S.20.2-14: Gatekeeping Kinda Sucks Act (Failed)

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Gatekeeping Kinda Sucks Act

Section 1. Definition
1. "Gated community" shall refer to a form of residential community or housing estate containing strictly controlled entrances for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences.
2. "Publicly accessible" shall refer to an entrance or exit that any member of the public can access by car (unless the subdivision has no car access), bicycle, or on foot.

Section 2. Eating the Rich
1. All residential subdivisions in the Southern Region must have at least one publicly accessible entrance.
 a. This entrance may not be obstructed by a gate, fence, or toll booth.
2. Any residential subdivision currently inaccessible to non-residents or invited guests due to any obstruction must remove said obstruction no later than six months after passage of this act.

Section 3. Clarification
1. This act shall not apply to hotels, motels, or residential apartment or condominium buildings.

Sponsor: Governor MB (D/L - PR)

[reagente]

Gatekeeping Kinda Sucks Act

Section 1. Definition
1. "Gated community" shall refer to a form of residential community or housing estate containing strictly controlled entrances for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences.
2. "Publicly accessible" shall refer to an entrance or exit that any member of the public can access by car (unless the subdivision has no car access), bicycle, or on foot.

Section 2. Eating the Rich
1. All residential subdivisions in the Southern Region must have at least one publicly accessible entrance.
 a. This entrance may not be obstructed by a gate, fence, or toll booth.
2. Any residential subdivision currently inaccessible to non-residents or invited guests due to any obstruction must remove said obstruction no later than six months after passage of this act.

Section 3. Clarification
1. This act shall not apply to hotels, motels, or residential apartment or condominium buildings.

Sponsor: Governor MB (D/L - PR)

I'm curious what Governor MB's rationale for this legislation is. Presently, I do not see any reason to pass it.

[Dr. MB]

Gated communities interfere with two things: freedom of movement and community ties. Blocking access to neighborhoods for non residents serves no purpose except to keep the "other" out and stems from an era where people were discriminated against in housing based on their race. It can give people the feeling they're somehow more entitled than the average person because of where they live.

There's no evidence that gated communities make a place more secure - in fact the opposite can sometimes be true. Trayvon Martin was shot in a gated community. A gate won't stop your average criminal either. Often they're only blocked for cars, any criminal with half a brain can either walk right through or hop the fence. And adding onto that it's usually filled with more expensive houses which means more expensive stuff to steal.

[reagente]

Gated communities interfere with two things: freedom of movement and community ties. Blocking access to neighborhoods for non residents serves no purpose except to keep the "other" out and stems from an era where people were discriminated against in housing based on their race. It can give people the feeling they're somehow more entitled than the average person because of where they live.

There's no evidence that gated communities make a place more secure - in fact the opposite can sometimes be true. Trayvon Martin was shot in a gated community. A gate won't stop your average criminal either. Often they're only blocked for cars, any criminal with half a brain can either walk right through or hop the fence. And adding onto that it's usually filled with more expensive houses which means more expensive stuff to steal.

Although I remain unconvinced of the necessity of this legislation, I thank you for responding.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I support this legislation.

[tmthforu94]

Just based on what I know (which is not a lot on the subject, I'll admit), all gated communities are private property, the roads within are private streets that are privately maintained. This law, in essence, requires them to be public streets, and are now subject to shared maintenance with the city. We're forcing people to let their private land be used for public use.

Which brings up the Right to Property, protected in our regional Bill of Rights:

7. Right to Property — The seizure of private property for public use without just compensation shall be prohibited.

This is still probably constitutional, as the government isn't technically seizing the land, just requiring that all private roads be made public. Still seems like excessive government overreach. To me, the argument isn't about whether gated communities/private roads are good or bad, the question is whether the government should be able to interfere and ban them. Is there any precedence for cities/states doing this? I could see not allowing them for future developments, setting a precedent for the future.

1 question for the Governor: Why did you choose to exclude apartments and condominiums from this? Same with hotels for that matter.

[fhtagn]

tmth already weighed in on this, but would like to note as Southern AG, the bill as written is unconstitutional, and I don't see any argument that can be made otherwise.

I don't have the time to type out a long explanation, but here is a handy resource I would urge sitting Delegates and our Governor to have a look at to have an idea on how gated communities and private roads work:
http://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/local-governmental-entities/gated-communities-private-roads-public-services-practical-guide/

[Dr. MB]

Just based on what I know (which is not a lot on the subject, I'll admit), all gated communities are private property, the roads within are private streets that are privately maintained. This law, in essence, requires them to be public streets, and are now subject to shared maintenance with the city. We're forcing people to let their private land be used for public use.

Which brings up the Right to Property, protected in our regional Bill of Rights:

7. Right to Property — The seizure of private property for public use without just compensation shall be prohibited.

This is still probably constitutional, as the government isn't technically seizing the land, just requiring that all private roads be made public. Still seems like excessive government overreach. To me, the argument isn't about whether gated communities/private roads are good or bad, the question is whether the government should be able to interfere and ban them. Is there any precedence for cities/states doing this? I could see not allowing them for future developments, setting a precedent for the future.

1 question for the Governor: Why did you choose to exclude apartments and condominiums from this? Same with hotels for that matter.

Apartments, condos, and hotels usually have nothing but a parking lot or garage which isn't an actual road. Actual neighborhoods have streets which can be used for many things besides parking your car.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Based on the advice of the Attorney General and the thoughts of the former Governor have provided. I don't think I can vote in favour of this. I would like to hear the thoughts of the other delegate who are still to weigh in on this topic.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

As there have been no further comments. I motion to table. 24 hours to object.


*edit* my typos bugged me too much

[Senator-elect Spark]

As there have been no furhter comments. I motion to table. 24 hours to object.

No objection.

[PragmaticPopulist]

I object.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

I object.

As there has been an objection debate will continue.

Would you like to contribute to the debate at this time, Delegate PragmaticPopulist?

[fhtagn]

Just based on what I know (which is not a lot on the subject, I'll admit), all gated communities are private property, the roads within are private streets that are privately maintained. This law, in essence, requires them to be public streets, and are now subject to shared maintenance with the city. We're forcing people to let their private land be used for public use.

Which brings up the Right to Property, protected in our regional Bill of Rights:

7. Right to Property — The seizure of private property for public use without just compensation shall be prohibited.

This is still probably constitutional, as the government isn't technically seizing the land, just requiring that all private roads be made public. Still seems like excessive government overreach. To me, the argument isn't about whether gated communities/private roads are good or bad, the question is whether the government should be able to interfere and ban them. Is there any precedence for cities/states doing this? I could see not allowing them for future developments, setting a precedent for the future.

1 question for the Governor: Why did you choose to exclude apartments and condominiums from this? Same with hotels for that matter.

To address the bolded bit tmth mentioned, no, the government cannot do that.

[fhtagn]

I object.

As there has been an objection debate will continue.

Would you like to contribute to the debate at this time, Delegate PragmaticPopulist?

We all know it's probably because MB asked him to object on discord, not because he actually has anything to contribute to debate.

[Dr. MB]

amendment:

Gatekeeping Kinda Sucks Act

Section 1. Definition
1. "Gated community" shall refer to a form of residential community or housing estate containing strictly controlled entrances for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences.
2. "Publicly accessible" shall refer to an entrance or exit that any member of the public can access by car (unless the subdivision has no car access), bicycle, or on foot.

Section 2. Eating the Rich
1. All residential subdivisions in the Southern Region must have at least one publicly accessible entrance.
 a. This entrance may not be obstructed by a gate, fence, or toll booth.
2. Any residential subdivision currently inaccessible to non-residents or invited guests due to any obstruction must remove said obstruction no later than six months after passage of this act.

Section 3. Clarification
1. This act shall not apply to hotels, motels, or residential apartment or condominium buildings.

Section 4: Compensation
1. Every subdivision affected by this law shall be compensated to the amount of 10% more of the combined value of the gate, fence, or toll booth.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

amendment:

Gatekeeping Kinda Sucks Act

Section 1. Definition
1. "Gated community" shall refer to a form of residential community or housing estate containing strictly controlled entrances for pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles, and often characterized by a closed perimeter of walls and fences.
2. "Publicly accessible" shall refer to an entrance or exit that any member of the public can access by car (unless the subdivision has no car access), bicycle, or on foot.

Section 2. Eating the Rich
1. All residential subdivisions in the Southern Region must have at least one publicly accessible entrance.
 a. This entrance may not be obstructed by a gate, fence, or toll booth.
2. Any residential subdivision currently inaccessible to non-residents or invited guests due to any obstruction must remove said obstruction no later than six months after passage of this act.

Section 3. Clarification
1. This act shall not apply to hotels, motels, or residential apartment or condominium buildings.

Section 4: Compensation
1. Every subdivision affected by this law shall be compensated to the amount of 10% more of the combined value of the gate, fence, or toll booth.

24 hours for objections. if there are no objections this will be the working version of the bill.

[Senator-elect Spark]

The bill's amendment has been adopted. Motioning for a vote unless an objection is made within 24 hours.

[fhtagn]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to try looking into how much this will cost the South to implement this?

I mean, if y'all are going to discuss completely unnecessary bills that don't actually fix any existing problems, it might be worth doing that at least.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Amendment has been adopted. Final vote open for 48 hours.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Wouldn't it be a good idea to try looking into how much this will cost the South to implement this?

I mean, if y'all are going to discuss completely unnecessary bills that don't actually fix any existing problems, it might be worth doing that at least.

I appreciate your insight. But debate has ceased. If any delegates bring forward such a question we could discuss it further. Have to keep the Chamber moving along.

[reagente]

Nay

[Senator-elect Spark]

After further consideration, I do not believe that the government should be involved in this. Nay.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Nay


Voting as per my previous statement on this matter.

Based on the advice of the Attorney General and the thoughts of the former Governor have provided. I don't think I can vote in favour of this.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Nay