We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Quality Housing Act (Amended)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2116
Description[?]:
| This is changed to allow local govrnment the handling of public housing. Local officials know the regions that they represent and therefore have knowledge as the correct amount of money, resources,and homes needed to maintain a smooth policy. The central government cannot possibly know the needs of a family that lives two regions away while the local officials are on the spot. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Current: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Proposed: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:10:01, September 24, 2005 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | This will save money while providing for better quality, and more homes built. |
| Date | 12:36:19, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | "This bill will save the government millions of HC" - Surely it would cost more? By using private companies we will have to pay for exactly the same work to be done but we would also have to pay extra to make up their profits. Or am I not understanding something here? |
| Date | 16:53:39, September 24, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | We have to agree with the UB here. If the State constructs and operates these homes we not only have full control of building prices, but we also gain income through rent (which is included in the original proposal). If we contract out to private companies, not only do we have to pay them for the privilige of construction and operation, but we also lose the income gained from rent and, should the person decide, the cost of sale (also included in the existing proposal). |
| Date | 17:04:28, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | It will be cheaper because the government will bid to the most reasonable contract. In order to get a contract, the private companies will charge less them normal to recieve the conteact to build,saving money for the government. And nowhere in this proposal does it state rent collecting will stop for the government. These companies are here to build houses, they are not landlords. It's a win , win solution. |
| Date | 17:13:29, September 24, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | In order to reduce the cost of construction there has to be a comparative reduction in the cost of materials/manpower etc. This reduction could conceivably become a reduction in quality of the product. If the Government controls the construction et al of the buildings we can guarantee the costs of all materials and, consequently, guarantee that the construction cost vs quality maintains itself at the highest possible level. |
| Date | 17:18:45, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | It states in my desciption the same regualations for quaility and safety apply. |
| Date | 17:20:22, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | You would still lose the sources of income laid out by the WSS and the costs would remain higher as already ecplained. |
| Date | 17:21:14, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | *explained |
| Date | 17:23:40, September 24, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | "It states in my desciption the same regualations for quaility and safety apply." - Then the costs wouldn't be reduced. Remember, the construction of these buildings, when operated by the Government, would not be for profit but rather would be more likely to be produced at cost, whereas a private company would have to guarantee a profit in order to survive. Whatever wasn't lost in quality would be lost in manpower and thusly increasing unemployment and reducing overall Government income, but with a possible increase in the number of houses required. |
| Date | 17:31:22, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | Ok, I can see this isn't going to pass as I see your point. A change of proposal is necessary. I don't believe the government should be paying for peoples homes. Think of the cost.? |
| Date | 17:35:46, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | But it's only for the lowest earners who would struggle to find affordable housing via other means. Unless you can find a better way to house these people then we oppose any change to the law. |
| Date | 17:38:38, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | Since the state already pays for adults to live off welfare, then is it right to live in a government payed home also? I belive the private industry can build homes without govrnment interference, and as those who recieve a stipend by the government can afford to pay rent. |
| Date | 17:41:20, September 24, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | "and as those who recieve a stipend by the government can afford to pay rent." - They do, back to the Government, so it's win:win! |
| Date | 19:20:34, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | It's a welfare state, which we cant afford. They are exempt from taxes due to their income, but they get a free ride in every aspect. Why work when we pay for housing, monthly stipends, healthcare, pharmacuticals, free enregy, we give immigrants money when they arrive without any reason for them to stop recieving money, farmers get stipend for as long as they can. What do we expect of our citizens? We give them everything except the kitchen sink. |
| Date | 19:26:25, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | "free enregy," - Just because it's natonalised it doesn't mean that people don't have to pay. It just goes straight to the government. "we give immigrants money when they arrive" - Haven't found that law. Link please. "farmers get stipend for as long as they can" - We could accept change on this issue "We give them everything except the kitchen sink." - People in public housing do actually get a sink in their kitchen... |
| Date | 20:22:06, September 24, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | The national refugee policy. All refugees are welcome, regardless of their reason, and given aid in integrating them into the country. Alternatives: o Only refugees that are victims of extreme circumstances are welcome. o All refugees are turned away, unless they apply for protection through official channels. o No refugees are allowed to enter the country. o All refugees are welcome but no financial aid is given to them. |
| Date | 21:38:35, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | That only applies to refugees fleeing some other country to live here. Immigrants who come here as a matter of choice and have no reason to leave their home country do not get such benefits. |
| Date | 22:28:30, September 24, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | The USM is proud that Hobrazia provides support for refugees, and we think that the Welfare state is essential for the well-being of all citizens. As usual, L-PU, we will rally against another of your proposals which we cannot accept. Privatisation puts profit before peoples, and is counterproductive. |
| Date | 07:41:20, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | Go get rallying then. And keep on rallying, and on, on,,,, |
| Date | 17:28:41, September 25, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Quality Housing Act (Amended) |
| Message | We shall. And by the looks of the outcomes of several Bills - we are succeeding. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 101 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 299 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Selucia is Particracy's modern take on Ancient Rome, located on the continent of Majatra. |
| Random quote: "Soldiers are not the enemies of the movement. They're potential allies. They're more than that. Soldiers are the only people in America who are paying a stiff price for this war. Everybody else profits. Soldiers are the ones losing their lives, losing friends, having their lives disrupted. The real victims of American imperialism are its soldiers." - Fred Gardner |