13,432
edits
Family Living Act of 2003: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Cost
m (→Cost) |
|||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
===Rise of the UTCs=== | ===Rise of the UTCs=== | ||
===Sociological improvements=== | ===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. | |||
==Criticism and opposition== | ==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. | |||
===Cost=== | ===Cost=== | ||
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. | |||
===Effects on housing stock=== | ===Effects on housing stock=== | ||
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. | |||
===Government overreach=== | ===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 {{wp|Home rule in the United States|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 Concilium Daoni was infringing on their traditional rights. | 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 {{wp|Home rule in the United States|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 Concilium Daoni was infringing on their traditional rights. | ||