SENATE BILL: The Public means Public Act (Redraft Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

I am prepared for a final vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I believe there is to be another amendment offered soon.

Unless clauses 1 and 2 are altered, there is no way I can vote for this.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That is not what this bill does. It requires us in the IDS to turn our parks into Hoovervilles eventhough we are already providing apartments.

It doesn't matter whether there is a semicolon or not, Alfred.

Yes, I realized that as soon as I actually saw the emoticon I had posted (i.e. just now). And if you're providing apartments for the homeless then you shouldn't have to worry about this. It's only the regions that haven't eradicated homelessness that should worry.

Seeing as we'll never convince each other, I suppose it's time to vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is not what this bill does. It requires us in the IDS to turn our parks into Hoovervilles eventhough we are already providing apartments.

It doesn't matter whether there is a semicolon or not, Alfred.

Yes, I realized that as soon as I actually saw the emoticon I had posted (i.e. just now). And if you're providing apartments for the homeless then you shouldn't have to worry about this. It's only the regions that haven't eradicated homelessness that should worry.

Seeing as we'll never convince each other, I suppose it's time to vote.

You miss the point. If you require that they be used in this fashion, they will end up being so. There is no reason to require us to allow the homeless to sleep in parks in the IDS, when we provide for our homeless in a responsible manner. If Clauses 1 and 2 were changed to reflect the fact that some regions' have addressed this and made to apply only to the parks in regions that hadn't, then you would be right otherwise it will hurt our tourism and thus our economy unfairly.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That is not what this bill does. It requires us in the IDS to turn our parks into Hoovervilles eventhough we are already providing apartments.

It doesn't matter whether there is a semicolon or not, Alfred.

Yes, I realized that as soon as I actually saw the emoticon I had posted (i.e. just now). And if you're providing apartments for the homeless then you shouldn't have to worry about this. It's only the regions that haven't eradicated homelessness that should worry.

Seeing as we'll never convince each other, I suppose it's time to vote.

You miss the point. If you require that they be used in this fashion, they will end up being so. There is no reason to require us to allow the homeless onto parks in the IDS, when we provide for our homeless in a responsible manner. If Clauses 1 and 2 were changed to reflect the fact that some regions' have addressed this and made to apply only to the parks in regions that hadn't, then you would be right otherwise it will hurt our tourism and thus our economy unfairly.

I can't fathom why someone with an apartment would choose to sleep in a park.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What about people who are mentally ill? What about tohse with drug abuse problems?


That is the problem with this bill. It is a blanket standard and it just throws open the gates as an alternative option and if some people do have issues or are just being difficult, we will be prohibited by force of fiat from Nyman from directing them to attain such an apartment as opposed to taking up residents in the parks. That will discourage people from visiting the parks and thus hurt both tourism and travel in the region, and all for nothing, because provide apartments.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have to go soon. If the amendment I expect to be offered isn't by this afternoon or early evening, I will offer it myself when I get back on.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

What about people who are mentally ill? What about tohse with drug abuse problems?


That is the problem with this bill. It is a blanket standard and it just throws open the gates as an alternative option and if some people do have issues or are just being difficult, we will be prohibited by force of fiat from Nyman from directing them to attain such an apartment as opposed to taking up residents in the parks. That will discourage people from visiting the parks and thus hurt both tourism and travel in the region, and all for nothing, because provide apartments.

We can treat the mentally ill and drug addicts (as I hope we are doing now) so that that does not happen.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill would require us to leave on the grounds of Steamtown if they insist, which for safety reasons would obviously shut the place down. The NE also has a homeless statute, though ours is better.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Have no fear, I won't sign this with clauses 1 and 2 present. I'll strike them via redraft if necessary. I've seen the effects things like that has IRL, and I surely will not support it nationwide in Atlasia. Remember New York in the 70s and 80s? Even chapel hill did this and it almost ruined their downtown.

We can invest in shelters and homes for the poor, but I'm not restricting municipalities' ability to keep their streets and parks clean and safe. Not only would this turn parks into loitering areas and thus turn citizens away from them, it would hurt local economies because people would chose not to go shopping, eating out, etc because of not wanting to deal with panhandling and harassment by homeless, and then we'd lose businesses and jobs. I will not allow that under my watch.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

[bore]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

At least we didn't nick ours from Utah

Plus, our homeless statute was drafted by the coolest atlasian.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

At least we didn't nick ours from Utah

Plus, our homeless statute was drafted by the coolest atlasian.

IT could probably stand to be updated though.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This text would require us to leave them in the parks if they insist on staying, Alfred.

I think you have a right to stay in a park, but I suppose we could amend the bill so that people who aren't quite right in the head can be coerced into apartments if they live in regions that have constructed such programs.

And the NE is basically by definition better than you .

Yes, everyone is free to go to a park if they want but they should be required to follow any rules established by the park so as to provide for fair usage by all. That is exactly my point, the present text requires the they allowed to established a domacile on the premises and forbids any rules against such by fiat of the federal gov't. In a region that has as program such as ours, that is frankly ridiculous.

Our homeless statute is better. And we have Scott as our Regional Executive now, deal with it.

If people have no choice but to sleep in a park, shouldn't they be allowed to? There are three regions that don't have your programs, and while I suppose I could mollify the bill for the NE and IDS, it should still apply to the others.

And I think Scott is just proof that everyone steals their best things from the Northeast.

[Donerail]

As a regional legislator I can see nothing but harms coming from this legislation, given how we recently passed our own anti-homelessness statute that this legislation seeks to encourage. I urge the Senate to strike down this legislation, or at least add an exemption for those regions that have implemented our anti-homelessness policies already.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If it'll keep you folks happy I'll offer this amendment. Any legal wizardry to make the wording of that work better would be appreciated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I won't sign anything with clauses 1 and 2 in section 1 still present. Your amendment would grandfather existing regions in, but it's still basically forcing regions to do something or else, their streets will be turned into places for people to loiter and panhandle. That's not fair and probably unconstitutional, especially if the region cannot afford to give away housing for absolutely free.

I think providing money to expand housing for the poor is sufficient without coercing regions into doing anything more. I apologize for being a hard ass, but I've seen this practice and what it does to cities IRL, and I can't support it.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If it'll keep you folks happy I'll offer this amendment. Any legal wizardry to make the wording of that work better would be appreciated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would mean the money in clause 4 isn't available for regions that have established programs for housing for the homeless.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If it'll keep you folks happy I'll offer this amendment. Any legal wizardry to make the wording of that work better would be appreciated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would mean the money in clause 4 isn't available for regions that have established programs for housing for the homeless.

Right, then, sorry about that. I've fixed it to let sections 3 and 4 apply to the IDS and NE (btw, is the language I used sufficient to cover the IDS/NE and not the other regions?).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It should be noted that the Senate has never had the power to my knowledge to repeal a non-federal law.  We cannot go into the regional codes and just start deleting things.  That is not to say that the Senate can keep a regional law from being enforced, but still that would require some sort of constitutional basis, which has not been established for this bill.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Officially offering this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Amendment is friendly