SENATE BILL: Freedom to Roam Act (Failed)

[Former President tack50]

Well, during the lockdown period, I started to go on long walks around my house (after it was legalized, during much of the period even that was illegal).

Anyways, there I noticed the relatively large amounts of unused land which presumably has an owner as well as just how much land was blocked off. I also was inspired by finding about this principle that is most characteristic of Scandinavia.

This bill tries to incorporate that Scandinavian principle into Atlasia. Tbh I probably messed it up in the process but I suppose maybe in the House things can get fixed.

This bill essencially allows farmers and what not to only block off currently improved land, but not unimproved wilderness nor access to rivers or lakes unless they are encircled by improved land. It also establishes limitations on the people walking (no hunting on private property or national parks, people are still banned from active military bases, etc)

[Former President tack50]

Why would the house need to fix it, we can amend in the Senate too Tack, before we pass something?


I have some concerns about clause three. And not just with the whole "areas used actively used" wording issues, which need to be fixed here not in the House. When I was House Speaker, I loathed receiving trashy Senate bills.

Beyond that concern, I am worried about the risk of damage to private property that could occur via littering, arson, negligence or polluting. The bill does a hand wave with number 8, but even if that is the case there is the issue of liability and also recouping loss. Just because the bill says it is still not allowed, we aren't providing any assurance that any damage will be fixed or repaired or monetary value of such forfeited.

Since we are forcing them to allow these people onto their land with little in the way of tangible or concrete means to protect such people, this means that such land could be damaged or rendered unusable down the road and thus cost the owner lost earning from said land, or value of said land at a future sale.

My thought was that since this was a Scandinavia-inspired bill, Elcaspar could help when he received it in the House, but I suppose nothing stops him from coming here (I will send him a PM just in case)

I agree that maybe there should be stronger protections about damage to private property like littering, arson and negligence. I would certainly support an amendment that allows for easier prosecution of those crimes and/or forces infractors to pay up for the property damage they caused.

Re: Areas actively used, I suppose maybe it could be changed to some other wording?

I can't support this bill. As someone from a rural area, I can tell you this will cause so many problems.

Could you further specify what problems this would cause? (as an urbanite myself, even if I live more in like a suburb )

[Former President tack50]

The amendment is friendly

[Former President tack50]

So if I understand correctly the camping provision should be removed?

As for sections 6 and 8, I don't think this bill will affect them much more than it currently happens.

I will say that people are not really allowed to "do whatever they want". I suppose maybe a provision to stop people from using fire or creating barbeques might need to be added but other than that I can't think of anything else that would be destructive and that would also be illegal.

Really this bill only makes it so that if you own a random piece of forest and are doing nothing with it, you need to let people go through it. I don't think people should impede access to your land if you are not going to use it for anything and are just going to sit there with it.

[Former President tack50]

I thought Jimmy was going to be the one to introduce it but I can do it if he doesn't want and we need a compromise

[Former President tack50]

Well I object

This nukes most of the bill. I suppose no room for compromises here

[Former President tack50]

Nay

[Former President tack50]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

Just part of the Liebor plan to abolish private property and seize the means of production of course 

Now seriously, I personally think that is a hyperbolic statement.

If you own, for some reason a bunch of absolutely empty countryside with nothing in it, why should people not be allowed to enter? I do know that sometimes fields need to be left without cultivation so that they can recover the nutrients and what not (not sure to what extent fertilizers have made this obsolete though but I suppose it is still a thing to at least some degree). However I would argue that those kinds of land would be covered by this bill.

It's not even like the property title is being taken away from you, you are still able to fencethat empty field or forest or whatever if you start using it for productive purposes.

[Former President tack50]

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "productive purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

I know I won't get an answer to this, but bumping it.

Like I say, if you are doing nothing with the land, you should at the very least allow people to walk through it, assuming they aren't doing any harm. The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

If need be, I suppose I can add a provision to clarify that no buildings can be trespassed on, only the

Ironically I am relatively harsh on evicting people from buildings and houses and think evictions should be quick and easy (at least those owned by private individuals, for those owned by banks or large corporations I am less worried about). However, I do not think that said principle applies to rural pieces of empty countryside used for literally nothing.

[Former President tack50]

Motion for a final vote

[Former President tack50]

Yes, I motion for cloture

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

Ok so what are we waiting for here?

[Former President tack50]

Ok, second try then

Motion for a final vote

[Former President tack50]

As for the law enforcement question Ted Bessell proposes, the answer is super simple; law enforcement  and police would also be allowed to enter, just like any other citizen. I don't think this would create any more shady drug deals or whatever.

While I said this on my opening statement (2 months ago lol), I will elaborate on what made me introduce this bill. After the stay at home orders were fully lifted, I started going on walks to keep some of my sanity during these troubled times. I live in a suburban area but there is certainly plenty of countryside to be enjoyed where I live.

I had a couple of instances where I was unable to keep my walks through the countryside because suddenly there was "private property" despite there being absolutely nothing along the way (I've been able to confirm this through high-res satellite images) and despite them being marked as public access paths on Google Maps. In one particular case this cost me a 1 hour detour.

I really don't think you should stop people from passing through a certain piece of land if you are not doing anything useful with it. If you own a forest of several hectares, and are using it for timber, or cultivation sure that is fine with me. If you own a parcel of land that you are not cultivating for a particular and justified reason that is also fine by me. But if there is a piece of land that is truly wild countryside and several hectares in size; what is the point of stopping people from walking in it?

So therefore, after thinking about it, if it helps; there could be some sort of "minimum parcel size" required for this bill to start being applied, so that if you own a piece of land that can be described more accurately as an "oversized garden" than as a plantation; sure this doesn't apply.

[Former President tack50]

I don't think any amendments would solve anything so I motion for cloture.

If this fails I guess we can try tabling instead.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

Aye