HB 26-07: The Disabled and Needy Rental Fairness Act (Passed)

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Aye

[Joseph Cao]

Vote closed. By a vote of 6-2-0-1, this amendment is adopted.

[Joseph Cao]

I do concur with Sev that some of these locations are not the most optimal for our purposes, so I'll introduce this amendment and see what everyone thinks. Ideally we would loop in regional and local governments' opinions on which areas of their state are best suited for this.

AN ACT
The Housing Reform Act for Needy Atlasians
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Republic of Atlasia in Congress assembled,

Section I. Title & Definitions
i. The long title of this Act shall be the "The Housing Reform Act for Needy Atlasians"

Section II: Fair Rent Provisions
i. All disabled and SSI/SSDI recipients shall not pay more security deposit within the Republic of Atlasia because of their disability or needs.
ia. This includes people with little rental history.
ii Landlords shall be banned from setting monthly rent to income requirements higher than 2-1 within their rental agreements or policies to get into an apartment.
iii. All waitlists shall exclude factors such as income requirements higher than twice the rent or rental history.
iv. All peoples making less then $25,000 per year shall be included within the needy category and shall be included within section ii and iii above.
iva. All people within the needy category must be employed or actively seeking employment.

Section III: Federal Housing
i. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is granted $80 billion to construct affordable modular home complexes.
ii. These complexes will provide housing for those who cannot adequately provide for themselves.
iii. The complexes should be able to house up to 10,000 people.
iiia. The recommended locations for construction of the complexes are Colby, KS, Ellisville, MS; Grayson, KY; just outside of Gresham, OR; just outside of Tacoma, WA; just outside of Boise, ID; just outside of Dallas, TX; just outside of San Fransisco, CA; just outside New York, NY; just outside of Chicago, IL; and just outside of Fort Meyers, FL. Federal and local leaders may recommend additional locations. All recommended locations shall be subject to HUD approval based on federal and local assessment of their suitability for added housing.
iiib. Each unit shall be between 400 and 500 square feet of living space.
iiic. Each unit shall meet the electrical and plumbing requirements determined by HUD.
iiid. "Just outside" means within 75 miles of labeled city.
iv. Residents will receive a monthly stipend of $700.
iva. Residents will have access to work opportunities to earn more money.
v. HUD shall work with the regional and local governments to ensure that homeless populations are matched with a home.
Section IV. Expansion of Subsidies
i. HUD is granted $10 billion to expand rent subsidies for low-income and disabled Atlasians
ia. Preference will be given to SSI/SSDI recipients.
ii. These subsidies shall not exceed 50% of rent or $700 per renter, whichever is greater.
Section V: Transportation subsidies
I. For Transportation for all disabled and needy approved residents of section III.
II. All that are approved shall get free government paid airplane, grayhound bus or train tickets.
III. The government shall grant 30 million dollars yearly for this program.
IIIa money shall be doled out by HUD.

[Joseph Cao]

so I'll introduce this amendment and see what everyone thinks.

This implies a certain level of response from the rest of the House, including whether or not the sponsor thinks this amendment is friendly. Recommendations are good and all but they’re not covered under parliamentary procedure.

[SevenEleven]

I can't speak for the sponsor, but I think this amendment is a more effective way to deal with the issue at hand.

[OBD]

Woops my brain shorted and I forgot to respond - the amendment is certainly an improvement to the bill though I still have issues with the philosophy to the bill. The homeless crisis won't be solved by dumping them in the exurbs.

[Rep Jessica]

so I'll introduce this amendment and see what everyone thinks.

This implies a certain level of response from the rest of the House, including whether or not the sponsor thinks this amendment is friendly. Recommendations are good and all but they’re not covered under parliamentary procedure.

I like the amendment so it is friendly.

[SevenEleven]

Woops my brain shorted and I forgot to respond - the amendment is certainly an improvement to the bill though I still have issues with the philosophy to the bill. The homeless crisis won't be solved by dumping them in the exurbs.

What will solve it, then? And no, it's not dumping them, it's housing them. This allows us to build affordable housing without recreating the tenements.

[OBD]

Woops my brain shorted and I forgot to respond - the amendment is certainly an improvement to the bill though I still have issues with the philosophy to the bill. The homeless crisis won't be solved by dumping them in the exurbs.

What will solve it, then? And no, it's not dumping them, it's housing them. This allows us to build affordable housing without recreating the tenements.

The difficulty is ensuring that these folks can access job opportunities when they're so far from city centers - if public transit is good, this isn't as much of an issue, but in some of these locations that's not the case. As there's an employment stipulation, that's a pretty big problem.

[SevenEleven]

The only homeless dumping going on has been to our beautiful cities, where thousands of homeless come from all over the country because they can at least have some sense of community and enough supply of people to panhandle. As it turns out, being homeless in a working class town of 20k people is a lot tougher than a plentiful coastal city.

[SevenEleven]

Woops my brain shorted and I forgot to respond - the amendment is certainly an improvement to the bill though I still have issues with the philosophy to the bill. The homeless crisis won't be solved by dumping them in the exurbs.

What will solve it, then? And no, it's not dumping them, it's housing them. This allows us to build affordable housing without recreating the tenements.

The difficulty is ensuring that these folks can access job opportunities when they're so far from city centers - if public transit is good, this isn't as much of an issue, but in some of these locations that's not the case. As there's an employment stipulation, that's a pretty big problem.

The bill provides work opportunities within the complex, the only way these people aren't working is they abjectly refuse to participate.

[OBD]

Woops my brain shorted and I forgot to respond - the amendment is certainly an improvement to the bill though I still have issues with the philosophy to the bill. The homeless crisis won't be solved by dumping them in the exurbs.

What will solve it, then? And no, it's not dumping them, it's housing them. This allows us to build affordable housing without recreating the tenements.

The difficulty is ensuring that these folks can access job opportunities when they're so far from city centers - if public transit is good, this isn't as much of an issue, but in some of these locations that's not the case. As there's an employment stipulation, that's a pretty big problem.

The bill provides work opportunities within the complex, the only way these people aren't working is they abjectly refuse to participate.

Very well then. If there's no shortage of work opportunities, then my concerns are addressed.

[Poirot]

Would the local leader recommendations be just in theory or it requires our regional government (either Governor or assembly) to name one or more location ?

[Joseph Cao]

Seeing no objections, my amendment is adopted.

Would the local leader recommendations be just in theory or it requires our regional government (either Governor or assembly) to name one or more location ?

My line of thinking when writing up the amendment was just to give the HUD the final word on where to build the complexes, and departmental approval for their locations is presumably contingent on whether local and regional governments agree to the location that either they or a federal leader recommended. If this bill does get passed in its current form (or something close to it) and the GM goes out of their way to talk about where the complexes are being built, then we would have to have our regional governments weighing in on whether they think X location is suitable. But I'm reasonably satisfied with not simulating the workings and interactions of the HUD since we're just going off of how the RL HUD operates anyway.

[Poirot]

ok. I was wondering if this was a proposal to involve region, create activity betwwen the two level of government.

[Rep Jessica]

Mr.Speaker

I'll give it another 48 hours for any new amendments or debate then I'll ask for a final vote.

[Joseph Cao]

I motion for a final vote – 24 hours to object.

[Joseph Cao]

With no objections, a final vote is now open on this bill.

72 hours to vote. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[Rep Jessica]

Aye

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Aye

[Poirot]

aye

[SevenEleven]

Aye.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nay.

[Left Wing]

Aye

[OBD]

Aye