Mideast Assembly Thread

[MaxQue]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

^^^^

The customary system ought to be used instead.

Because of the Metric Conversion Act, voted in February 2008.

[Peter]

Aye
The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. 24 hours without substantive debate/further amendments by Assemblymen will cause a final vote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.

Clearly you've never met Al.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.

Clearly you've never met Al.

You mean "Al Widdershins", aka Realpolitik?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't think we have a Gypsy problem in the Mideast.

Clearly you've never met Al.

You mean "Al Widdershins", aka Realpolitik?

Yeah that was the joke.

[Badger]

I would ask the debate be extended for a period of time as I have a few issues I'm trying to resolve.

1st: Yes SC, thank you that did answer my questions quite well.

2nd: Peter and SC, what difference(s) do you see between the English right to roam law passed in 2005 that Peter linked and SC's proposal here? IF I read it correctly, the English law seems slightly more restrictive, but other than the right to close off ones property 28 days a year (a good idea IMHO, particularly for hunters) I can't put my finger on exactly why. I would like to explore the similarities and differences in crafting this bill.

Overall, I support the concept behind this bill: To allow freedom to hike and briefly camp on large private landholdings that do not impinge on use and enjoyment of the land. While I respect private property rights, I do not countenance the law blindly supporting a "dog in the manger" syndrome ("I'm not using it, but it's mine so no one else can enjoy it, so there").

I did have serious reservations about allowing such activities within ready view of a residence as being too intrusive. The amendment passed has lifted those concerns somewhat. That said, I am concerned that the burden of damage to any land will fall on the individual property owner. If there is litter or other damage to the public lands system that's a pain, but at least the cost and time of clean up is spread out among all society through the taxes paid to the state park service etc. If there is damage to an individual's property, it is born entirely by the landowner. Yes, the perpetrators my be caught and ultimately court-ordered to pay restitution, but the all too common scenario is that a property owner may only discover the damage after the perpetrators staying on his land--legally under this bill--have already left. By allowing private property owners to prohibit  strangers trespassing on their land is much easier to enforce and would avoid the potential for litter and property damage before it happens.

I'm not saying I oppose the bill, but I need some questions answered first.

My, don't I sound conservative. ;-)

I do offer the additional amendment:
"Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam for 30 days each calendar year. Written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration. "

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I understand your concerns Badger and I agree with you that owners should not have to pay for damages in those cases where no perpetrator is found. I’d suggest that the landowners should be able to seek compensation from the region when it happens. This would be financed by the proceeds from the fines in this bill.

There are a lot less damage caused due to the Freedom to Roam than people would think. Mostly it is just about litter, which is not a big cost to compensate.

I’ll have to leave the English Freedom to Roam part to Peter. If I’ve understood it right, the main difference with the English law is that, it only opens up certain private land. For example you can roam freely on private heaths but not in a private forest. I’m not sure I got it completely right though. Peter can probably clarify it.

I do offer the additional amendment:
"Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam for 30 days each calendar year. Written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration. "

I’m positive towards this amendment. It’s a very good idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol

Don't worry, in normal circumstances I'm the most conservative member of the Assembly, but on this issue I'm apperently far left, so it's probably only natrual you're pushed a bit towards the right Everything will probably go back to normal as soon as we're finished with this bill.

 

[Хahar 🤔]

Why are meters used, anyway? They're not familiar to most residents.

^^^^

The customary system ought to be used instead.

Because of the Metric Conversion Act, voted in February 2008.

Ah, I thought that failed.

[Peter]

I do offer the additional amendment:
"Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam for 30 days each calendar year. Written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration. "

I’m positive towards this amendment. It’s a very good idea.

This amendment will be accepted as friendly in 24 hours if there are no objections, and will be inserted as the last clause in the bill.
I cannot comment too expertly on the English Right to Roam - my understanding is that it applies to "open" land - i.e. any rural land that isn't used for growing crops or forest. Many prolific land owners, at least in the UK, own vast swaiths of open land often spanning hundreds of miles, and this is why the right to roam was brought in.

[Badger]

I understand your concerns Badger and I agree with you that owners should not have to pay for damages in those cases where no perpetrator is found. I’d suggest that the landowners should be able to seek compensation from the region when it happens. This would be financed by the proceeds from the fines in this bill.

There are a lot less damage caused due to the Freedom to Roam than people would think. Mostly it is just about litter, which is not a big cost to compensate.

I’ll have to leave the English Freedom to Roam part to Peter. If I’ve understood it right, the main difference with the English law is that, it only opens up certain private land. For example you can roam freely on private heaths but not in a private forest. I’m not sure I got it completely right though. Peter can probably clarify it.

I'm leery of a mechanism to publicly finance the litter cleanup of private land > 400 acres anytime the landowner reports (truthfully or not) said litter was caused by unknown persons enjoying (and abusing) Freedom to Roam on their property.

I wonder if the Freedom to Roam is as applicable in America as in England or Scandinavia. While there are huge non-farmed/logged/mined private land tracts in this country, I question whether there is nearly the same ratio as in England considering its history of landowning gentry.

That said, with the amendments to the bill, my reservations are sufficiently overcome that I do support this legislation.

Governor: You've indicated that you opposed this bill. Regardless of whether a veto can be overridden, your support would be welcome if at all possible. Can you offer any suggestions to the law, or is your view this simply too fundamental a violation of property rights?

[Peter]

Bill stands as:

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill
1. Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2. It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3. Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4. The direct radiuses of 250 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5. Privately owned land that does not exceed the seize of 400 acres is excluded from this bill. 
6. Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7. Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8. Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9. During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
10. If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, and ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
11. If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
12. If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.
13. (a) Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam for 30 days each calendar year. Written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
(b) Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
(c) Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration.
Above is the act as it stands - I've used Speaker's discretion to tidy up in a couple of places. I'll give Inks another 24 hours and then I'll move to a vote.

[Peter]

The vote is on the bill in the post above. Please vote now.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

   Aye

[Badger]

Aye.

[Peter]

eeek, Aye.
The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his signature or veto.

[Badger]

A point of order: Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Mideast Region Constitution states:

"Should the Assembly pass ordinary legislation by a majority vote, then the Governor may sign such legislation into Law, or veto such legislation. A veto may be overturned upon the unanimous vote of the Assembly."

Does the unanimous Assembly vote passing the Freedom to Roam Bill by itself override the Governor's recent veto, or must a separate new Assembly vote to override the veto be held?

If the latter: Pursuant to the above-referenced section of the Mideast Constitution I move to override the 8/24/09 Gubernatorial Veto of the Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill.

While doing so, I also repeat my previous call for Governor Inks to offer proposals addressing his concerns over the bill. While I would oppose any measure that would fundamentally undercut the bill's basic goals, my hope is those goals might still be achieved with reasonable bipartisan compromise.

[Peter]

A point of order: Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Mideast Region Constitution states:

"Should the Assembly pass ordinary legislation by a majority vote, then the Governor may sign such legislation into Law, or veto such legislation. A veto may be overturned upon the unanimous vote of the Assembly."

Does the unanimous Assembly vote passing the Freedom to Roam Bill by itself override the Governor's recent veto, or must a separate new Assembly vote to override the veto be held?

I would be of the opinion that a separate override vote is needed, much as in the federal Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Motion is recognised. I shall allow a minimum of 24 hours for debate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see a way that I'm going to ever support this bill unless it's made to be a voluntary program.

Although upon rereading the bill after it was passed by the Assembly, I noticed something I overlooked before:

The wording in Clause 10 seems to be slightly problematic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to a literal interpretation, a person would have to polute, vandalize, and ruin the surroundings in order to be fined.  The proper conjunction between "vandalising," and "ruining the surroundings" would be "or" not "and"; however, this is simply a minor point in a bill that I overall strongly oppose.

[Badger]

I don't see a way that I'm going to ever support this bill unless it's made to be a voluntary program.

Although upon rereading the bill after it was passed by the Assembly, I noticed something I overlooked before:

The wording in Clause 10 seems to be slightly problematic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to a literal interpretation, a person would have to polute, vandalize, and ruin the surroundings in order to be fined.  The proper conjunction between "vandalising," and "ruining the surroundings" would be "or" not "and"; however, this is simply a minor point in a bill that I overall strongly oppose.

I move to amend the word "and" in Clause 10 to "or".

[Badger]

Obviously, Governor, any landowner can already open their lands to visitors "voluntarily". Such a bill would be a waste of bandwidth.

Are you saying that there is no tangible proposal you can make to moderate this bill to an acceptable compromise? Have you compared and considered the English version of the bill Peter linked? I admit to having some minor reservations about the bill, and am personally open to amendments to effect the practical application of the bill on landowners. However, given a choice between supporting the bill as is and opposing it I'm firmly in the former camp. I'm open to practical changes to limit the law somewhat. But if you are absolutely opposed on uncompromisable ideological grounds that private property is sacrosanct, then I fear a vote to override is unavoidable.

[Peter]

I don't see a way that I'm going to ever support this bill unless it's made to be a voluntary program.

Although upon rereading the bill after it was passed by the Assembly, I noticed something I overlooked before:

The wording in Clause 10 seems to be slightly problematic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to a literal interpretation, a person would have to polute, vandalize, and ruin the surroundings in order to be fined.  The proper conjunction between "vandalising," and "ruining the surroundings" would be "or" not "and"; however, this is simply a minor point in a bill that I overall strongly oppose.

I move to amend the word "and" in Clause 10 to "or".

Any amendments would void an override attempt - it would no longer be the same bill.
I must admit that the reason I eeked, is that I do not really care one way or the other. I could vote to sustain the veto, I could vote to override. I am open to arguments either way.

[Badger]

I don't see a way that I'm going to ever support this bill unless it's made to be a voluntary program.

Although upon rereading the bill after it was passed by the Assembly, I noticed something I overlooked before:

The wording in Clause 10 seems to be slightly problematic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

According to a literal interpretation, a person would have to polute, vandalize, and ruin the surroundings in order to be fined.  The proper conjunction between "vandalising," and "ruining the surroundings" would be "or" not "and"; however, this is simply a minor point in a bill that I overall strongly oppose.

I move to amend the word "and" in Clause 10 to "or".

Any amendments would void an override attempt - it would no longer be the same bill.
I must admit that the reason I eeked, is that I do not really care one way or the other. I could vote to sustain the veto, I could vote to override. I am open to arguments either way.

Thank you for noting that Peter, but upon consideration I still so move for two reasons: First, the Gov is right and this is a necessary change to a drafting error that escaped our initial review; secondly, I think additional time for debate and constructive input from the Governor is appropriate under the circumstances.

As I said before, I too have some reservations about the bill and am open to tangible suggestions to limit its impact on property owners. I'm simply not moved by the argument that property rights = sacred, and without a more coherent practical argument against the bill I don't plan to now oppose it simply because the Governor does.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Make it a regional program.  Include incentives that would encourage people to enlist in such a program.  If a person does not want people on his/her land, he (as the owner of that land) has the right to deny them access.  It's the way I feel, and I don't see any way of changing this bill that will convince me otherwise.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Alright, I know that nobody here really wants to let this come to a veto override, and I have been talking with Assemblyman Badger to figure out someway to come to an agreement.  I had said that I would support a voluntary program, but Badger pointed out that anybody can already open up their land so a voluntary program is pretty much pointless.

I was getting ready to draft my legislative solution when it hit me: Provide an opt-out option.  That way people don't have to go out of their way to sign up for the program, but they're also not forced into participating.

So here's what I've come up with. It may be a little rough in some places, but feel free to play around with it - and I think we can come to an agreement on this:

Mideast Freedom to Roam Bill
1. Anyone shall have the right to access, use, and pass through privately owned land in the Mideast Region except for land that falls under subsections 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. Such as beaches, forests, and fields, as long as they do not damage or disturb the area in any way.   
2. It shall be legal to camp on private land for a maximum of 48 hours, as long as campers do not in any form damage or disturb the area, and leave the place in the same condition as they found it.
3. Activities that require usage of the area's resources, such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, may not be practiced without the landowner's clear consent.   
4. The direct radiuses of 250 m around residential buildings are considered gardens and yards, and are therefore excluded from this bill.
5. Privately owned land that does not exceed the size of 400 acres is excluded from this bill. 
6. Nature reserves and other areas with delicate and sensitive ecosystems are excluded from this bill.
7. Fields where crops are being grown are excluded from this bill.
8. Areas where young animals are reared are excluded from this bill.
9. Any land owner can choose to exclude his land from being made accessible to the public by notifying the Mideast Department of Natural Resources. In order for a land owner to close his land to the public, some form of clear and legible signage must be posted on said property.
 10. During hunts, landowners have the right to dismiss visitors from the hunting ground.
11. If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, damages or disturbs the area by polluting, vandalising, or ruining the surroundings, they may be subject to a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.   
12. If a person, who is practicing their Freedom to Roam, chooses to illegally engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking may be subject for a fine of up to $500 as well as paying additional damages to the landowner.
13. If a landowner, without reason, tries to dismiss or chase away people from his or her land, he or she may be subject for a fine of up to $250.
14. (a) Owners of private property covered by this law may close their land from Freedom to Roam; however, written notice of the beginning and end dates of any closure period must be received in writing by the local police authority at least 24 hours before any signage or other notice of closure is posted on the property.
(b) Posting public notice. All public posting, notice or signage of property closure must include the beginning and end dates of said closure legibly written.
(c) Violation of these provisions is punishable by up to a $250 fine on a first offense. For any repeat violation within five years of a prior conviction  is punishable by up to a $500 fine and/or 30 days incarceration.

[Purple State]

I thought I mentioned that, as something similar to "Do Not Call." You could also provide incentives for those who choose to remain on the program, such as a tax exemption per group that resides on their land per year up to $X.