Family Living Act of 2003: Difference between revisions

==Background==

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 (Urcea)|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 {{wp|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 Urcean elections|2000]] platform of the [[Commonwealth Union (Urcea)|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.