations? Charities? State run? Private landlords running affordable housing for profit?

I am generally in favour of the idea, but I think more detail as to how you see this working might be helpful

[Separatist Peoples]

*Any help would be greatly appreciated*

Proposed by: Uruguistan
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

UNDERSTANDING that housing is scarce and expensive in some nations, making it unacessbible to the poor.

NOTING that homelessness and quality of life will greatly improve under the Affordable Housing Act.

ACKNOWLEDGING for some nations it may br hard or impossible to provide.

KNOWING that the AHA may be a drain on a nation's economy and GDP.

The AHA will mandate that all WA member nations have at least 10 units per 30 units devoted to housing the poor, the disadvantaged, and the low-income families.

This resolution hereby creates the Affordable Housing Act.

"Ten by thirty units of...what?"

[Uruguistan]

*Any help would be greatly appreciated*

Proposed by: Uruguistan
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

UNDERSTANDING that housing is scarce and expensive in some nations, making it unacessbible to the poor.

NOTING that homelessness and quality of life will greatly improve under the Affordable Housing Act.

ACKNOWLEDGING for some nations it may br hard or impossible to provide.

KNOWING that the AHA may be a drain on a nation's economy and GDP.

The AHA will mandate that all WA member nations have at least 10 units per 30 units devoted to housing the poor, the disadvantaged, and the low-income families.

This resolution hereby creates the Affordable Housing Act.

"Ten by thirty units of...what?"

I'll change it to make it more clear.

[Uruguistan]

A third of all housing dedicated to social housing? Calladan is an incredibily welfare happy state, what with the national health system we have, and the large benefit & welfare system we oeprate, but even I think that 1/3 of housing might be...... a tad over the top.

And how would these houses be administered? Would they be Housing Associations? Charities? State run? Private landlords running affordable housing for profit?

I am generally in favour of the idea, but I think more detail as to how you see this working might be helpful

I changed the requirement to 1/10 of a building devoted to affordable housing and I added the creation of a commission to oversee affordable housing.

[Separatist Peoples]

A third of all housing dedicated to social housing? Calladan is an incredibily welfare happy state, what with the national health system we have, and the large benefit & welfare system we oeprate, but even I think that 1/3 of housing might be...... a tad over the top.

And how would these houses be administered? Would they be Housing Associations? Charities? State run? Private landlords running affordable housing for profit?

I am generally in favour of the idea, but I think more detail as to how you see this working might be helpful

I changed the requirement to 1/10 of a building devoted to affordable housing and I added the creation of a commission to oversee affordable housing.

"And what if nations don't need to create that many housing units? What if they need more? This is an utterly absurd number."

[Wealthatonia]

A third of all housing dedicated to social housing? Calladan is an incredibily welfare happy state, what with the national health system we have, and the large benefit & welfare system we oeprate, but even I think that 1/3 of housing might be...... a tad over the top.

And how would these houses be administered? Would they be Housing Associations? Charities? State run? Private landlords running affordable housing for profit?

I am generally in favour of the idea, but I think more detail as to how you see this working might be helpful

I changed the requirement to 1/10 of a building devoted to affordable housing and I added the creation of a commission to oversee affordable housing.

if we must do this, i can promise it's going to be as cheaply built as possible, we are not going to reward people for failing to be able to provide for themselves or their families.

[Uruguistan]

I changed the requirement to 1/10 of a building devoted to affordable housing and I added the creation of a commission to oversee affordable housing.

"And what if nations don't need to create that many housing units? What if they need more? This is an utterly absurd number."

How about generally at least 1/10 for most nations but can be adjusted depending on need.

[Uruguistan]

I changed the requirement to 1/10 of a building devoted to affordable housing and I added the creation of a commission to oversee affordable housing.

if we must do this, i can promise it's going to be as cheaply built as possible, we are not going to reward people for failing to be able to provide for themselves or their families.

That's fine. At least there are some units available for those who need it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"And what if nations don't need to create that many housing units? What if they need more? This is an utterly absurd number."

How about generally at least 1/10 for most nations but can be adjusted depending on need.

"Alternatively, you could stop trying to drop the bottom out of the housing market by flooding the market with cheap housing. Deliberately creating a surplus of a valuable commodity on which an industry rests is irresponsible."

[Wealthatonia]

How about generally at least 1/10 for most nations but can be adjusted depending on need.

"Alternatively, you could stop trying to drop the bottom out of the housing market by flooding the market with cheap housing. Deliberately creating a surplus of a valuable commodity on which an industry rests is irresponsible."

this is definitely my concern, i don't even think we need to build houses, i would recommend just making a hooverville out of spare parts.

[Uruguistan]

How about generally at least 1/10 for most nations but can be adjusted depending on need.

"Alternatively, you could stop trying to drop the bottom out of the housing market by flooding the market with cheap housing. Deliberately creating a surplus of a valuable commodity on which an industry rests is irresponsible."

But this proposal is not intended for the average worker or the middle-class. This proposal is designed to targeted to help the low-income class get affordable housing and a roof under their heads.

[Uruguistan]

"Alternatively, you could stop trying to drop the bottom out of the housing market by flooding the market with cheap housing. Deliberately creating a surplus of a valuable commodity on which an industry rests is irresponsible."

this is definitely my concern, i don't even think we need to build houses, i would recommend just making a hooverville out of spare parts.

Yes, that would be reasonable. Instead of wasting building space, a nation could use recycled materials and build sustainable housing in unused land.

[Uruguistan]

Wealthatonia proposed using spare parts to build "hoovervilles." That wouldn't be any good but it sparked another idea.

Instead of using space inside buildings, nations could also construct small homes using recycled materials on underused or unused land.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Alternatively, you could stop trying to drop the bottom out of the housing market by flooding the market with cheap housing. Deliberately creating a surplus of a valuable commodity on which an industry rests is irresponsible."

But this proposal is not intended for the average worker or the middle-class. This proposal is designed to targeted to help the low-income class get affordable housing and a roof under their heads.

"By creating a surplus of housing available for purchase, you will sink the cost of all housing, regardless of your intentions. This disincentivizes investment and improvement of real estate and costs the majority of homeowners money, as it devalues their current investments. We will not harm the majority so grievously for a minority of unfortunate individuals. Additionally, its an excessive burden on the state, either publicly developing or subsidizing private development of land, which is an extremely expensive prospect that will not refill the national coffers.

"We are opposed to any measures clearly designed to harm our economies and our citizens."

[Wealthatonia]

But this proposal is not intended for the average worker or the middle-class. This proposal is designed to targeted to help the low-income class get affordable housing and a roof under their heads.

"By creating a surplus of housing available for purchase, you will sink the cost of all housing, regardless of your intentions. This disincentivizes investment and improvement of real estate and costs the majority of homeowners money, as it devalues their current investments. We will not harm the majority so grievously for a minority of unfortunate individuals. Additionally, its an excessive burden on the state, either publicly developing or subsidizing private development of land, which is an extremely expensive prospect that will not refill the national coffers.

"We are opposed to any measures clearly designed to harm our economies and our citizens."

Oh we don't even like it either, but we're making sure we can use as low quality materials as possible should this pass. Rotten Wood can be recycled right?

[Bears Armed]

However, this number can be adjusted depending on a nation's need.

"We would declare our nations' need in this respect to be zero."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.


____________________________________________________________________________


OOC: I'm not sure how the other Secretariat members will respond, but to me that looks perilously close to making the proposal illegal for optionality.

[Calladan]

But this proposal is not intended for the average worker or the middle-class. This proposal is designed to targeted to help the low-income class get affordable housing and a roof under their heads.

"By creating a surplus of housing available for purchase, you will sink the cost of all housing, regardless of your intentions. This disincentivizes investment and improvement of real estate and costs the majority of homeowners money, as it devalues their current investments. We will not harm the majority so grievously for a minority of unfortunate individuals. Additionally, its an excessive burden on the state, either publicly developing or subsidizing private development of land, which is an extremely expensive prospect that will not refill the national coffers.

"We are opposed to any measures clearly designed to harm our economies and our citizens."

We have....... social housing which is not available for purchase. "District Housing" (as we generally call it) is owned by the District, and maintained out of the welfare budget. You can't buy it, you can only rent it. So if people have a need to live in affordable rented accomadtion - because they are temporarily unemployed, or because there are areas of the District that are just too fucking expensive to live in - then they have somewhere to go. It also helps people who are just starting out. Not so much first time buyers, but maybe children who've just moved out of their parents house and are living alone for the first time.

We'd assume that this is the sort of housing that would fall under this proposal. (Although having re-read the latest draft that might not be the case - 1/10th of a building is not the same as 1/10th of the buildings in a country!).

We heartily approve of such a proposal, and - on a related note - do not think property should be a comodity to be traded so that only the wealthiest can end up affording it. However - as has been pointed out before - it is not our place to judge the economic ways of other nations, however barbaric and obscene we might consider them

[Separatist Peoples]

"By creating a surplus of housing available for purchase, you will sink the cost of all housing, regardless of your intentions. This disincentivizes investment and improvement of real estate and costs the majority of homeowners money, as it devalues their current investments. We will not harm the majority so grievously for a minority of unfortunate individuals. Additionally, its an excessive burden on the state, either publicly developing or subsidizing private development of land, which is an extremely expensive prospect that will not refill the national coffers.

"We are opposed to any measures clearly designed to harm our economies and our citizens."

We have....... social housing which is not available for purchase. "District Housing" (as we generally call it) is owned by the District, and maintained out of the welfare budget. You can't buy it, you can only rent it. So if people have a need to live in affordable rented accomadtion - because they are temporarily unemployed, or because there are areas of the District that are just too fucking expensive to live in - then they have somewhere to go. It also helps people who are just starting out. Not so much first time buyers, but maybe children who've just moved out of their parents house and are living alone for the first time.

We'd assume that this is the sort of housing that would fall under this proposal. (Although having re-read the latest draft that might not be the case - 1/10th of a building is not the same as 1/10th of the buildings in a country!).

We heartily approve of such a proposal, and - on a related note - do not think property should be a comodity to be traded so that only the wealthiest can end up affording it. However - as has been pointed out before - it is not our place to judge the economic ways of other nations, however barbaric and obscene we might consider them

Bell rolls his eyes.

"Such an endeavor would cost the majority greatly by upsetting the demand for housing and creating an unexpected swell in supply for the same. The only benefits are for the poorest of the poor. While the C.D.S.P. is committed to aiding the poverty-stricken, we will not do it in a manner that costs the rest of society tens of thousands greenbacks per homeowner, at minimum, in the value of their real estate. This is an untenable trade-off. with no measurable benefits. If it works in your socialized system, great. The C.D.S.P. takes a much less hands-on approach to the personal lives of their citizens, and is unwilling to throw good money after bad in a bottomless tax hole. Thinly veiled accusations of barbarity are wholly unconvincing and entirely unbecoming of one with ambassadorial status. Have the intestinal fortitude to accuse my nation openly."

[Calladan]

We have....... social housing which is not available for purchase. "District Housing" (as we generally call it) is owned by the District, and maintained out of the welfare budget. You can't buy it, you can only rent it. So if people have a need to live in affordable rented accomadtion - because they are temporarily unemployed, or because there are areas of the District that are just too fucking expensive to live in - then they have somewhere to go. It also helps people who are just starting out. Not so much first time buyers, but maybe children who've just moved out of their parents house and are living alone for the first time.

We'd assume that this is the sort of housing that would fall under this proposal. (Although having re-read the latest draft that might not be the case - 1/10th of a building is not the same as 1/10th of the buildings in a country!).

We heartily approve of such a proposal, and - on a related note - do not think property should be a comodity to be traded so that only the wealthiest can end up affording it. However - as has been pointed out before - it is not our place to judge the economic ways of other nations, however barbaric and obscene we might consider them

Bell rolls his eyes.

"Such an endeavor would cost the majority greatly by upsetting the demand for housing and creating an unexpected swell in supply for the same. The only benefits are for the poorest of the poor. While the C.D.S.P. is committed to aiding the poverty-stricken, we will not do it in a manner that costs the rest of society tens of thousands greenbacks per homeowner, at minimum, in the value of their real estate. This is an untenable trade-off. with no measurable benefits. If it works in your socialized system, great. The C.D.S.P. takes a much less hands-on approach to the personal lives of their citizens, and is unwilling to throw good money after bad in a bottomless tax hole. Thinly veiled accusations of barbarity are wholly unconvincing and entirely unbecoming of one with ambassadorial status. Have the intestinal fortitude to accuse my nation openly."

I am not convinced it would upset the demand for housing, because the vast majority of people for whom these houses would be an option are not going to be able to afford a house anyway, so are probably not going to be demanding one.

And the Calladanian (okay - I must be seriously tired, because it took me five goes to spell that correctly) government believes that society as a whole has a duty to support every other part of society as a whole. Partly because we are one nation, and partly because while Miss Jones might be living in her 200,000 coin mansion now, tomorrow she could lose her job and her fortune and find herself in need of help tomorrow.

And as for the comments about barbarity and obscenity - I have to admit that was meant to be light teasing, rather than accusations. I am well aware that my, and my nations, views on welfare, socialised medicine and the role of government are relatively uncommon amongst my fellow Ambassadors and delegates, and I am resigned to that fact during debates such as this. However - rather than get bullish and pigheaded about it, I decided gentle humour, light teasing and so forth might be a better way to go. Because what is life without a little humour in it? (Hence the three smilies at the end of the sentence).

My apologise, Ambassador, for any misunderstanding

[Separatist Peoples]

I am not convinced it would upset the demand for housing, because the vast majority of people for whom these houses would be an option are not going to be able to afford a house anyway, so are probably not going to be demanding one.

"If inexpensive housing is available in large quantities, individuals will preferentially chose the inexpensive option. In order to continue keeping housing inexpensive to rent or own, either rent-control or constant development to meet demand must continue.

"If we choose rent-control, then we incentivize renters to not leave as their rates, over time, become increasingly disproportionate to the actual value of the property. This reduces property alienation, which is an interest society has in ensuring land is used in the most productive sense.

"If we continue to develop to meet the demand for low-cost housing, we increase the supply to the detriment of more expensive property, which necessarily has to charge less to remain competitive. As a result, people are incentivized against investing in or retaining their expensive properties, harming anybody who has equity in real estate of that kind.

And the Calladanian (okay - I must be seriously tired, because it took me five goes to spell that correctly) government believes that society as a whole has a duty to support every other part of society as a whole. Partly because we are one nation, and partly because while Miss Jones might be living in her 200,000 coin mansion now, tomorrow she could lose her job and her fortune and find herself in need of help tomorrow.

"In the C.D.S.P., the only duty citizens have to other citizens is to refrain foreseeable harm to foreseeable victims. There is no duty to support, legally or socially. Miss Jones is responsible for her own fiscal well-being, regardless of her housing value.

"Which is why we feel this measure is not actually beneficial for nations to adopt, and would beg the author to reconsider their policy."

[Osnil Returns]

Why wouldn't we just offer tax incentives to folks that provide housing for the poor?

[Imperium Anglorum]

"If we choose rent-control, then we incentivize renters to not leave as their rates, over time, become increasingly disproportionate to the actual value of the property. This reduces property alienation, which is an interest society has in ensuring land is used in the most productive sense.

NORTH: Why isn't it the case that the landlord would be able to pick the highest paying renter, and therefore find the highest productivity renter? Secondarily, there has never been a rent control system which has ever worked. What invariably happens is that people use under-the-table mechanisms to move from the controlled rate to the market rate — an example of the Coase theorem in practice.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If we choose rent-control, then we incentivize renters to not leave as their rates, over time, become increasingly disproportionate to the actual value of the property. This reduces property alienation, which is an interest society has in ensuring land is used in the most productive sense.

NORTH: Why isn't it the case that the landlord would be able to pick the highest paying renter, and therefore find the highest productivity renter? Secondarily, there has never been a rent control system which has ever worked. What invariably happens is that people use under-the-table mechanisms to move from the controlled rate to the market rate — an example of the Coase theorem in practice.

"If landlords can deny access based on who can pay the most, the property won't remain affordable for low income people for long. The rest is exactly in line with my point."

[Uruguistan]

NORTH: Why isn't it the case that the landlord would be able to pick the highest paying renter, and therefore find the highest productivity renter? Secondarily, there has never been a rent control system which has ever worked. What invariably happens is that people use under-the-table mechanisms to move from the controlled rate to the market rate — an example of the Coase theorem in practice.

"If landlords can deny access based on who can pay the most, the property won't remain affordable for low income people for long. The rest is exactly in line with my point."

However, the affordable housing is government regulated and acceptance for a living solution is solely in the hands of the regulating authority, not the landlord.