NationStates Jolt Archive

Increased Provision of Housing

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Warmly applauding the many previous resolutions passed by the General Assembly on the subject of basic or fundamental rights,

Equally recognising that establishing an asbstract concept of rights, inscribing this concept in the lawbooks of the UN, and waltzing off to neck gin and tonics with the other ambassadors will not ultimately do a vast amount to further international social justice, if adequate consideration of practical realities is not made,

Seeking, therefore, not so much to establish in this resolution the idea of a 'right to housing', but rather to induce international efforts to extend access to adequate shelter, an important social goal sadly neglected thus far by UN legislation,

Also noting that in its Resolution #215, "Unnecessary Animal Cruelty", the General Assembly has supported the provision of proper shelter for animals,

Not considering it unreasonable to extend this concept to actual people, given it has already been granted for our furry forest friends:

1. Declares that the UN and its member governments shall henceforth hold the provision of adequate shelter for all persons to be one of the primary social goals to be realized as immediately as is possible;

2. Recognises that geographic and economic constraints may act to hinder the ability of some governments of provide such for those under their jurisdiction, and as such strongly promotes international cooperation in this field, particularly encouraging targetted aid agreements towards assisting disadvantaged nations;

3. Requires all nations, at a minimum, to provide temporary relief shelter for those made homeless by war or disaster;

4. Strongly encourages all nations to secure for all of its nationals, whether through public construction, financial assistance, or otherwise, adequate shelter, namely that which provides basic protection against the weather, and individual safety and privacy, in a sanitary environment, with requisite space for the number of persons housed within the structure, and access to clean water and, where possible, other basic amenities;

5. Strongly discourages construction projects on ground that will prove unsustainable for permanent habitation, and promotes projects to develop such land into a usable environment;

6. Prohibits slum clearance, being the destruction of informal shelter, where its inhabitants have no clear alternative shelter available, while happily reminding member nations that efforts to eliminate the need for unsanitary and dangerous slum settlements would be aided by the provision of better, alternative shelter;

7. Establishes the UN Commission on Housing, whose mandate will be to:
- act as a repository for loans and grants, as well as any regular funds, and to distribute such financial aid as is required to nations trying to expand their provision of shelter;
- research improved construction types, with emphasis on durability, safety and economy, and to give advice on the construction of low cost housing;
- coordinate, in consultation with other relevant agencies, construction efforts in the wake of major disasters so as to quickly rehouse as many displaced persons as possible;

8. Encourages nations to take into account not merely the direct physical needs of its people in providing shelter, but also to make some consideration of the social consequences of new housing projects and to direct some effort towards the development of community amenities.

This proposal is our attempt to legislate on housing, and to provide some meaningful action rather than simply saying 'everyone has a right to house'. Well, that's nice...but how is that going to be realized? I think it needs a lot of work; it is already tight for character count so perhaps the first place to start is what obviously needs to be stripped out.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Department of UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

Yeah, Social "Democrats". Riiiiight :rolleyes:.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador


OOC: What about the slavery repeal/replace? Yes, yes, that's still on. But I don't have time to TG for it right now, plus there may be a couple of other repeals coming up and I really don't want an already contentious repeal to become waaaaahmbulance roadkill. I have already discussed this with New Leicestershire, but apologies to him again anyway (although I think his proposal can be submitted before the repeal anyway anyway). Three proposals? Yes, I obviously will only have time to TG for one, if that. But I was getting bogged down and thought I'd try something different. Whichever is the most workable - not necessarily popular - I may go with. Do you have no life whatsoever? No, no I don't.

Ariddia had something like this before; I don't think I've plagiarised it, but I can't find a copy of their draft anyway. If I have, kill me.

Ariddia had something like this before; I don't think I've plagiarised it, but I can't find a copy of their draft anyway.Here's a link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501900)

If you want to strip down the character count, you could change the second paragraph to something like: "Equally recognising that simply establishing an abstract concept of rights will not ultimately do a vast amount to further international social justice, if adequate consideration of practical realities is not made." and the fifth to something like "Believing that that sapients also deserve that right".

-the Plutonian ambassador

Here's a link. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=501900)
Ah, thank you. I must've been using the wrong search terms.

As usual, despite Mr. Madison's distemper, the Quoddites have provided a very good starting point for practical action on the part of the UN. Our comments today, however, must be kept to a minimum.

The three mandates appear much tighter in construction than the preamble or even some of the ancillary clauses. So even at the risk of losing "waltzing off to neck gin and tonics" we would look to the preamble to buy more vowels and consonants.

We plan on adding more substantive comments in the near future after having a chance to analyze the proposal over a couple of gin and tonics. ;)

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

OOC: We'll take "I have no life" for $250, Alex.

It's a worthy cause, and I think that the operative terminology is generally mild enough not to offend against my government's views on National Sovereignty -- well, there's the prohibition on clearing slums when no alternative housing is actually available, but surely that's a matter of common sense -- especially now the Conservative Centrists have been given a share of the ministries, so I think that this is actually a 'Social Justice' proposal for which I would be able to vote.

H'mm, would there be any chance of getting the words "the encouragement of charity," inserted after "public construction" in the following section? I realise that the clause is loose enough for that to be an acceptable means of meeting its requirements anyway, but having the possibility specifically mentioned would please my government...

4. Strongly encourages all nations to secure for all of its nationals, whether through public construction, financial assistance, or otherwise,


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

it is already tight for character count so perhaps the first placeWhat is the limit (and how many characters do line breaks count as)? I'd like to put that in the rules.

The rule of thumb I was given was 3500 words including spaces. Not sure what line breaks count as, but it's at least a space.

Just to note, MSWord's word count tool seems to parse just slightly differently than the proposal submission one.

3,500; line breaks are 2 characters if using Windows, I believe; and it's *always* worth checking the actual submission box if c+ping from Word or some other program.

---

I wanted to answer the point about private charity by basically saying 'no'. I'd point out this proposal in no way discriminates against such efforts, nor does it rule them out, and I will admit I'd consider some alternate wording like 'community funds' or something, but I don't really want to endorse the concept of private patronage in a proposal about public housing, because it's really part of the problem. Housing is such a basic need that anyone commanding control over others' housing can usually exert a tremendous degree of influence over those people's lives. Far better that people at least have the choice of taking up housing in the neutral, public sphere if their need is great, rather than falling into dependence.

So, if only because I think it's a bit incoherent, I don't plan on giving 'private charity' a look in.

-- Samantha Benson

I wanted to answer the point about private charity by basically saying 'no'. I'd point out this proposal in no way discriminates against such efforts, nor does it rule them out, and I will admit I'd consider some alternate wording like 'community funds' or something, but I don't really want to endorse the concept of private patronage in a proposal about public housing, because it's really part of the problem. Housing is such a basic need that anyone commanding control over others' housing can usually exert a tremendous degree of influence over those people's lives. Far better that people at least have the choice of taking up housing in the neutral, public sphere if their need is great, rather than falling into dependence. So, if only because I think it's a bit incoherent, I don't plan on giving 'private charity' a look in.

*mutters something about St Edmundan charities in general being a lot more "neutral" than many of the UN member-nations' governments...*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OOC
It's a theological matter: One of the most influential religious movements in the St Edmundan nations is the Godwinnian Catholic Church, whose ['Pelagian'] doctrines place a high value on "Salvation through Works", so those lands
(a) have a very strong charitable sector which effectively makes tax-funded systems for providing health, education & welfare programmes unnecesary;
and
(b) tend to see the use of 'public' programmes for such purposes as immoral, because those would reduce people's opportunities to do good works in those fields voluntarily and thus make it harder for them to attain salvation...