Talk:The Public Housing Act, 642

Typn
 * 1) 2619

Text Channel 📜-the-public-housing-act An act to provide free or subsidised housing for the less fortunate. Proposed by Chancellor Patrick Barber, Leader of the Kodiak Workers' Party.

Search

Welcome to #📜-the-public-housing-act! This is the start of the #📜-the-public-housing-act channel. An act to provide free or subsidised housing for the less fortunate. Proposed by Chancellor Patrick Barber, Leader of the Kodiak Workers' Party. June 27, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 06/27/2022 @Assembly Member A resolution to provide free or subsidized housing for the less fortunate. Written and proposed by @Patrick Barber, Leader of the Kodiak Workers' Party. https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/The_Public_Housing_Act,_642

The Kodiak Republic Wiki The Public Housing Act, 642 Return to Kodiak Law Code An act to provide free or subsidised housing for the less fortunate. Passed DD/MM/YYY - ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain 1.1 - Hereby creates the Department of Housing Administration within the Ministry of Social Services (DoHA:MoSS). 1.2 - The DoHA shall be coordinated by a board of no less than five (5) advisors, appointed ...

1

[1:36 PM] I have set the voting date as July 8th, 2022. This date can be adjusted upon request.

Akecheta — 06/27/2022 I would like to add on/change a little bit of this act for sections 2 and 3. For section 2.2 of The Public Housing Act, I would like to add homeless people to the list of eligible people. For section 3.3 of The Public Housing Act, would it be possible to convert old, rundown, existing buildings into new homes for the eligible people, so less land will, overall, be purchased, and not interrupted? It would be good for both the welfare of the people around the old buildings and the ecosystem. (edited) @Akecheta I would like to add on/change a little bit of this act for sections 2 and 3. For section 2.2 of The Public Housing Act, I would like to add homeless people to the list of eligible people. For section 3.3 of The Public Housing Act, would it be possible to convert old, rundown, existing buildings into new homes for the eligible people, so less land will, overall, be purchased, and not interrupted? It would be good for both the welfare of the people around the old buildings and the ecosystem. (edited)

violent malkazhian — 06/27/2022 adding "is homeless" as a qualifier would remove the purpose of the other qualifiers and vastly increase the amount of recipients, maybe beyond what's manageable [2:34 PM] i for one disagree with this bill in the first place, as i believe it would be too large and expensive of a project for us to take up that probably would not be worth it in the end [2:36 PM] it would also stunt the housing market permanently, which would most likely have major repercussions on the economy

New Asden — 06/27/2022 looks at the 2008 global recession [3:01 PM] 1 trillion a quarter (4 trillion florins total) is a lot though @violent malkazhian adding "is homeless" as a qualifier would remove the purpose of the other qualifiers and vastly increase the amount of recipients, maybe beyond what's manageable

Akecheta — 06/27/2022 Possibly, but the homeless would also have a place to live. Besides, this act is for the "less fortunate".

violent malkazhian — 06/27/2022 i dont see much of a point allowing the homeless a space to live if that means that we cant afford much else for those who have paid for their homes @New Asden 1 trillion a quarter (4 trillion florins total) is a lot though

Patrick Barber — 06/27/2022 1 billion. - the bill allocates 1 billion a quarter (edited)

1

Patrick Barber — 06/27/2022 On phone so sentences may be a bit short: The bill is designed to provide relief for poverty-caused homelessness first, with a priority in children. It does not allocate housing based on present homelessness because there aren't enough homes as it is. We need to build them. Long term, we need to ensure equitable access as the housing supply grows. I don't believe it would be equitable to necessarily house a homeless middle class man who could afford a home but hasn't made moves to purchase one. Assuming the assembly does want to alter the qualifications order, my recommendation would be that being in a present state of homelessness may elevate priority by one level. However we need to be cognisant that doing so may mean we have to kick them out later in favour of higher priority tenants. (edited) [5:01 PM] At least until we can build enough units

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/27/2022 I believe the income assessment doesn't exclude homelessness as indicated by Mr Patrick Barber, particularly this bill focuses on poverty and providing housing to those that are in need immediately and without the means to buy a home. It would also prioritise those in the most need, especially as the availability of housing needs to be addressed. As it stands I believe this will go a long way in aiding much of the population in this trying times. June 28, 2022

New Asden — 06/28/2022 I know it says that the quarterly funds will come from SS, but where exactly does that money come from? A tax increase? (edited)

Patrick Barber — 06/28/2022 Funding is from the general fund. As in, the government's usual budget, and shall be allocated to the MoSS for this specific purpose. [4:48 PM] And at present, as there is no language regarding tax in this resolution, there are no tax changes.

1

Patrick Barber — 06/28/2022 housing.mp3 6.35 MB

-:--/-:--

3

2

2

2

Threadspeech recording and transcript3 Messages › There are no recent messages in this thread. Patrick Barber Click to see attachment

Patrick Barber — 06/28/2022 please excuse that i have a mild cold again. i am not at my computer so i decided to expand on my points using a recording since typing on a phone is simply too annoying. (edited) June 29, 2022

Funa started a thread: speech recording and transcript. See all threads. — 06/29/2022

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/29/2022 With the provision in 2.4 I am happy to see that once a unit is raised to a certain income level they will be relocated out of the government housing. However, what of the unit that never comes out of the lowest income bracket? Do we intend to allow citizens to freeload off the government in these homes permanently? Do we risk rewarding sectors of the society that will not contribute to the nation's recovery? Do we risk locking out applicants with better potential to enter into the workforce because our Government Housing has been filled by those that will only do the bare minimum? I would seek to see language in the bill that ensures we will not tolerate drug use within the government domiciles, evicting those that can not pass mandatory drug testing both before and during their occupation of the housing. Similarly, if the unit is not making efforts to increase their financial standing, why should we continue to support them?

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Wouldn't temporary government housing be more effective? I see the main problem here is that people don't have jobs to sustain themselves. I mean, what good is a house if you can't afford food, transportation, etc.? I feel like we should provide housing until the tenants of the household find a stable job which can keep them afloat. The focus right now should not be housing, but instead unemployment.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Have we run out of programs to stir job creation? Surely not. @Yay it's Searls Have we run out of programs to stir job creation? Surely not.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 No we haven't, but we need more effective ones.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Such as?

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I think, to my college’s point, we need to pursue a job creation or stimulus bill to spur employment to truly make an effect on the homeless situation. Giving everyone a home is good, spurs jobs in the construction industry. But the homeless aren’t likely going to filling in those physically demanding positions of hard labor anytime soon. (edited)

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 I think temporary housing would be better suited as an interim while a proactive bill to stimulate the economy would be a more productive direction.

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 I would note that private housing stock does not meet demand, and this bill is a direct and proactive bill to stimulate the economy. I also disagree with the prior point. a large portion of our able population is homeless because of lack of jobs. A residence will directly feed them into the workforce faster than any other program could while they remain on the streets.

1

1

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I agree, but I believe the housing should be temporary. Give them the resources to get back up on their feet and get them a sustainable job. Then, once they can afford housing themself, we move them out and move in another homeless person. Instead of the government building thousands of houses and giving them out for free or otherwise giving out already existing houses for free, we could stimulate the real estate market and provide building companies with demand for more houses by growing the middle class. Tackles a lot more problems and is a lot less expensive than Mr. Barber's resolution.

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 I encourage you to read the resolution - the units are not for free. Renters will be charged a fee based on their income. and for those without a solid income, a minimal administration fee is still assessed. And i continue to assert that the words 'we could stimulate the market' is not a policy. This, public housing, is a policy. (edited)

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 I will point out that (2.4) provides a provision for 'moving them out' if they have a solid income. Let's help those in need, we can help their basic needs while stimulating jobs and the economy - and continue to explore more economical stimulus and jobs creation, helping people move upwards from handling their basics. Surely the Government has funding to do 'more than one thing at a time', so I'm not sure why there seems to be the thinking in the assembly of absolutes in regards to 'one policy or another'. There will very likely not be one policy that solves it all. (edited) @Yay it's Searls I think temporary housing would be better suited as an interim while a proactive bill to stimulate the economy would be a more productive direction.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 Yes my thoughts are that this is not the 'one and only solution' and a combination of policies and stimulus to improve the prospects of the much larger low and middle income classes should continue to be explored. So we should not treat this as such in any case as the proposal does not indicate as such, nor has the Government stated this is the case. @Oskar Luchens (NUP) I think, to my college’s point, we need to pursue a job creation or stimulus bill to spur employment to truly make an effect on the homeless situation. Giving everyone a home is good, spurs jobs in the construction industry. But the homeless aren’t likely going to filling in those physically demanding positions of hard labor anytime soon. (edited)

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 While I agree that not everyone would be suited for a job that constitutes hard labour, this bill as we all agree on would stimulate the construction industry and I would suggest that there is also likely people that are in need of a home and also able to fill the construction jobs that will then be in demand (we are both only speculating at this point however). After all, I think most people in Kodiak would rather prefer they also have an income to not only feed themselves and their families, but also to spend money on themselves. (edited) @Patrick Barber I encourage you to read the resolution - the units are not for free. Renters will be charged a fee based on their income. and for those without a solid income, a minimal administration fee is still assessed. And i continue to assert that the words 'we could stimulate the market' is not a policy. This, public housing, is a policy. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I will admit that I did not examine the bill as much as I should have, and I apologize. I agree that stimulating the market is not a policy, however, I still see that the root problem here is unemployment. I just don't know if permanent government housing=employment. I think temporary government housing+job stimulating programs=employment. And I just think we don't have enough job stimulating programs.

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 I appreciate your response but i just simply cannot accept that you don't believe that funding construction at a nation-wide scale isn't economic stimulant. I also cannot conceive of an moral way to 'temporarily' house someone during a homelessness crisis, and unemployment crisis, and a food crisis. (edited) @Patrick Barber I appreciate your response but i just simply cannot accept that you don't believe that funding construction at a nation-wide scale isn't economic stimulant. I also cannot conceive of an moral way to 'temporarily' house someone during a homelessness crisis, and unemployment crisis, and a food crisis. (edited)

Andrew Summersons (AND) — 06/29/2022 I think that would help during a state of calamity or Terrorist attacks (edited) @Patrick Barber I appreciate your response but i just simply cannot accept that you don't believe that funding construction at a nation-wide scale isn't economic stimulant. I also cannot conceive of an moral way to 'temporarily' house someone during a homelessness crisis, and unemployment crisis, and a food crisis. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Yes, the construction in the first place is an economic stimulant. What I'm worried about is the future real estate market and construction market. After the government starts rapidly building houses in a short period of time and COMPLETELY filling demand, then both the construction and real estate markets stall. Yes, we may have an economic boost that we can enjoy for a few more years. But then what? There won't be enough demand to build houses nor sell or buy them. We should not let short term economic success overshadow our decisions which effect future economic prosperity. (edited) @Oskar Luchens (NUP) With the provision in 2.4 I am happy to see that once a unit is raised to a certain income level they will be relocated out of the government housing. However, what of the unit that never comes out of the lowest income bracket? Do we intend to allow citizens to freeload off the government in these homes permanently? Do we risk rewarding sectors of the society that will not contribute to the nation's recovery? Do we risk locking out applicants with better potential to enter into the workforce because our Government Housing has been filled by those that will only do the bare minimum? I would seek to see language in the bill that ensures we will not tolerate drug use within the government domiciles, evicting those that can not pass mandatory drug testing both before and during their occupation of the housing. Similarly, if the unit is not making efforts to increase their financial standing, why should we continue to support them?

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 Can you expand on your latter paragraph here? We should also keep in mind that we shouldn't paint all people in with the same strokes. For instance, there could be many reasons why a 'unit' is stuck in a low income bracket. Disability for instance, or they are a single parent with children. They are no less deserving of our support. Seeing people as their capacity to contribute to the nation's recovery is not a path I want to see this assembly go down, however I do not believe that was your intention as rhetoric does tend to get dramatic here. So I'd be interested in thoughts around assessment. It is also highly likely that a vast majority of people that are currently homeless in Kodiak are more than capable of moving out of the lowest income bracket... in a nation that is not in a state of crisis after long years of severe abandonment. So again, we do have a responsibility to take care of the basics at this stage - but we can do so while at the same time stimulating various industries and thus our economy as highlighted by the Chancellor. The knock on effect is further economic growth as people focus on improving their situation through employment as jobs continue to be created now, and in the future. (edited) @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) Yes, the construction in the first place is an economic stimulant. What I'm worried about is the future real estate market and construction market. After the government starts rapidly building houses in a short period of time and COMPLETELY filling demand, then both the construction and real estate markets stall. Yes, we may have an economic boost that we can enjoy for a few more years. But then what? There won't be enough demand to build houses nor sell or buy them. We should not let short term economic success overshadow our decisions which effect future economic prosperity. (edited)

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 Our GDP is 1600 billion florins. 4 billion will not crash the economy in the long, medium, nor short term. These claims are wildly out of step with the actual functions of the bill. Population growth is positive, private housing is not keeping up. we should not let the imaginations of long term economic dreams affect current economic reality. (edited) @Patrick Barber Our GDP is 1600 billion florins. 4 billion will not crash the economy in the long, medium, nor short term. These claims are wildly out of step with the actual functions of the bill. Population growth is positive, private housing is not keeping up. we should not let the imaginations of long term economic dreams affect current economic reality. (edited)

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 True, but you already have said we are scratching the bottom of the barrel when it comes to government funds. Where are we going to pull these billions from? @Patrick Barber Our GDP is 1600 billion florins. 4 billion will not crash the economy in the long, medium, nor short term. These claims are wildly out of step with the actual functions of the bill. Population growth is positive, private housing is not keeping up. we should not let the imaginations of long term economic dreams affect current economic reality. (edited)

Adam Philips — 06/29/2022 We should Probably Economically boost aswell Because Some expenses may affect the economy once public housing is over @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) Yes, the construction in the first place is an economic stimulant. What I'm worried about is the future real estate market and construction market. After the government starts rapidly building houses in a short period of time and COMPLETELY filling demand, then both the construction and real estate markets stall. Yes, we may have an economic boost that we can enjoy for a few more years. But then what? There won't be enough demand to build houses nor sell or buy them. We should not let short term economic success overshadow our decisions which effect future economic prosperity. (edited)

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 Completely filling demand seems nigh on impossible. There should be demand generated as people grow out of public housing, secure an income, demand better housing. Economic growth will also support commercial real estate and industrial construction. At this stage the current crisis would suggest that the real estate and construction market really needs the stimulus now. (edited) Adam Philips We should Probably Economically boost aswell Because Some expenses may affect the economy once public housing is over

Adam Philips — 06/29/2022 I think we could Tax the rich more and tax the poor less, so that we could get some more rich then could we get money real fast (edited) [7:52 PM] so that we could support more expensuve programs, bills, and acts in the future

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Is this the Democracy 4 simulation? Or something else? @Yay it's Searls Is this the Democracy 4 simulation? Or something else?

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 if your question isn't related to the debate, please post it in lobby

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Yes it is.

Patrick Barber — 06/29/2022 all the mock-government policies and bills are run through the simulation - yes.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Okay, yes. I still think that another option should be thought of concerning the housing issue. I've found that heavy housing programs (and state pensions) can be a burden later on. So, I think we should think more about economic policies instead if we have too many unemployed.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 Surely this is the vital first step in that process. A homeless person is essentially incapable of obtaining a job due to their homelessness. We can solve that issue first, once that person is able to enter the workforce (due to not being homeless anymore) they will contribute to the economy. Economic policies only work if the populace are contributing to the economy. This bill can get the homeless back into the economy.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 That's not how the game operates, though. [8:55 PM] Government housing really put a large dent in the private housing market and can become bloated in the budget.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 The game is reporting a homelessness crisis.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 A light housing policy and more economic policy is needed.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Additionally, some attention should be given to lower income in case poverty has gotten out of control (hence the homelessness) and people can't afford things properly because they do not have a subtle income.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 Agreed, but they are not likely to get a suitable income without first having the very basic survival need of shelter.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 I get it. But I strongly disagree if this housing bill is aggressive. It's not good idea long-term. [9:21 PM] Other policies should be considered before this is fully developed. [9:25 PM] I mean, it's not like - to roleplay - these state houses are going to go up instantly. That will take time as well. So, either way, other policies should be looked at to help others who aren't homeless not become homeless furthering the crisis.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I agree with Mr. Searls here. This policy isn't going to work until we lay the ground work. [9:27 PM] Which in this case would be policies and programs to open up new jobs. There's no point in housing the homeless if they can't get a job when they have a home.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Well, the State Housing can reduce homelessness, but it causes issues with the private housing sector and can eat away the GDP.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 Other policies aimed at improving the low income earners will take extended time to implement, require retraining etc. This is a policy that addresses an immediate crisis, with an economy boosting program, will get more citizens into the economy in the shortest amount of time while providing jobs into the bargain. Other programs will take even more time than this one. I would also point out that this is the ground work. This is step one. All other programs are predicated on citizen being able to work.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 I still think that no crisis should be heavily pumped with government funds. [9:30 PM] Light state housing, and other policies to reduce poverty should be a focus.

1

@Yay it's Searls Well, the State Housing can reduce homelessness, but it causes issues with the private housing sector and can eat away the GDP.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I agree with Searls again, I am most worried about the private housing sector when it comes to this bill. [9:30 PM] Real estate is a big money maker.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 But part of the reason this has come to pass is the private housing market isn't keeping up. The poor, as a rule, are not able to afford to enter the private housing market. A policy designed to boost the private housing market (and theoretically deal with homelessness as a result) would result in failure as the market are poor, homeless and therefore unemployed and unable to enter said market. Real estate is not a money maker if 55% of the country cannot afford to get involved.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 The issue with the housing market is affordability and policies to the lower incomes need to be a huge focus. [9:38 PM] Otherwise, you're saying that State Housing is the last stop for the poor. [9:38 PM] They will not move forward from there to their own residence. [9:38 PM] This is not a progressive plan.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 What I'm suggesting is things like temporary apartments that can carry them to the position where they can buy a house. [9:40 PM] But then again we should deal with job availability first. Even if you have a house, if you have no job you can't afford food or transportation. (edited)

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 The policy states exactly that.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 I think this is a misstep in government action. It is the only bill being promoted. There are no other bills in tandem. So, I definitely do not agree that this bill should proceed as it stands. @John Edwards [KWP] The policy states exactly that.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Sure, but if the job is not high paying enough, people could stay in government funded housing indefinitely. (edited)

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 I said that earlier. @Yay it's Searls I said that earlier.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Ah sorry.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 At this stage I've based my thoughts on the intention I believe is that this is not the only step and I do not think the Chancellor has suggested this is.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 I say that job availability concern>housing concern, and a bill which increases job availability should be passed first and foremost. If that happens, I'd be happy to support this bill. [9:43 PM] At this time I just can't support it.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 (sorry had to check the kitchen) I do certainly agree that other considerations need to be addressed to tackle other causes, as Mr Searls has already mentioned. @Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) At this stage I've based my thoughts on the intention I believe is that this is not the only step and I do not think the Chancellor has suggested this is.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 That's not entirely the point. This is a heavy budget policy. No other policy or within this bill are other policies being mentioned. This seems like an overraction to the crisis and I disagree that this should be step one.

1

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 For the first part, that has been the style of legislation though, for the legislation to be isolated to the topic at hand. There should be other policies introduced, but they should also be separate acts in my opinion. As for your disagreement on what should be step one, that is fair, don't get me wrong, I accept that there are differing opinions on what steps to take, when, or in what combination. I simply don't see this as the sole step one, and step one is really going to have to be a collection of policies. I am not the writer however, so I can't speak to intentions here. @Yay it's Searls The issue with the housing market is affordability and policies to the lower incomes need to be a huge focus.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 I definitely agree that there is more to be done such as this, ideally in the very near future.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Maybe we should try working with the minister of industry to make a program which opens up jobs, and quickly.

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 "For the first part, that has been the style of legislation though, for the legislation to be isolated to the topic at hand. There should be other policies introduced, but they should also be separate acts in my opinion." Mm, well I'm not so sure here. If we're trying to address a crisis, there can be multiple steps in a proposal, e.g. bills that have been passed for COVID relief and the like. So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to include other steps.

1

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 06/29/2022 Hmmm, yes I can see that as being valid also. @Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) Maybe we should try working with the minister of industry to make a program which opens up jobs, and quickly.

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 The minister responsible for industry is the one who proposed this bill.

1

@John Edwards [KWP] The minister responsible for industry is the one who proposed this bill.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/29/2022 Yeah I completely forgot

Yay it's Searls — 06/29/2022 Can you expound on your point?

John Edwards [KWP] — 06/29/2022 I would also propose that there is something of a humanitarian issue here as well. Surely homeless children and families need to be housed.

1

June 30, 2022

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/30/2022 Instead of trying to add job creation to the bill, I think the compromise is that we pair this bill with another bill to get some job creation for unskilled labor or target a sector of the economy that we can train workers for.

1

violent malkazhian — 06/30/2022 replace the bill with the job creation one [9:37 AM] have the people build high density housing and then live in said housing [9:37 AM] initiating a military recruitment drive could also create jobs to pay for people's housing @violent malkazhian have the people build high density housing and then live in said housing

Patrick Barber — 06/30/2022 this is literally this bill. @Patrick Barber this is literally this bill.

violent malkazhian — 06/30/2022 i was more speaking in terms of the payment they receive working is what allows them to afford the yome [9:40 AM] as opposed to them being given a free home @violent malkazhian initiating a military recruitment drive could also create jobs to pay for people's housing

Jocelyn Jones [KWP] — 06/30/2022 @violent malkazhian A 12 month conscription would cause more harm than good for the defense ministry. In the short term. We won’t be able to equip and provide support to such an influx of recruits. The existing army of 100,000 is not fully equipped and supported. The massive cost of such an undertaking will take away from needed programs in the sustainment and procurement sectors. The Air Force and navy lack the platforms to make use of more numbers. Long term, it takes on average 3-4 years (minimum) for a recruit to gain the necessary training and experience to achieve a level of competence in basic tasks. 12 month conscriptions would be wasteful and generate a number of unskilled recruits that would not add to any benefits for reserve service afterwards. -Oskar Luchens

1

violent malkazhian — 06/30/2022 or a subsidized home @violent malkazhian as opposed to them being given a free home

Patrick Barber — 06/30/2022 please read the bill - the home must be paid for by the occupant - it is not free. any subsidies that are provided are based on income. no one is getting a free home. that is not the bill presented. (edited) @Patrick Barber please read the bill - the home must be paid for by the occupant - it is not free. any subsidies that are provided are based on income. no one is getting a free home. that is not the bill presented. (edited)

violent malkazhian — 06/30/2022 i had read it the other day, may have misunderstood what was presented @violent malkazhian i had read it the other day, may have misunderstood what was presented

Patrick Barber — 06/30/2022

@Jocelyn Jones [KWP] @violent malkazhian  A 12 month conscription would cause more harm than good for the defense ministry. In the short term. We won’t be able to equip and provide support to such an influx of recruits. The existing army of 100,000 is not fully equipped and supported. The massive cost of such an undertaking will take away from needed programs in the sustainment and procurement sectors. The Air Force and navy lack the platforms to make use of more numbers. Long term, it takes on average 3-4 years (minimum) for a recruit to gain the necessary training and experience to achieve a level of competence in basic tasks. 12 month conscriptions would be wasteful and generate a number of unskilled recruits that would not add to any benefits for reserve service afterwards. -Oskar Luchens

violent malkazhian — 06/30/2022 i had assumed we were in a more stable place with the military, though i wasnt proposing a conscription plan, rather an increase in advertising [9:42 AM] though this isnt the topic of the bill

Jocelyn Jones [KWP] — 06/30/2022 Yeah just thought I'd show why drafting is a bad idea @Oskar Luchens (NUP) Instead of trying to add job creation to the bill, I think the compromise is that we pair this bill with another bill to get some job creation for unskilled labor or target a sector of the economy that we can train workers for.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 06/30/2022 I agree. This bill cannot be passed by itself, or else we will face a crisis of housed yet still jobless people struggling to pay for food and transportation. We need to pair this bill with another bill that opens up jobs in TKR.

Patrick Barber — 06/30/2022 Housing homeless people is not a crisis. It's morality. This line of reasoning is simply illogical. Saying, "this isn't the magic bullet that fixes everything at once" is not a sound reasonable critique. Especially since the NUP appear to be incapable of recognising that building these houses will create jobs and provide wages. Every critique is "I want a jobs bill" and none include any hint to actually creating or suggesting a jobs bill, nor even a reason this bill is incompatible. This bill can and might as well be passed by itself because if my NUP colleagues cannot present an actionable suggestion then this bill, by the KWP, is the only attempt by any party within this assembly to actually create jobs, increase wages, or solve a problem in front of us. Heck, half the critiques are not even within the bill! The NUP talk of what this bill 'needs'. People need security. People need homes. People need jobs. People need better than this shallow politics. I remind my colleagues that my position as chancellor was secured with this being the KWPs leading policy. I cannot believe it wise to ignore the needs nor will of the people in this mandate. (edited) @Patrick Barber Housing homeless people is not a crisis. It's morality. This line of reasoning is simply illogical. Saying, "this isn't the magic bullet that fixes everything at once" is not a sound reasonable critique. Especially since the NUP appear to be incapable of recognising that building these houses will create jobs and provide wages. Every critique is "I want a jobs bill" and none include any hint to actually creating or suggesting a jobs bill, nor even a reason this bill is incompatible. This bill can and might as well be passed by itself because if my NUP colleagues cannot present an actionable suggestion then this bill, by the KWP, is the only attempt by any party within this assembly to actually create jobs, increase wages, or solve a problem in front of us. Heck, half the critiques are not even within the bill! The NUP talk of what this bill 'needs'. People need security. People need homes. People need jobs. People need better than this shallow politics. I remind my colleagues that my position as chancellor was secured with this being the KWPs leading policy. I cannot believe it wise to ignore the needs nor will of the people in this mandate. (edited)

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 06/30/2022 I am willing to work for my colleges to obtain a solution to the suffering of large swaths of the population. Many of the ideas raised in this discussion are for presentation in a separate bill. As I said early. I think we should begin an economic works project bill that we can also pass "separate of this". On the actual topic of this bill. In the my initial critique, I brought up mandated drug testing for the occupants in order to be proactive in preventing these homes deteriorating into sanctuaries for drug production. The addition of a provision: 2.5 - Units must consent to a mandatory drug testing screening prior receiving benefits of the PHA. Units will continue to pass an annual drug screening while renting from DoHa. 2.5.1 - Units that fail to pass a drug test will be placed on probation and must complete a rehabilitation program or obtain a passing test within 6 months. 2.5.2 - Failure to pass a second drug test will result in an eviction notice. (edited)

Patrick Barber — 06/30/2022 in the interest of seeing the passage of this bill and the overall benefits i believe it will bring, i am willing to acquiesce to this point. i disagree with the general sentiment as i believe most afflicted with addiction do so specifically as a coping mechanism to the exact types of troubles this bill attempts to assuage - which would ultimately mean we are punishing the very people we intent to help in the first instance, but steps are steps. [9:48 PM] assuming there are no particular objections from the other parties or independents, i will amend the bill accordingly after they have had time to wake up and read your suggestion. in approx 11 hours. (edited) July 1, 2022

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 07/01/2022 The proposed amendments for 'Units' implies everyone in the unit doesn't it? Does it need to be more specific so we do not submit young children to a drug test for instance. So, 'Members of a unit over the age of x', e.g., 18 is one idea. Although I can accept the argument that DoHA will be sane and administer drug testing in such a way for it to make sense (i.e., they aren't going around testing underage children just because). I do not object to an amendment. I also do agree with presentation of separate bills regarding other economic stimulus policies. July 3, 2022

Klaus Mikaelson — 07/03/2022 I can't say I have an issue with any of the thoughts/issues brought up in the above post. July 5, 2022

Visdvk — 07/05/2022 I think this is a good bill and would be a good thing for it to pass. (edited)

2

July 6, 2022

Yay it's Searls — 07/06/2022 Sorry. How long does it take to pass a bill? Or what factors move it to a vote? I think this is coming to a close and should be voted on.

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 07/06/2022 @Yay it's Searls the voting date was set to July 8th for this resolution.

1

July 8, 2022 Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) used

EasyPollBOT — 07/08/2022 (edited)

Question Do you support the resolution? Choices Aye  Nay  Abstain Final Result  ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [11 • 52%]  ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [8 • 38%]  ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 21 users voted Settings  Poll already ended (a day ago)  Anonymous Poll  allowed choice  No other votes allowed Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 6HJ6crG35g

1

1

1

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 07/08/2022 @Assembly Member The proposed resolution is up for vote. All further discussion on the resolution is prohibited.

July 10, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 07/10/2022 @Assembly Member the voting will end in 13 hours. Please get your vote in. Thank you!

5

July 11, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — Yesterday at 9:21 PM @Assembly Member The proposed resolution has passed. I will be archiving and deleting the channel in 24 hours.