13,378
edits
Family Living Act of 2003: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Government overreach
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===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. | ||
===Ecological effects=== | |||
A minority of environmental advocates and the [[Democratic Labor Party (Urcea)|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. | |||
[[Category: Urcea]] | [[Category: Urcea]] | ||
[[Category: Laws of Urcea]] | [[Category: Laws of Urcea]] | ||