Slum Clearance and Urban Renewal Regulation Act

[A Former User]

Evidently, stating that this act enforces regulations may not have been the best idea. What this act essentially does is simply stop sudden mass evictions of neighborhoods while at the same time reducing discriminatory clearance or removal. I did assume that it would be member-states that would be enforcing this regulation, rather than the Union at large, but evidently this may not be true.

As a result, I propose the following amendment:

AMENDMENT I

SECTION III: ENFORCEMENT*

I. This act shall be enforced by member-states.
II. Failure to enforce this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.

[BrumBrum]

James Roscoe I propose the following ammendments:

Ammendment I:
I. Slum clearance and urban renewal are prohibited if they take place without a plan for the adequate rehousing of those living within the areas to be cleared.
a) Such a plan must be promulgated to the public at least ninety days before the clearance of a slum or an area to be “renewed.” At the same time, it must be ensured that all residents of a slum, or as many as is possible, are informed of it.
b) Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed.
Ammendment II:
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated at at least market value for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.
III. Residents must be safely elsewhere, temporarily, during the physical clearance of an area.

[A Former User]

In response, I propose the following amendment:

Amendment III:
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents.
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.

[BrumBrum]

James Mizrachi-Roscoe:"While I am for protecting residents section III is dangerous and could stop construction of factory expansions, business locations and public projects like colleges,parks and railways as it could be viewed under this law as intentionally and permanently displacing residents. This section must go and displacement must be allowed to allow change of land uses in the public interest."

[Fayrrendel]

Councilor Juvinal, perhaps I should clarify my position. I am not of the belief that this type of policy should be imposed on member states by Europolis. Having member states enforce EU regulations does not change the fact they are regulations from the European Union. Again, its should be localities and member states that make ordinances to address and not the responsibility of a regional government. Different members states will inevitably have different situations surrounding slums and discrimination and those localities should make policies accordingly. Councillor, if you really want to make a difference for the working class and the poor, then support direct action to get their local governments to make fairer housing regulations and move towards restoration of run-down urban neighborhoods. There are plenty in Ruthund that I have supported to achieve these ends and some of them have succeeded in restoring former slums. Frankly, housing regulations should not be coming from a regional government top-down, rather it should be the people making these regulations from the bottom-up.

Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund

[A Former User]

I withdraw my amendments and support those of Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe.

[A Former User]

Addressing Councillor Zatoni, yes, regulations should be made from the bottom up; however, I am not comfortable in dropping this legislation entirely. Politically and discriminatorily-motivated clearances and renewals must be prohibited with speed. This Union should not and cannot tolerate violations of human rights.

Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates

[A Former User]

In its current form, this act is unlikely to accomplish anything. As a result, I propose the following amendment, which would have the added benefit of filling a gaping hole in the existing UDoHR.

Section I: DEFINITIONS:

Slum: a residential area of high-density composed primarily of informal housing, with poor to non-existent infrastructure.
Slum clearance: the forcible demolition of slums, or the mass eviction of residents from them
Urban renewal: the destruction or improvement of areas considered decayed as to make way for economic and physical development.
Adequate rehousing: the resettlement of displaced individuals in housing able to protect individuals from the elements, with access to basic infrastructure.

Population transfer: the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another

Section II: REGULATIONS:
Population transfer is prohibited. No state or other actor may undertake actions that result or cause such a thing.

I. Slum clearance and urban renewal are prohibited if they take place without a plan for the adequate rehousing of those living within the areas to be cleared.
a) Such a plan must be promulgated to the public at least ninety days before the clearance of a slum or an area to be “renewed.” At the same time, it must be ensured that all residents of a slum, or as many as is possible, are informed of it.
, b) Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed.
II. Legal residents evicted by slum clearance or urban renewal must be compensated for their removal.
III. Urban renewal and slum clearance must not result in the intentional and permanent displacement of residents.
IV. Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared.
V. Residents must be safely elsewhere, temporarily, during the physical clearance of an area.

SECTION III: ENFORCEMENT
I. This act shall be enforced by member-states.
II. Failure to enforce this act may be tried in the European Court of Justice.

[Alkharya]

Councillor Juvinal, if you're going to make such an amendment, I suggest you do it as an amendment to the UDoHR instead of proposing it as an Act.

---

Councillor Aylin Gökçen of Alkharya

[Inimicus]

"The Empire of Inimicus will not support legislation which deprives it of the basic national right to plan urban cityscapes the way it wants to. In Inimicus, urban development is the explicit prerogative of our great seven provinces, whose administrations have ensured, and continue to ensure, that this constitutionally-mandated duty is performed with utmost correctness and propriety. Taking this right away from them would be an affront to the Inimician Constitutional settlement.

With Cllr Juvinal's latest amendment, which basically scraps the entire Act and replaces it with a general rule of human rights, the Act becomes virtually obsolete -- it should no longer bear the name it does and should, I agree with Cllr Gökçen, instead, be submitted as an amendment to the UDoHR, if at all. Inimicus will not support this or any amendments proposed thus far."

Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Temporary Councillor for the Empire of Inimicus

[Montenbourg]

"We have a large public that is very ignorant about public affairs and very susceptible to simplistic slogans or proposals who appear out of nowhere, just to be impulse a personal prerrogative of populist ideas, have no track record, but mouth appealing. The Kingdom of Montenbourg will not support this piece of legislation with all due respect to Cllr. Juvinal."

Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg

[Spain]

First of all I'll answer Cllr. Juvinal by saying it's true that nobody wants to destroy it, but I'm sure the city of Madrid would destroy it if the citizens wanted to move away. Slums won't be done legal with this act, obviously, but they will have more protection towards state plans or local plans, or at least they would have had until the new amendments came out. For those who might be lost, I'm referring to Scetion 1b, which says: "Such plans must be made with the cooperation of the residents of the area to be cleared or renewed." or Section IV: "Urban renewal and slum clearance must occur in cooperation with those living inside areas to be renewed or cleared." No need to say why I do agree with the 2nd part of Cllr. Zatoni's words, and especially these words: "These sort of policies should be left for the nation of the respective local polity to address." This is another reason why I don't support this act: The European Union integrationism is not being considered as something correct, just look at the Commission elections. I'm a proud Europeist, but if we want to keep the EU working, we then need to protect some of the rights member states have.

Then came the amendments show: If the act proposal wasn't outrageous enough, now the act needs to be enforced and you could be taken to the ECoJ if it isn't enforced. Then Section IV was removed in another amendment from Councillor Juvinal while Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe tried to amend the disastrous act. But my surprise came when Cllr. Juvinal changed everything from the act and made a new one out of nowhere. Councillor, if you think the act it's unuseful, then please withdraw this one and make a new one instead. And I also third, because they have been already seconded, Cllr. Gökçen's words. If you want to do such an amendment, then please submit an amendment to the UDoHR.

Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain

[A Former User]

I withdraw this act.

Kelarōn Juvinal
Councillor for the Union of Syndicates

[Fremet]

This proposal has been officially withdrawn from the Council floor.

Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet