[GA - FAILED] The Environmental Protections Act

[Hulldom]

The Environmental Protections Act
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses-Mild
Proposed by: The empire of Prussian peoples, Co-authored by: Tinhampton | Onsite Thread​

---

Believing that economic growth, individual wellbeing, and environmental protection most certainly can co-exist, and that all of these factors can and do intersect in parks and green spaces,

Recognizing that such spaces, as well as often featuring many flora and fauna which can help to remove harmful greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, can also facilitate the creation of jobs (such as in park maintenance) and provide a relaxing and beautiful environment for both locals and tourists alike, and

Hopeful that, by requiring member states to ensure that the parks and green spaces they own are well-maintained, more people will visit, enjoy, benefit from and respect such spaces,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. requires that, in all parks and green spaces owned by the government of a member state (or one of its political subdivisions), that government:
   1. operate a hotline where visitors to those parks or green spaces can report any problems about those parks,
   2. respond to all complaints received through that hotline in a prompt and fair manner,
   3. maintain all buildings on the grounds of those parks and green spaces, especially where those buildings are accessible to the public, and
   4. hire enough workers to maintain and run those parks, green spaces, and any buildings on their grounds,
2. suggests that, where parks and green spaces open to the public are owned by private entities, those private entities take measures similar to those described in Article 1,
3. recommends that all owners of parks and green spaces in member states that are open to the public allow all visitors to enter free of charge, especially where this is economically feasible, and
4. urges member states to only grant planning permission for commercial developments on brownfield sites that have previously been developed upon, as opposed to undeveloped greenfield sites (including parks and green spaces), to the extent that granting such permission would neither be unviable nor lead to significant harm to the habitats of rare or endangered species.

Co-author: Tinhampton

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

For	Against	Abstain	Present
7	7	0	2

"The Environmental Protections act" was defeated 3,479 votes (22.2%) to 12,216 (77.8%).

 

[Hulldom]

IFV

---

Overview
This proposal seeks to regulate the administration of government-owned parks. It requires that governments maintain the grounds of the parks and provide for citizens to make reports about deficiencies of said parks. Further, this proposal recommends that the above mandates are adopted by privately owned parks and entities and that public parks and green spaces are free. Finally, this proposal urges member states to restrict new development on greenfield sites, instead preferring areas with previous development.

Recommendation
There are is one gaping flaw with this proposal that we can see. First, in terms of the recommendation for free admission to public parks, we can see where this would easily be at odds with the requirements in clause 1. For instance, admissions fees are often used, as is the case with US national parks like Skyline Drive, for the upkeep of the parks themselves. Thus, this proposal could imperil the very requirements of the first clause should the recommendation in the third be adopted broadly. We worry mightily about the sufficiency of funding schemes for green spaces if there is not a way for it to be economically sustainable.

For the above reason, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, “The Environmental Protections Act”.

---

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!

 

[Tim Kasto]

Against

 

[Comfed]

Of course Tinhampton would be the one to co-author this and not ask the author to draft it on the forums

 

[Rewan Demontay]

For

 

[Hulldom]

Admirable goal! Potentially something I could support, but everything in 1 is too micro-managerial for me. (For the record, my philosophy on this is that mandates on the member states themselves are good, but mandating stuff at a lower level, say at the park level, is a bit too micro for me.) Also, I don't understand the qualification about economic feasibility (perhaps the placement of it, if not the existence of it), it's a recommendation for Christ's sake!

Couple that with the author being unwilling to draft in the forums and I'm Against [non-WA].

 

[Lofi Girl]

For

 

[Tinhampton]

...the author being unwilling to draft in the forums...

I tried my best to drag him over there!

 

[Katuda]

For

 

[Loh]

For

Changed to Against

 

[Sincluda]

I'd need this to be put on the forums for some drafting before I support. Against (non-WA).

 

[Pallaith]

Huge gripe for me, but these aren’t laws. They shouldn’t be named as if they are.

Against

 

[Tinhampton]

Huge gripe for me, but these aren’t laws. They shouldn’t be named as if they are.

Do you take objection to the EPA simply because it is called "The Environmental Protections act?"

 

[Siwale]

Present.

 

[Pomaogranate]

Against (Non-WA)

 

[Veltvalen]

This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal, it will proceed to a vote at Major Update on Saturday, November 27.

 

[Pallaith]

Do you take objection to the EPA simply because it is called "The Environmental Protections act?"

I largely agree with Boston, so this gripe easily pushes me over the edge.

 

[Zash]

For

 

[Albion(NBU/TVD)]

Present.

 

[Empty]

For

 

[Greater Cesnica]

Against

 

[Lord Dominator]

Against

 

[Transitional Authority]

Against

 

[Simone]

Do you take objection to the EPA simply because it is called "The Environmental Protections act?"

More like a "parks and recreation act".

Admirable goal! Potentially something I could support, but everything in 1 is too micro-managerial for me. (For the record, my philosophy on this is that mandates on the member states themselves are good, but mandating stuff at a lower level, say at the park level, is a bit too micro for me.) Also, I don't understand the qualification about economic feasibility (perhaps the placement of it, if not the existence of it), it's a recommendation for Christ's sake!

Couple that with the author being unwilling to draft in the forums and I'm Against [non-WA].

It feels really like a resolution for a local town council. Clause (1)(2) feels like mandating a telephone line with an answering machine at the end - "please leave a message after the beep..... Beep!!"

Also clause (1)(1) reminds me of the Donald J. Trump State Park in New York - if you put nothing there and leave the land as a barren landscape, there are no problems to complain about.

 

[Holy Marcus Empire]

For

 

[St George]

Against

 

[Tinhampton]

...has TNP really recommended against this proposal because of a non-binding clause? That's the first time I can ever remember that happening.

 

[Hulldom]

...has TNP really recommended against this proposal because of a non-binding clause? That's the first time I can ever remember that happening.

Because of its effect in practice. Not that far-fetched. We would’ve either way though.

 

[Wilkshire]

For

 

[happykrcheese]

For (non-WA)

 

[Sincluda]

"The Environmental Protections act" was defeated 3,479 votes (22.2%) to 12,216 (77.8%).