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

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This measure has my most earnest support.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm cool with section 2. Section 1 and 3 may need some work. I'm not in favor of prohibiting cities from controlling the homeless. I know, I know, I am a terrible person, but if there are no controls over them, it will drive people away from these cities and then we will just have more overrun and dying areas on our hands, and that is good for none of us.

Or, you know, we could give them all a home.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Boo, hiss!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I guess Nay.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm all for making sure places aren't trying to make outcasts of the homeless, but to say that locales can't make any type of restrictions at all on where a person can sleep just seems like it might be too much to ask.  

I don't think they can sleep on private property,
And public does mean public, after all.
Perhaps this bill would incentivize
The common man to actually care
About and confront homelessness instead
Of banning feeding poor folks on the street.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm all for making sure places aren't trying to make outcasts of the homeless, but to say that locales can't make any type of restrictions at all on where a person can sleep just seems like it might be too much to ask.  

I don't think they can sleep on private property,
And public does mean public, after all.
Perhaps this bill would incentivize
The common man to actually care
About and confront homelessness instead
Of banning feeding poor folks on the street.

I vaguely recall you saying you wouldn't do this during reelection..

Shh...

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

interesting proposal.  does this mean someone must be allowed to camp out on Abe Lincoln's lap?

Wouldn't the underlying legislation have the same effect anyway?

Yes, but I hadn't thought of that example otherwise.

I must point out that in Lincoln's day it wasn't uncommon to find visitor to the White House sleeping in the hallways in various parts of the mansion.

I can't say I'm against that.  However, my Senate office must remain sacrosanct.

My office was already filled with homeless people. I give them food and they give me blowjobs and cocaine - it's a little gentlemen's agreement of ours.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

interesting proposal.  does this mean someone must be allowed to camp out on Abe Lincoln's lap?

Wouldn't the underlying legislation have the same effect anyway?

Yes, but I hadn't thought of that example otherwise.

I must point out that in Lincoln's day it wasn't uncommon to find visitor to the White House sleeping in the hallways in various parts of the mansion.

I can't say I'm against that.  However, my Senate office must remain sacrosanct.

My office was already filled with homeless people. I give them food and they give me blowjobs and cocaine - it's a little gentlemen's agreement of ours.

Must be cramped in that tool shed.

Oh, it is - I have to sleep on top of Marcus every night and his bones keep poking into my mattress .

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Nay.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Nay - public is public, and that applies to regions as well.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Nay - public is public, and that applies to regions as well.

Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.

Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.

Indeed.

Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people? Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort.

Are those regions giving the homeless free housing? Because I support the eradication of homelessness; I'm just saying we should be nice to them as we work towards that goal.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Why should my region have to sacrifice its tourism industry when we are taking care of the homeless by actually giving them an apartment which is better than a national park and/or beach?

When did I say they shouldn't have an apartment? See, I can type a semicolon, too.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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?).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Officially offering this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Other regions should come up with their own solutions to the Housing Problem, because otherwise whats the point of having regional governments?

Oh, so the homeless people of the Midwest, Mideast, and Pacific should be left out in the cold because of muh regions?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do you think we could cut out all the dilly-dallying and just enact a federal version of the IDS/NE plans right here, right now, in this room, no holds barred? Keeping most of section 1 and all of section 2, of course.

What is the $5 billion we are giving to the regions for? We need to make sure that we specify it must be used on housing projects.

And don't be stubborn over section 1 and 2, or this bill won't even become law. I want to expand housing projects, but not at the expense of public safety and health. We can easily appropriate money to the regions to be used for housing projects and nothing else to the regions.

Don't worry, Mr. President, everything's fine. By "sections 1 and 2" I meant of the entire bill (i.e. cars and stuff).

And Maxwell, I'd rather have all the homeless housed than have strong regions, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless I am mistaken that would require a subsequent amendment, the text clearly applies only to cclauses 1 and 2. Though I might be mistaken as what you are saying there.

Oh, it would be an amendment to this bill. I meant we'd keep the whole thing except for the part that Duke hates and then tack on an IDS/NE-style housing program.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

They are adults, but they may not be my favorite kind of adults. I'm a risk-averse sort of gentleman, you see.