[SHAFTED] Affordable Housing Act and Initiative

[Berhakonia]

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the ongoing unemployment crisis and lack of affordable housing across in numerous nations.

CONCERNED by the general ineffectiveness of government and/or private intervention in curtailing this disaster.

APPALLED by the underhanded business practices and abuses of benefactors and elements involved in propagating the crisis.

UNDERSTANDING the human toll of the crisis and the potential for political escalation if left unchecked.

DETERMINED to enforce stricter codes and guidelines on real estate practices deemed predatory or malignant to the principles of a free market economy.

DEFINES:

I. Housing as any privately-owned property serving the primary function of providing residence.

II. Afforable Housing as residence that can be afforded by the lowest tax bracket or bottom 10% income range of any given member of the WA.

III. Predatory Business Practice as any private or publically-sanctioned action or transaction, scalping, speculation or otherwise, through direct or indirect means, responsible for exponential inflation in value of residential properties.

MANDATES the following provisions to be enforced:

I. Regarding rogue landlords and property agents:

Ia. Defining rogue landlords as any property-owning party who abuses the terms of contract when leasing out property to a tenant.

Ib. Mandating that a banning order be made against the offending landlord or property agent, limiting the number of properties said landlord or property agent is allowed to purchase over a time frame set by state legislators.

Ic. Allowing a rent repayment order to be made against the offending landlord or property agent.

II. Regarding mortgages and private purchase:

IIa. Pressing state actors to lend loans to banking institutions to cover the security deposit of a mortgage.

IIb. Granting private individuals to petition state bodies for mortgage forgiveness; and

IIc. Mandating state bodies to directly cover the remaining mortgage payment.

III. Regarding scalping and foreign investment:

IIIa. Places a limit on the number of properties that can be held by foreign investors at a time, based on property value.

IIIb. Blacklisting any such firms found guilty of scalping and/or underhanded speculation.

IV. Regarding planning and zoning:

IVa. Designating appropriate building slots to corresponding projects.

IVb. Mandating state oversight over designated residential zones.

IVc. Granting state actors the power to intervene against zoning violations

V. Regarding public housing and homeless shelters:

Va. Defining public housing as any residence, provided by the state to individuals, families or otherwise with low or no income.

Vb. Requiring state bodies to designate a portion exceeding 25% and no more than 35% of the national housing budget on the development of land for public housing projects.

Vc. Permitting government bodies the ability to delegate funding for projects to private firms who are not held in comtempt of the provisions of the Act.

VI. Regarding credit and debt:

VIa. Defining debt as any deficit incrued through negative financing or loans, owed to the lender or creditor.

VIb. Defining a creditor as any person, institution or otherwise whom extends credit by granting the buyer permission to borrow money intended to be repaid in the future.

VIc. Requiring any transaction by which a person becomes indebted to a creditor is to be treated as the making of a loan from the creditor to the person.

VId. Limiting the amount of debt one is allowed to incur from any given creditor

VIe. Preventing any creditor from demanding equity exceeding this limit.

VII. Regarding repair and reaquisition of abandoned properties:

VIIa. Defining abandoned properties as any foreclosed or unoccupied property, that is neither a historical nor protected site as defined by World Assembly Resolution #287, nor presents a hazard to public health, that has remained in such state for a period exceding five years.

VIIb. Mandating that state bodies, through agencies, must make loans to reaquire, restore or rennovate abandoned properties.

VIII. Regarding student housing and loans:

VIIIa. Requiring mandatory contributions be granted to post-secondary students and institutions

VIIIb. Permiting debt-forgiveness to post-secondary students and institutions within bounds of the agreement as decided by the government

IX. Compulsory repurchase of any property belonging to an offending party of any act of the provisions listed above.

Hereby enforces the Affordable Housing Act and Initiative and obligates all members of the World Assembly to follow each provision.

[Bears Armed]

Category, and Strength or Area of Effect?

I see the definitions, but where are the actual "provisions" that it "Hereby enforces"?
(If you refer to some piece of RL legislation then that makes this proposal illegal...)

[Cappedore]

Adding on to BA's reply ^^, This UK Parliament Bill might help but I'm no expert so take it with a pinch of salt.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... ts/enacted

[Berhakonia]

Adding on to BA's reply ^^, This UK Parliament Bill might help but I'm no expert so take it with a pinch of salt.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... ts/enacted

Noted, I'll review this in the morning and modify my proposal

[Berhakonia]

Category, and Strength or Area of Effect?

I see the definitions, but where are the actual "provisions" that it "Hereby enforces"?
(If you refer to some piece of RL legislation then that makes this proposal illegal...)

Updated the OP with the modified provisions and area of effect. Let me know if there are still problems I haven't addressed.

[Minskiev]

Would homeless shelters fall under permanent or formal housing? Also neat flag

[Berhakonia]

Would homeless shelters fall under permanent or formal housing? Also neat flag

Neither formal nor permanent

[Tinhampton]

DEFINES:

I. Homelessness as the status of any individual, family or otherwise, having not resided in permanent or formal housing for a period of 6 months or greater.

II. Housing as any privately-owned property serving the primary function of providing residence.

III. Afforable Housing as residence that can be afforded by the lowest tax bracket or bottom 10% income range of any given member of the WA.

II. Predatory Business Practice as any private or publically-sanctioned action or transaction, scalping, speculation or otherwise, through direct or indirect means, responsible for exponential inflation in value of residential properties.

Exactly none of your definitions are referenced in any capacity outside of your definitions section. (This makes Minskiev's question completely irrelevant.)

[Berhakonia]

DEFINES:

I. Homelessness as the status of any individual, family or otherwise, having not resided in permanent or formal housing for a period of 6 months or greater.

II. Housing as any privately-owned property serving the primary function of providing residence.

III. Afforable Housing as residence that can be afforded by the lowest tax bracket or bottom 10% income range of any given member of the WA.

II. Predatory Business Practice as any private or publically-sanctioned action or transaction, scalping, speculation or otherwise, through direct or indirect means, responsible for exponential inflation in value of residential properties.

Exactly none of your definitions are referenced in any capacity outside of your definitions section. (This makes Minskiev's question completely irrelevant.)

I edited the OP to include provisions on public housing, credit and predatory practices, where else should I reference these terms?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Unfortunately the [shared] computer that I'm currently using has only 'WordPad' rather than a full version of 'Word', and therefore lacks the 'Character Count'facility... but just looking at the draft leaves me wondering whether it might be too long.
(For the information of anybody reading this who didn't already know, the maximum length possible for a proposal is 5'000 characters... counting not only letters and numbers but also all of the punctuation, spaces, and line-breaks.)
Maybe it would be a good idea for somebody to check this?

Some of the clauses look as though they might have been copy/pasted from RL legislation, which would -- information provided here in case the author wasn't already aware of the fact -- make the proposal illegal.

There are several places where this text refers to placing limits, restrictions, and so on, but neither sets the details of those directly nor -- which would be my preferred approach -- nominates any particular class of national &/or local agencies to set the details.
Re '1b', it would probably be helpful to explain what a "banning order" does.

Re clause 'VIII', this apparently requires the conversion of "historic" ruins -- the remains of 'slighted' medieval castles, for example -- into modern housing regardless of [for example] either the cultural importance of those sites in their current condition or the relative impracticability (compared to just building modern housing from scratch on other sites) of those projects. OPPOSED
(In fact, with its lack of any upper limit set on the length of time since previous habitation, it would apparently apply even to caves that were inhabited only during the Paleolithic..)


Many on the right are going to hate this because of the powers that it gives to governments, many (probably more?) on the left are going to hate this because of the rights that it gives to private enterprise.

[Berhakonia]

OOC: Unfortunately the [shared] computer that I'm currently using has only 'WordPad' rather than a full version of 'Word', and therefore lacks the 'Character Count'facility... but just looking at the draft leaves me wondering whether it might be too long.
(For the information of anybody reading this who didn't already know, the maximum length possible for a proposal is 5'000 characters... counting not only letters and numbers but also all of the punctuation, spaces, and line-breaks.)
Maybe it would be a good idea for somebody to check this?

Some of the clauses look as though they might have been copy/pasted from RL legislation, which would -- information provided here in case the author wasn't already aware of the fact -- make the proposal illegal.

There are several places where this text refers to placing limits, restrictions, and so on, but neither sets the details of those directly nor -- which would be my preferred approach -- nominates any particular class of national &/or local agencies to set the details.
Re '1b', it would probably be helpful to explain what a "banning order" does.
Re clause 'VIII', this apparently requires the conversion of "historic" ruins -- the remains of 'slighted' medieval castles, for example -- into modern housing regardless of [for example] either the cultural importance of those sites in their current condition or the relative impracticability (compared to just building modern housing from scratch on other sites) of those projects. OPPOSED



Many on the right are going to hate this because of the powers that it gives to governments, many (probably more?) on the left are going to hate this because of the rights that it gives to private enterprise.

I'll be sure to trim down some of the superfluous adendums from this draft, I'll address the issue with historical and protected sites in the morning.

[Berhakonia]

As for the private vs public powers thing, I don't think I'm going to be able to please everyone with this legislation, and I'm not sure how I'd be able to address one side without angering the other, or rendering the proposal functionally useless.

[Berhakonia]

OOC: Unfortunately the [shared] computer that I'm currently using has only 'WordPad' rather than a full version of 'Word', and therefore lacks the 'Character Count'facility... but just looking at the draft leaves me wondering whether it might be too long.
(For the information of anybody reading this who didn't already know, the maximum length possible for a proposal is 5'000 characters... counting not only letters and numbers but also all of the punctuation, spaces, and line-breaks.)
Maybe it would be a good idea for somebody to check this?

Some of the clauses look as though they might have been copy/pasted from RL legislation, which would -- information provided here in case the author wasn't already aware of the fact -- make the proposal illegal.

There are several places where this text refers to placing limits, restrictions, and so on, but neither sets the details of those directly nor -- which would be my preferred approach -- nominates any particular class of national &/or local agencies to set the details.
Re '1b', it would probably be helpful to explain what a "banning order" does.

Re clause 'VIII', this apparently requires the conversion of "historic" ruins -- the remains of 'slighted' medieval castles, for example -- into modern housing regardless of [for example] either the cultural importance of those sites in their current condition or the relative impracticability (compared to just building modern housing from scratch on other sites) of those projects. OPPOSED
(In fact, with its lack of any upper limit set on the length of time since previous habitation, it would apparently apply even to caves that were inhabited only during the Paleolithic..)


Many on the right are going to hate this because of the powers that it gives to governments, many (probably more?) on the left are going to hate this because of the rights that it gives to private enterprise.

Just one quick question, does the WA have a formal definition for a cultural heritage site? Cause if not, I feel like I would go over the word limit just defining what one is.

[Bears Armed]

Just one quick question, does the WA have a formal definition for a cultural heritage site?

The closest that it currently comes to one is in viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=19281851&hilit=heritage+site#p19281851 .

Note that in some cases certain former residences might be left unoccupied on purpose, and maybe even be demolished with the intention that the site never be inhabited again, due to infamy rather than to 'cultural heritage' value as such: For one RL example, see "25, Cromwell Street, Gloucester".

EDIT: and then there are sites being abandoned for residential purposes because they are in areas now set aside for environmental preservation purposes, or now too heavily polluted (or contaminated with unexploded munitions) for reasonably safe habitation, or now too seriously threatened by natural or anthropogenic hazards of other kinds for reasonably safe habitation, or now in border zones where habitation is considered unwise even if it is not banned outright by treaties... or simply because the local population has declined in number beyond the level at which they would be needed...
This is probably too complex a subject for "one-size-fits-all" international legislation, at least at the level of detail for which you have been aiming rather than just as a vaguer injunction for member nations to ensure that affordable housing is available for those of their [legal] residents who want/need this. (And don't we already have that as part of an existing resolution, anyway?)

________________________________________________________________________________________

At the library now, using a public-access computer there, I was able to do a length check: It says 6'545 characters, and I know that that version of Word tends to underestimate slightly compared to the system that NS uses (due to differing values assigned for line-breaks?) so the effective length at present is probably closer to 6'600.

[The Great Boom]

Our delegation has a laundry list of issues with this, but they mostly revolve around how infeasible and unhelpful this is. Mandating that nations establish committees to solve a problem the nation isn't solving is worse then useless, especially as you don't seem to mandate those committees to do anything. I would go further in my criticism of this but it's not concise enough to be worth the effort. Though I will add that I think you're going to run into a great deal of objection to your statement that homelessness is an epidemic in WA Nations. You haven't provided any proof and I'm not aware that any exists. Near as I can tell, Nationstates doesn't even bother to track it in anyone's nations. Any many nations, like The Great Boom, have robust guarantees to housing as a human right. So an international housing crisis and a greedy landlord cabal seem like dubious claims

[Berhakonia]

Our delegation has a laundry list of issues with this, but they mostly revolve around how infeasible and unhelpful this is. Mandating that nations establish committees to solve a problem the nation isn't solving is worse then useless, especially as you don't seem to mandate those committees to do anything. I would go further in my criticism of this but it's not concise enough to be worth the effort. Though I will add that I think you're going to run into a great deal of objection to your statement that homelessness is an epidemic in WA Nations. You haven't provided any proof and I'm not aware that any exists. Near as I can tell, Nationstates doesn't even bother to track it in anyone's nations. Any many nations, like The Great Boom, have robust guarantees to housing as a human right. So an international housing crisis and a greedy landlord cabal seem like dubious claims

I will take this into consideration when revising my draft. Most of what I have right now is based off the Canadian National Housing Act, but I will edit the OP to make it more tailor-fit for NS nations.

[Berhakonia]

Our delegation has a laundry list of issues with this, but they mostly revolve around how infeasible and unhelpful this is. Mandating that nations establish committees to solve a problem the nation isn't solving is worse then useless, especially as you don't seem to mandate those committees to do anything. I would go further in my criticism of this but it's not concise enough to be worth the effort. Though I will add that I think you're going to run into a great deal of objection to your statement that homelessness is an epidemic in WA Nations. You haven't provided any proof and I'm not aware that any exists. Near as I can tell, Nationstates doesn't even bother to track it in anyone's nations. Any many nations, like The Great Boom, have robust guarantees to housing as a human right. So an international housing crisis and a greedy landlord cabal seem like dubious claims

I have trimmed away superfluous details regarding committees and designated more direct power to state bodies to enforce legislation against abuses. I've also changed homelessness to unemployment (a metric that NS actually measures), and modified some of the clauses to fit with other NS nations.

What other details should I change to make this more in-world?

[Berhakonia]

/bump

[Bananaistan]

"Is there any particular reason why member states can't manage all this on their own within the broad requirements of GAR#344?"

[Berhakonia]

"Is there any particular reason why member states can't manage all this on their own within the broad requirements of GAR#344?"

Section 1 is too vague on definition of housing (does not include definition at all and can be interpreted any which way by state bodies, unless another past resolution defines it in bettet detail).

Section 3 is far too vague and guarentees minimum income over meaningful shelter. Does not address bad faith creditors, debt traps, rogue property agents, etc. and can be interpreted any number of ways and allows for gross loopholesto be exploited.

Section 4c is too vague and could be interpreted any number of ways, possibly excluding students, housewives and the homeless from the bill. While the homeless are not entitled to minimum income, this bill at least seeks to grant them access to shelter.

Section 5a is the complete antithesis to this bill; a large-scale unemployment crisis can be considered an economic crisis, and this bill seeks to ameliorate these crises through legislation, not allow member states to exempt themselves because of them.

Suggest any corrections to this draft if you feel that it equally fails to address the aforementioned criticisms, I hope to make this draft as bulletproof as possible.

[Bananaistan]

"Is there any particular reason why member states can't manage all this on their own within the broad requirements of GAR#344?"

Section 1 is too vague on definition of housing (does not include definition at all and can be interpreted any which way by state bodies, unless another past resolution defines it in bettet detail).

Section 3 is far too vague and guarentees minimum income over meaningful shelter. Does not address bad faith creditors, debt traps, rogue property agents, etc. and can be interpreted any number of ways and allows for gross loopholesto be exploited.

Section 4c is too vague and could be interpreted any number of ways, possibly excluding students, housewives and the homeless from the bill. While the homeless are not entitled to minimum income, this bill at least seeks to grant them access to shelter.

Section 5a is the complete antithesis to this bill; a large-scale unemployment crisis can be considered an economic crisis, and this bill seeks to ameliorate these crises through legislation, not allow member states to exempt themselves because of them.

Suggest any corrections to this draft if you feel that it equally fails to address the aforementioned criticisms, I hope to make this draft as bulletproof as possible.

"My suggestion would be to lose all the extreme micromanagement.

"These issues listed here.

"Section 1 definition is not vague. Stripping it down to this topic it states that housing must be at a minimum level for people to "remain reasonably healthy, safe and productive".

"Section 3 is also not vague.

"Section 4 is reasonable. People think that there are all sorts of positive rights that they're entitled to at great cost to all the rest of society. There's no such thing as a free lunch. And member states are absolutely entitled to demand that everyone contributes to the best of their ability to do so.

"Under the standing orders of this assembly, you can't here have something that's the "complete antithesis" to existing legislation. (OOC: watch out for contradiction, as I said in the other thread, if one resolution explicitly grants permission to member states to do X, then another cannot mandate that they don't do X.)"

[Araraukar]

OOC: Why is housing defined as privately owned? Makes no sense.

EDIT: Also, this resolution exists: GA #344, Minimum Standard of Living Act.

[Berhakonia]

I think I might just drop this draft entirely and write a new one tragetting bad-faith creditors and money lenders. Can someone confirm whether or not such legislation already exists?

[Araraukar]

I think I might just drop this draft entirely and write a new one tragetting bad-faith creditors and money lenders. Can someone confirm whether or not such legislation already exists?

OOC: Search this thread (don't post in it!): viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

[Berhakonia]

/bumping this so I have something to reference later