Mideast Assembly Thread

[Badger]

I guess I withdraw this. I'm sorry I brought this up, with my lack of knowledge on this subject. (I feel stupid now)

Oh Dan, don't feel stupid. You learned something new today. That doesn't make you stupid.

Ditto

[Badger]

As all Mideast citizens are not automatically members of the Assembly (apparently unlike other regions, but OK), I am writing this letter to my representatives regarding the proposed anti-public smoking bill.

I'm a lifelong nonsmoker who is painfully aware of both the health and nuisance effects of secondhand smoke. I've rarely been prouder of my parents when, after smoking a couple packs a week since their late teens, they together successfully gave up smoking cold turkey and have been clean for about 20 years. I have enjoyed the effect of public anti-smoking laws in cities I've visited. I believe the complained loss of business by some bar and restaurant owners is overstated and offset by nonsmoking patrons being more willing to patronize such establishments. In my own experience there is at least one bar/restaurant in Columbus I used to avoid despite the decent food and beer because the place was in a perpetual fog cloud of tobacco smoke. Since Columbus passed it's anti-public smoking ordinance, however, the place is actually enjoyable to go to and I spend money there I never would have otherwise (and it never appears any less crowded than before the smoking ban).

I believe an anti-public smoking ban would be a great thing for Mideastern citizens and communities. That said, I absolutely oppose this proposed bill and urge it's defeat.

The issue is simple: For even a strong anti-smoking advocate such as myself, and many others like me, a maximum $5000 fine is VASTLY excessive. Do not assume that "judicial discretion" will ensure that such penalties will only be imposed on the worst repeat offenders. It is a truism that if a law permits a maximum penalty, some judges will impose it regularly regardless of circumstances. Even a fine of $3000 or $2000 for someone with a 2 or three prior convictions is patently excessive. For comparison's sake, the proposed maximum fine is almost twice the maximum Ohio permits for a 3rd DUI conviction in 6 years!

Simply put, relying on 'judicial discretion' to avoid unjust imposition of a poorly crafted law is a fool's errand. I would respectfully recommend amending the bill to allow a maximum fine of at most a tenth that proposed ($500--still rather steep, but acceptable and allowing for serious deterrent to repeat offenders). If there is need to ensure the bill has 'teeth' perhaps a minimum mandatory fine of $100 should also be mandated, as this would also avoid some judges who place their own personal distaste for the law over the will of the legislature from habitually imposing nominal penalties (e.g. $1 fine) or even no fine at all.

Another thought just hit me: With such a high maximum potential fine of $5000, the right to a jury trial would probably attach, even without a potential jail sentence. Instead of resolving such cases with a relatively quick and simple bench trial (i.e. trial to a judge or magistrate), the additional clogging of judicial dockets with much longer jury trials is in no one's best interest.

With such reasonable amendments, I would wholeheartedly support such anti-public smoking legislation.

Thank you all for your consideration and anticipated support.

Signed on behalf of many Mideastern nonsmokers,
A Voter

[Badger]

Why not something equivalent to a traffic ticket? $2,000 for smoking indoors? I would think speeding far above the speed limit would be a harsher penalty.

I concur. At the risk of sounding inflexible I suggested $500 as a round number which absolutely at the highest end of remotely reasonable. And even that's pushing the envelope.

Using Ohio as a comparison, $2000 is still more than the maximum fine permitted for a 2nd DUI in 6 years. It's also close to the maximum permitted ($2500) for many felony offenses including:

Domestic Violence with a prior DV conviction

Possession of Cocaine or Heroin(!)

Assault on a Police Officer (not mere resisting arrest; actually slugging a cop).

Again, LOVE the idea, but the fine proposed here, even as modified, is just plain extreme.

[Badger]

The following bill is placed in the queue.

Xth Constitutional Amendment

Article IV, Section 1, Clause 7 is amended to read:

In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy at least two days before the election.

An excellent idea which I fully support. May I suggest (as a constituent) that the assembly modify language to:

"In order to be a candidate on the ballot, a candidate must declare their candidacy for that office on the Candidate Declaration Thread at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the beginning of voting, other than absentee balloting, for said election."

The modified language would avoid confusion and guaranteed resulting litigation in a couple ways.
With the "two days" language there would inevitably be an election with the voting booth scheduled to start at (e.g.) 12:01 AM on the 3rd of the month, for which a candidate will declare their candidacy at 11:58 PM on the 1st and argue they declared "2 days before the election". "48 hours" will nip such lawsuits in the bud and is consistant with the amendment's goal of discouraging last minute candidacies.

The modified language also mandates declaration for specific office(s) on a prominent atlas thread designed for such purpose, to avoid anyone (for whatever reason) running a stealth campaign by posting an intent to run for "anything/everything" buried in a little-followed thread then claiming that met the technical requirements for ballot access, even though it clearly goes against the spirit and intent of the law.

Again, as I am not an assembly member at this time, I can only suggest such modifications in the hope others who are will formally propose an amendment for this worthwhile law.

[Badger]

Just to comment on the amendment - yall need to address the fact that voting can open anywhere between 0000 hours Thursday and 0001 Friday.  So if somebody who the Governor didn't like declared his/her candidacy at 10:58 P.M. Tuesday, the Governor could just open the booth at noon on Thursday and keep the candidate off the ballot.  You need to set a definitive time as to when candidacy declaration ends (I would suggest 48 hours before the 0000 hours Thursday).

Something like the wording "forty-eight (48) hours before the earliest time the voting booth may be opened."

Agreed.

[Badger]

There is a problem with the bill; as it stands now, it is possible that a person is not in a building or establishment open to the public, yet he is smoking in public.

Well we can't really ban people from smoking outside, even if it's a public park for example. (We'd be lynched by the smokers of the region if we passed such a bill )That's why I changed it from the original bill to start with.

 

My two cents on the above objections, plus something new that hopefully won't muddy the waters.

Officepark is correct that, as written, the law will not ban all smoking in public, merely in all public enclosed/semi-enclosed places such as bars, ballparks, etc. While some cities (like NY, IIRC) have had success with outright public smoking bans, perhaps it'd be wiser to start off with mostly banning it as this bill does and see how it works. Banning having to sit next to someone in a tavern who's smoking is one thing; banning having to pass someone along the street who's smoking may be overreaching at this time.

Officepark's comment about simply moving public smoking--rather than eliminating it altogether--from inside buildings to outside is correct. When smokers all congregate outside the entrance to a building, just entering and exiting through a ubiquitous cigarette fog is often enough get the health and nuisance effects (smelly clothes, etc) of a couple hours 'casual' exposure to secondhand smoke. Modeled after some municipal ordinances such as Columbus, what if the ban were to include a prohibition on loitering while smoking within, say, 10 feet of the entrances of any public place (however the amendment ultimately defines them)? Since such a violation is less egregious than someone brazenly lighting up inside a restaurant, perhaps such outdoors offenders could be subject to a lesser penalty (e.g. fines from $25-$100). "Loitering" would not be hard to legally define so as to exclude people walking past a business while smoking as opposed to a mass of employees and customers turning the entrance to any establishment in to a de facto smokers lounge.

Finally, may I suggest the following amendment:
"Any facility or establishment that earns at least 50% of it's annual gross revenue from the sale of tobacco and paraphernalia for the smoking of tobacco may apply to the regional government for a license of variance, and this law shall not apply to any such duly licensed facility or establishment."

This is essentially a "Hookah Bar/Cigar Bar exemption" similar to what Columbus has. These establishments are small in number, but growing, and cater to people who come there for the purpose of buying and smoking quality "gourmet" and flavored tobaccos in water pipes or in cigar form. While the old argument that one should "expect" smoking when one goes to a bar or restaurant is simply unacceptable nowadays, going to a cigar bar and being offended by all the smoke is like going to a Hooters and complaining about the scantily-clad waitresses--"Why did you come here?!?" The "50%" figure is based on the complaints of Hookah and Cigar bar owners in Columbus who complained that the proposed 80% requirement would still force them out of business as they made a sizable chunk of their money from sales of juice, sandwiches, pop, etc., but 50% is still high enough that bars and restaurants can't easily circumvent the law merely by selling cigars and putting a few cigarette machines in the lobby. These businesses provide jobs and tax revenue for a legitimate purpose that doesn't broadly affect non-smokers, but this law as written will force them out of business.

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

Wow you're good!

Thanks! Does this count as an endorsement in the assembly race? ;-)

As it is now we seem to be focusing only on visitors and customers to public buildings, which mean we are forgetting another important part of why this bill should be passed, namely the health of people that work in these public buildings and establishments. 

The Governor points out that if a customer is unhappy about people smoking inside, for example a restaurant, they can choose to leave, choose to eat somewhere else. A waiter who works at the restaurant does not have that choice. They have to work for about eight hours every day, five days a week in the very unhealthy environment that smoking creates in bars and restaurants. That’s how they support themselves, and make a living.   

When a similar bill, outlawing smoking in for example in bars and restaurants, were passed in Sweden (my old homeland before I moved to Atlasia) this was the main argument to why public smoking inside should be illegal. Due to working in smoke for such a long period of time, waiters, barmaids and people who holds similar occupations are the group that are worst effected by passive-smoking.

Sure someone can claims that those people could choose to quit their jobs if they don’t like working in a thick fog of poisonous smoke, but we have to be realistic, a single mother who has to feed two children, or a teenager working to save money for college can not just give up their jobs because it has a bad effect on their health. Passive smoking can be fatal, and if not fatal cause serious injuries and illnesses. Therefore I do not believe it should be up to restaurant owners to decide for themselves. I’m not a supporter of government intervening with businesses’ business, but this is about the health of several working Atlasians

I will not back down on this.

Hear hear!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although you make a very good point, exstending the bill to include the area around entrances would in my oppinion only make a simple thing complicated. It's my hope people will have enough common sense not to gather in crowds right in front of the door to smoke but actually placethemselves were they are not in the way.

Point taken. Although I support this idea, I realize that many may view it as overreaching. I suggested it primarily to address Officepark's valid concerns.
Your optomism of people's common sense is encouraging, my friend, but in practice they've let you down here. :-(  Until the 10 ft. "buffer zone" rules were enacted, every establishment's entrance became the smokers' cloudy smelly carcinogenic refuge.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will support such an amendment. Banning smoking in cigar bars is slightly silly, so this amendment is a good idea.

Thank you!

[Badger]

Just FYI, here's my thoughts - going into a restaurant is somebody's choice.  You can choose to eat somewhere where smoking isn't allowed.  Having to walk around in the city really isn't a choice - if you have to walk - you have to walk.

I'd rather see smoking banned on government owned property than in businesses.

But the reality is that unless all businesses are made smoking-free zones by legislative fiat, most will allow smoking so as to compete with other businesses that also allow it. The 'wisdom' of the invisible hand of the market thus turns most public facilities into smoking-permitted zones with the negative health and nu science effects of smoking customers inflicted on everybody. Government intrusion in this case can actually make the market more efficient. Consider my own example of a restaurant & bar I usually avoided before due to heavy smoke I frequent now that it's smoke free.

One could argue health department certifications should be optional for restaurants as the free market dictates customers will go to those places they know to be safe to eat, but in reality most establishments would dump the cost and oversight of such requirements making uninspected restaurants the norm, thus depriving consumers of any true options. This is essentially what the market has resulted in regarding public smoking.

The health effects of secondhand smoking are well-documented enough to warrant banning smoking in public facilities as discussed, particularly when the lassiz-faire market approach clearly results in most places allowing their customers and employees to be exposed to carcinogenic smoke.

Just curious, Gov: As the proposal clearly goes well beyond your postition of only banning smoking in government owned property, are you indicating you may veto this bill?

I have not made my decision yet.  But I will say that if smoking were banned in both restaurants and on government property (open spaces), I would be more likely to sign it than if it just banned it in businesses and other closed spaces.

Wouldn't "public places" as the bill defines it include government property open to the public? I think I know what you're getting at--and actually agree with you too--but could you elaborate a little so we're all on the same page?

[Badger]

Order, Order.

As Dean of the Assembly, I assume the Chair to preside over an election of Speaker. I ask for nominations.

As he is the most experienced member of Atlasian government in the Assembly, I hereby nominate Peter for Speaker.

Second?

[Badger]

Aye
This Session ends on Friday at noon per Article IV, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Mideast Constitution.
The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Governor is directed to arrange a public poll for ratification of this Amendment.

Said poll will open on Thursday at noon.

The vote has obviously been delayed. Any idea when we can expect the polls to open, Governor?

[Badger]

I also will be absent for most, if not all of the next week and a half starting this Friday. My family and I are going camping and won't be back until 8/9. IF I find a little down time when visiting my folks in town I'll try to check in, but it's unlikely.

[Badger]

Your clause 4 is somewhat difficult to interpret - I would suggest that you probably meant radius and not circumference?

I would suggest that any area under 400 acres needs to be excepted from the legislation (this may sound big, but in reality the amount of actual walkable woodland it will remove from consideration is neglible.

There is also a typo in clause 6 (where not were), and I would suggest that areas where young animals are being reared be excepted also (if only for the safety of roamers).

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

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 100 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.
 

MUCH better. I just got back on line now, but my point reiterates Peter's. That said, my biggest discomfort with the bill is the intrusion into property owner's privacy immediately around their homes. I like the overall thrust of the bill (it apparently works in Scandinavia) but feel the 100 m barrier around ones residence is still too small. I wouldn't like the idea of having a tract of land 20 X 20 acres (i.e. 400 sq. acres) would allow strangers to squat for the weekend barely a football field from my home and family.

Since we're expanding the minimum property size to 400+ acres, what's the maximum size barrier around ones residence we could establish without fundamentally undermining the law's purpose?
200 m? 300?

Finally, I'm not 100% sure, but is the penalties section even necessary? Visitors would presumably be subject to regular local/state ordinances regulating hunting/distruction of property/vandalism, etc., and landowners trying to wrongfully eject visitors from their property would likewise subject to laws re: menacing, assault, disorderly conduct, etc. If landowners summoned the police for visitors lawfully on their property they would normally just be told "sorry, they're within their rights so call us only if they cause problems".

[Badger]

I wouldn't like the idea of having a tract of land 20 X 20 acres (i.e. 400 sq. acres) would allow strangers to squat for the weekend barely a football field from my home and family.

Kind of unrelated, but if it's considered "squatting", then it's not something that should be legalized.

I see your point, but I used the term generically in this case.

[Badger]

I'd like to amend my bill to correct my mistakes and add Peter's proposals.

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 100 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.

The above amendment is accepted as friendly unless Badger objects. If there are any further amendments, please submit them in the next 24 hours otherwise we shall proceed to vote on the legislation.

No objection.

I offer the following amendment: "100 m" in line 4 changed to "250 m".

[Badger]

Just to give my input - I'm not comfortable forcing this on people - I don't plan on signing it.  If you want to make this something voluntary, go right ahead, but I think this is a violation of private property.

I'm going to have to agree with Governor Inks. It's called "private property" for a reason.

SC, can you elaborate more on how this works in Scandanavia? What problems, if any, where there when the law passed? Do landowners consider it a significant intrusion into their privacy?

[Badger]

I offer the following amendment: "100 m" in line 4 changed to "250 m".

We are voting on the preceding amendment. Please vote now.

Aye

[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. "

[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?

[Badger]

Aye.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Badger]

The various amendment proposals that have been suggested, I do not find to be palatable.

*Inks' proposal to make this voluntary might as well be no bill at all. Why ever should we pass a bill to say that something that is already voluntary, is in fat ... voluntary. Its called redundant law.

*Purple State's proposal of incentivising opening of land is not acceptable in my view. Creating a bureaucracy to administer this, and then either tax breaks or hand-outs to large landowners is just ridiculous in my opinion. People with large amounts of land tend to have large amounts of money too. Given our economic times, if we are going to give handouts, lets give them to working families that actually need them.

I don't want this issue to drag on as there are other things we could consider. If there is no movement towards something I might be able to get on board with, I'm going to come down on one side of this issue in 24 hours.

<sigh> As much as I genuinely appreciate the Governor's attempt to find middle ground, I have to agree with Peter. The only real difference between this and the previous toothless proposal to make it completely voluntary is the requirement the land owner file something with the Mideast DNR. I suspect real estate agents and attorneys would add the DNR opt out forms along with standard closing boilerplate any purchase of land exceeding 400 acres. The end result would be nearly the same: The "freedom to roam" becomes discretionary at the option of the landowner same as today, with the rare exception of a landowner that forgot to file a form with the DNR.

I likewise concur with Peter regarding the offer of financial incentives for large landowner being a misplaced priority, particularly with the regional budget facing an $80 billion deficit.

I renew my motion to amend the word "and" to "or" in Clause 10 of the original bill. I realize this creates a new bill and we'll have to go through the additional step of passing this as new legislation, only to presumably be vetoed again and then vote on a veto override, but Inks is right on this point. This was a drafting error we in the Assembly missed the first time around and it needs changed to avoid absurd results.

Second?