Family Living Act of 2003

King Aedanicus IX signing the Family Living Act of 2003 into law.

The Family Living Act (FLA), formally known as An Act to amend the Executive Law, Multiple Dwelling and Residence Law, the Public Housing Law, the Real Property Law, and the Tax Law regarding sale of homes to extended family bidding entities and the development of property for residential use, is a landmark Urcean law enacted by the Conshilía Daoni in 2003 and signed into law by King Aedanicus IX on March 23, 2003. It represents the most significant pieces of housing and real estate law in the history of Urcea, and is considered one of the signature accomplishments of the administration of Procurator Michael Witte.

The legislation had wide-reaching aims, including impeding the growth of suburban sprawl throughout the country, reintegrating families and estates, preserving greenspace, and building durable "small urban" communities now known as the Urban Town and Country (UTC) model.

Background

The overconstruction of suburban developments led to a burst construction bubble and many incomplete houses in the mid-1990s.

Urcea's relatively large population began to explode with the rise of modern medicine and industrial agriculture in the early 20th century, necessitating a rapid need to expand housing. This took various forms until the Second Great War, when public subsidies and incentives led to the creation of vast suburbs throughout Urcea and in the Valley specifically. From 1950 through around 1990, major new subdivisions were being constructed everywhere, and land area in Urcea was rapidly converted to suburban sprawl as the late 20th century progressed. Despite the growing population, supply eventually exceeded demand. The housing boom had fueled a major construction industry bubble which burst in the 1990s, ending the expansion of sprawl. While the economics of sprawl slowed, social reformers and academics alike began to call into question the benefit of suburban lifestyles, citing social alienation and the destruction of Urcea's natural environment. The 2000 platform of the Commonwealth Union under Michael Witte promised to stop the spread of sprawl under a platform item called "Rebuild Our Communities", which vaguely elucidated a plan to restore kinship living arrangements, end sprawl, and build durable communities not susceptible to economic exploitation or significant government welfare support. The housing and sprawl issue proved to be a popular one, with 14% of voters in the 2000 election citing it as their top issue that year. Witte and the Commonwealth Union won the election, beginning work in earnest on introducing comprehensive housing and development reform. These reforms would take root from ideas developed during the negotiations surrounding what would become the Family Living Act, but would also take language and ideas from development-reform legislation which had existed since the late 1980s.

Provisions

Multiple structure first offer rule

The "multiple structure first offer rule" (MSFOR) is considered to be the core provision of the law. MSFOR provides that, when any individual, corporation, or any other firm or their agent purchase land with the intent to construct multiple single or multi-family houses for individual sale, that the individual or firm must first offer the entire property to the general public to what is known as an "extended family bidding entity" (EFBE), and, failing to receive an offer on the entire property, must subsequently divide it into smaller chunks to be offered to EFBE's, only after which time the individual or firm may sell individual houses to individuals.

MSFOR means, in practice, that any developer wishing to create a subdivision must offer for sale the entire subdivision to a family kinship group, or break up the subdivision for sale to multiple kinship groups, before being able to sell off homes individually. For the purposes of the law, "extended family bidding entity" has a number of definitions, though most relate to either a large extended family group (close cousins, siblings, parents, etc.) or a kinship group within the Urcean estate system.

MSFOR was devised as an answer to social and scholarly observations of the isolating effect of suburban life, particularly suburban single-family home living, on Urcean society. Prior to the 1950s, many Urceans lived either with or within a mile from a majority of people in their family within the fourth degree of consanguinity (i.e. uncles, first cousins, grandparents, etc.), a situation radically altered by 1990. MSFOR was intended to reunite families and build communities that consisted of people of close relation, ensuring that community ties and "soft" social safety nets existed to help individuals in need. The "subsequent subdivision" rule within MSFOR meant that most major subdivisions built after the implementation of the law would include a handful of extended family groups.

As part of the implementation of MSFOR, developers are required to offer their properties on a National Property Exchange (NPE), which families could browse and bid on . The NPE was required to list the price, number of homes, average square feet per home, and other relevant real estate information. The exchange was established under the law as a public resource. From the implementation of the law until 2019, the exchange was listed online with requirements that all nearby new developments be placed as a classified ad in any newspaper within 20 miles of the development with a circulation of 25,000 or more. In 2019, the newspaper requirement was abolished, and the NPE became an exclusively online resource.

Homeowner subsidy

The Family Living Act created a new program of homeowner subsidies. This program was originally set to provide a scaling subsidy to anyone at or under 125% of poverty level, and in the final version of the legislation was paid in the form of vouchers. These vouchers could be used for a certain number of services under the law, including mortgage payments, property taxes, utility payments, and even a limited number of essential home items or repairs. In order to administer the program, the Act created a new administrative apparatus - the Department for the Royal Subsidy for Homeowners.

Earlier versions of the legislation had not included a homeowner subsidy. Many proponents of the legislation also favored some kind of subsidy, but it was viewed as a separate issue - the broad strokes of the act were intended to change the way Urceans built and planned housing, not to necessarily make it easier for individuals to reside in homes. However, during the run-up to passage of the legislation, Michael Witte's administration negotiated the change in. The intention of the subsidy was not only to help impoverished people keep their home, but also to help transition poor Urceans out of public housing, which was specifically condemned in the written legislative intent of the Act. In order to pay for these subsidies, the Act provides that a gradual scaledown and reduction of benefits under the King's Housing Program, the nation's 1950s era public housing program. The mandatory scaledown was repealed in a subsequent act in 2004, but subsequent governments nonetheless began efforts to transition people out of public housing and into subsidized private housing in future legislative and budgetary actions.

Deference to preservation zones

The Family Living Act created a new planning apparatus known as a "preservation zone", distinct from preexistant environmental conservation areas. Preservation zones were defined broadly to include any areas that the public interest demanded be free of urban sprawl, and that all preservation zones would be identified by resolution of the provincial governments and approved by the Conshilía Daoni. Preservation zones, as established under the FLA, did not prohibit construction on individual pieces of property by individual owners or firms, nor did it affect the overall pre-extant planning and zoning systems. Instead, it provided that construction of multiple residences and subdivision thereof on property by a single individual, firm, or group of firms would be prohibited within a preservation zone. The FLA provided for a specific exemption process approved by the Agency for Environmental Conservation, which was given additional funding and resources under the Act to ensure compliance. The exemption process was stated to have a specific preference for UTCs and other, very-low-density types of construction. The FLA identified all pre-extant environmental conservation areas as preservation zones, and subsequent legislation passed between 2004 and 2012 expanded the zones to cover much of the non-sprawl parts of the Valley. The intention of the preservation zone model was to ensure the end of new suburban sprawl throughout the Valley and rest of Urcea; though market forces had already slowed their growth by 2003, advocates sought additional legal means to slow the growth of sprawl.

Housing construction limits

The Family Living Act included a set of basic parameters for the construction of a subdivision which required 75 feet between each home and a certain width of roadway coming to and from the home. It also required that all roadways in subdivisions have usable sidewalks. These provisions also included that provinces and localities could introduce more exacting requirements. These provisions also specifically provided that its requirements only applied to subdivisions and developments and did not apply to any individual piece of property. The intent of these laws were to establish additional greenspace on individual properties within subdivisions. Subsequent legislation enacted in 2022 - the Sustainable Greenspace Act - expanded the FLA's subdivision building requirements by requiring that developers use specific types of plants friendly to pollinators.

Incentives for UTCs

The FLA made alterations to the tax law to provide incentives for developers to construct subdivisions which also included new or rehabilitated mixed-use structures, creating a legal framework for what would later be known as the "urban town and country" model. The incentive scheme would grant as much as a 58% real property tax exemption for any subdivision which would include at least 20% mixed use development, a figure that would increase to 67% if such subdivision included preexistent and historic structures. The incentives also involved significant tax write-offs for construction-related expenses. The latter provision was intended to incentivize developers to build new developments around older, near-abandoned small towns or villages that were left behind following the downturn in the nation's industrial economy. Under the provisions of the law, the mixed-use structures had to actually be completed as mixed-use instead of being eventually transitioned to all-residential; in that case, the law stipulates a claw-back of exempted taxes from the developer by the Department of Administration of Tax Collection and Receipts, which the law provided with additional funding to help ensure implementation. UTCs were subsequently enhanced in an amendment to the FLA known as the Connectivity Act passed in 2012 which created subsidies for local public transit agencies to construct new transit lines into downtown areas of UTCs.

Protections for Proprietor Communes

Proprietor communes were legal entities established by the Urcean government in the 1950s to provide a legal framework under which historically non-enclosed lands could continue to function. The Family Living Act enhanced proprietor communes' legal status by introducing a comprehensive set of laws prohibiting banks from discriminating against proprietor communes with respect to the issuance of mortgages. The Act also provided how mortgages would be assumed by the whole commune and paid back by any individual home resident through the use of separate accounting.

Effectiveness

The Family Living Act set its effective date as January 1 2004. However, it stipulated that prohibitions on preservation zone construction, as well as a requirement for MSFOR compliance, would take effect immediately. The law exempted any project for which provincial and municipal permitting had already been obtained. This had the effect of ensuring that a small number of legacy suburban subdivisions in the advanced planning stages as of March 2003 would be brought to completion over the course of the late 2000s.

Legislative history

1980s-2000

The earliest version of legislation that would eventually become the Family Living Act was introduced to the Conshilía Daoni on 4 August 1989 by Marius Joyce, a Commonwealth Union delegate from Eastglen. This original version, called the Estate Cohesion Act (ECA), included only an early version of what would become the multiple structure first offer rule, and this version of the ECA envisioned the rule applying to Urcean suburbs. The ECA was numbered as C9928 for the 1985-1990 term, and was referred to committee where it did not move.

Although the Commonwealth Union and Julian Party won the 1990 Urcean elections, housing issues were not a key public issue in the 1990s, and the ECA, now numbered C224, remained in committee. The huge surplus of housing and subsequent construction industry collapse in the 1990s meant that ECA was largely sidelined as an issue, with economic measures taking priority. The return of the National Pact majority in the 1995 Urcean elections again meant the legislation had no hope of passage. However, with Joyce's retirement, the legislation was now sponsored by second term member Michael Witte, receiving the number C1098 in the 1996-2000 term of the Daoni. Witte introduced a number of changes to the legislation, including a shift of MSFOR away from suburbs to possible exurbs as well as non-discrimination clauses against proprietor communes and building restrictions. An amended version of the legislation, C1098B, renamed ECA to Family Living Act. Anti-sprawl promises were a key part of the Union's platform in the 2000 Urcean elections, and the newly renamed FLA received renewed attention from the public.

2001

The victory of the Commonwealth Union in the 2000 Urcean elections and election of bill sponsor Michael Witte as Chancellor and Temporary President and Procurator heralded a possible passage for the FLA during the 2001-05 term. As leader, Witte gave prime sponsorship of the bill, now numbered C5, to a member of the Daoni from Killean named Cornelia FitzSimmonds. FitzSimmonds chaired the Housing Committee and made it her lead initiative. Despite the Commonwealth Union majority, C5 encountered a number of problems during the first year of Union control. It was reported from the Housing Committee but stalled in the Finance Committee due to several technical issues, and these issues - combined with inter-party disagreements - ensured the legislation was not passed in 2001.

2002

In early 2002, significant inter-party negotiations occurred to fix technical and political problems with the FLA. After several rounds of negotiations and amendments, C5F was introduced on 18 August 2002. This version was intended by leadership to be the definitive version of the legislation, and included nearly all of its final provisions. It was reported out of the Housing and Finance Committees by the middle of October, but stalled before receiving a vote. The left wing of the Commonwealth Union refused to vote for the legislation unless some kind of housing benefit to the poor was included. Witte attempted to separate the issue out, promising to address the issue in the 2003-04 Budget, but the left-leaning delegates refused to accept this. Finally, on 16 December, an agreement was reached to include what would become the final housing subsidy. Work on the bill was interrupted by that year's Christmas holiday, but C5G - what would become the final version - was completed by 29 December.

2003

C5G was reported by the Housing and Finance committees by the end of January 2003. Despite attempts by real estate and construction lobbyists to defeat or water down the legislation, C5G was placed on the floor of the Conshilía Daoni for a vote on 17 February 2003. After significant debate on the floor which saw nearly three hours of National Pact delegates denouncing the legislation, it ultimately passed by a margin of 279-221. The vote saw many Commonwealth Union members, both left and right, defect and vote against the bill, but the party's majority was such that it was able to pass. All National Pact and Democratic Labor Party members voted no, but a majority of members of the Julian Party voted yes. A subsequent amendment with minor typographic corrections passed on 10 March by a margin of 482-10. Both pieces of legislation were signed into law by King Aedanicus IX in a signing ceremony on 23 March, 2003.

Impact

Growth of the exurbs

With significant areas of the Valley marked as preservation zones, construction of housing had to shift to further afield. The various provisions of the FLA inaugurated a new era of home construction in Urcea, as new, very-low-density exurban developments began to be planned in compliance with the building code changes under the FLA. A second wave of subdivision construction occurred beginning in 2005 and ending in 2014, bringing a large number of new subdivisions to the outer portions of the Valley and parts of the Urcean frontier. Unlike the previous century's developments, special care was taken in the construction of these subdivisions to be compliant with the FLA's intent to preserve greenspace, a provision that also necessarily led to larger average property sizes for homeowners in 2025 as compared to 1985. The more traditional exurban street model combined with the rapid construction of urban-town-and-country style developments to move many Urceans out of the suburbs and into more cohesive, if further, residential communities.

Death of suburban development

The building code requirements and preservation zone provisions within the FLA marked the effective death of the legal construction of traditional suburban subdivisions. While construction on medium-density suburbs had effectively halted for economic reasons by 1995, the construction and real estate markets had rebounded significantly by 2003 and dozens of new subdivisions were under planning or already permitted as of the time the Act was signed into law. Throughout the late 2000s, a handful of additional new suburban developments were completed, either by being grandfathered in or by receiving a preservation zone exemption, but by 2010 nearly all developers had shifted to exurbs, UTC-model, or both. Studies indicate that, in addition to the significant incentives towards other models under the FLA, the cost of obtaining an exemption within the zones and the building code changes made suburban projects not economically viable in most places for most developers.

Rise of the UTCs

UTCs such as Marchts, a UTC-based town in Hardinán, became very widespread in the decades following the passage of the FLA.

The incentives provided for under the FLA led to the drastic increase of the construction of urban town and country-model developments. While some of these had existed since the late 90s, they soon became the most popular style of development in Urcea in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Between 2007 and 2015, more than 1,284 were constructed, fundamentally changing the way that many Urceans lived and related to eachother in both social and economic terms. The subsequent Connectivity Act of 2012 led to a second wave of UTCs being planned and eventually constructed after 2015 with rail links to major cities in mind.

Sociological improvements

Throughout the 2010s, various studies were conducted to measure if the changes in neighborhood composition had made an impact on feelings of social isolation and estate cohesion.

The creation of more walkable UTC-style towns and villages had significant recorded impacts on the health of the average Urcean, with UTC residents walking, on average, 72% more than suburb residents. The success of UTC retail establishments, combined with mass transit options built into many UTCs, is often credited with this disparity.

Criticism and opposition

The Family Living Act, and development reforms like it, were primarily opposed by the National Pact. The Pact, which had blocked legislation like it passing during the late 90s, launched a national campaign to try and gather support to halt the bill. The National Pact reclaimed a majority of the Conshilía Daoni after the 2015 Urcean elections, and though some efforts were made to repeal the law, insufficient support existed among the Pact's members due to the popularity of the legislation by the late 2010s.

Cost and inventory problems

The primary argument made by the National Pact and its political allies was that the mandates placed on home construction would dramatically increase the cost of buying a house, potentially putting homeownership out of reach to middle class Urceans.

Similar to the argument of cost, opponents of the FLA argued that the significant restrictions placed on development would lead to a large housing stock shortfall by 2020. The opponents argued that the cost and difficulty of constructing homes would lead many developers to exit the industry altogether, and that the "developer exodus" would mean few new houses built during the 2010s. In the same vein, the exit of experienced developers would mean the rise of substandard construction and design according to the legislation's opponents.

Government overreach

In addition to objections to the content of the legislation, opponents of the Family Living Act also argued that such a sweeping mandate related to housing and planning violated municipal home rule. This argument contended that zoning and planning had traditionally been the domain of local and provincial governments, and for the first time the Conshilía Daoni was infringing on their traditional rights.

Ecological effects

A minority of environmental advocates and the Democratic Labor Party opposed the legislation on ecological grounds. This group argued that the legislation did not go far enough, and that the construction of 75 foot so-called "tree corridors" between new exurban houses still represented the growth of development within Urcea. These opponents argued the legislation should create a total moratorium on non-urban development for fifteen years, and that the FLA was a distraction from this goal.