SB 27-09: Housing Reform Act for Needy Atlasians (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:42:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 27-09: Housing Reform Act for Needy Atlasians (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 27-09: Housing Reform Act for Needy Atlasians (Passed)  (Read 2618 times)
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« on: December 14, 2020, 05:11:29 PM »
« edited: December 14, 2020, 05:18:44 PM by Blair »

The pedant in me says that the phrase 'doled' out should be changed...

EDIT: I have some issues with this bill but believe they can be fixed; it seems a bit like a christmas tree bill dealing with several issues; I'll try and get my thoughts up on it soon.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2020, 03:54:41 PM »

Assuming Scott's amendment has been adopted... I offer the amendment below.

My main concern is that this bill is doing two different things at once; 1.) trying to reform housing laws for those who face discrimination (something I support & easy to do) 2.) Embarking on a huge program of new housebuilding (something I support but not something that is easy to do)

I can't support spending $80 billion on a program that would create a vast number of small modular homes in a random collection of locations & in same cases 75 miles outside of cities; this money could be spent in a much better manner.

I've also struck out the free airplane travel; I might be happy for certain exemptions for rural communities where it can be a lifeline but I can't see the rationale for the government spending in money to subside air travel for no specific purpose

Quote from: Amendment
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,
Quote
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 limited rental history.
ii. All waitlists for public housing shall exclude factors such as income requirements higher than twice the rent or rental history.
iii. 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.
iiia. 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 approved residents of section III.
II. All that are approved shall get free government paid airplane, grayhoundbus or train tickets.
III. The government shall grant 30 million dollars yearly for this program.
IIIa money shall be doled out by HUD.

Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2020, 04:03:15 PM »

FTR I am happy to support a more measured approach around home building; I'd just rather have the existing section of the bill removed & see what we can work with; there's certainly a strong case for providing funding for it- I just think this needs to be worked on first (rather than me trying to type it out now!)
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2021, 06:09:46 PM »

what are people's thoughts about a capital spending program on house building?

As I said in a post above while I didn't support such a large amount of spending on one project alone when we've got a defecit (I think the $40 billion price tag could be better spent elsewhere with covid) I do feel there's certainly a good program/spending work that could be put in place.

I'm happy to draft something tomorrow but would be happy to hear thoughts.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2021, 06:59:19 PM »

what are people's thoughts about a capital spending program on house building?

As I said in a post above while I didn't support such a large amount of spending on one project alone when we've got a defecit (I think the $40 billion price tag could be better spent elsewhere with covid) I do feel there's certainly a good program/spending work that could be put in place.

I'm happy to draft something tomorrow but would be happy to hear thoughts.

I'm not really sure what a "capital spending program" means but write something up and I'll post my thoughts.

Ah sorry I'm speaking in UK budget jargon where we use capital spending as a way of getting around the rules which limited day-to-day spending; basically I'm happy for spending money on a home building program, just different to the one I removed in the amendment.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2021, 10:07:54 AM »

I don't support that amendment; assuming I haven't missed the window I object.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2021, 02:26:29 PM »

FWIW this would be the first amendment vote we've had in a while!
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2021, 04:41:08 PM »

I'm going to be honest & say that I would rather have one bill (as currently drafted) to deal with reforming the law around tenant/housing rights & have a seperate bill that deals with a house-building program.

I'd want that second bill to be much larger & more in detail than a stapled on part of a bill; if we're going to spend a large sum of money I'd want it to be worthwhile.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2021, 04:43:03 PM »

I'm going to be honest & say that I would rather have one bill (as currently drafted) to deal with reforming the law around tenant/housing rights & have a seperate bill that deals with a house-building program.

I'd want that second bill to be much larger & more in detail than a stapled on part of a bill; if we're going to spend a large sum of money I'd want it to be worthwhile.

I'm also aware that this has been on the floor for a long-time & has been one of the few bills that this Senate has been guilty of kicking around where no-one has really opposed it but no-one has championed it.

So I'm going to make myself unpopular & say I'll be motioning for a final vote on the 'skinny' version of the bill within 24 hours unless shouts loadly!
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2021, 05:39:51 PM »

Nay
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2021, 06:46:20 PM »

This is gonna be one of those votes huh

We love the 2-1-1-2 votes

My vote was based on the fact that like most bills written by Jessica there’s parts of it that don’t really add up when I looked at it before voting (I had removed the obviously glaring stuff)

The work requirement to be classed as ‘needy’ struck me as something that I should have removed
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,846
United Kingdom


« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2021, 05:37:12 PM »


I'm happy to suspend the rules

Not that it's at all in my power but the alternative would be it passing unchanged & then hoping the House votes it down or the President vetoes it.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.