Make 11.3 great again!

[Not european]

Is this a new law or a change to a current law: Change to a current law.

What law do you wish to change/add: 11.3 Buildings of Residence



Why should this change/addition be made:

11.3 Buildings of Residence​

Any Person(s) in which take or offer residence in a property in which has not been zoned* with the intent for residency upon purchase, nor adapted* for residency, commit an offense. It is the responsibility of the resident(s) to ensure said property has been adapted* for Residency. It is the responsibility of the resident(s) of said property to present evidence of adaptation, and at any time the resident(s) may be expected present evidence of adaptation by an LEO. It is the responsibility of the resident(s) to maintain the level residency presented within the evidence. If Resident(s) disregard zoning bylaws or fail to present evidence of adaptation they are liable to: A maximum 5000$ fine, forfeiture of property and all assets within said property.

Definitions​

Zoning*: Before purchasing a property, there is a tab in which discloses which properties are zoned with the intent for Residential, Commercial and Industrial. Only properties zoned as "Residential" are allowed to be used for residency without adaptation.
Adaptation*: If the owner of a property wants to adapt their property for residency they must ensure they meet or exceed the expectations of the criteria for residency. The officer handling the case will have the final decision on whether the criteria has been met, however, their decision can be appealed by requesting a supervisor to give a final verdict.



What is the aim of this change/addition: The current law is completely unenforceable, due to the fact that we cannot compel the resident, of a possibly unadapted property, to provide evidence of adaptation. We simply cannot collect enough evidence to lay down charges and even if we did we'd have nothing to charge them with because it doesn't list any sort of punishments in which could be executed by the officer. It was also, in my opinion, poorly written. I believe that even if it was enforceable the law could still be loopholed due to this "property not intended ". Who determines what the original intent of the building was, the bank?, the property owner?, the PD and who within the PD would determine that?
This law clears up all those concerns and allows officers to hold those violating this law accountable.

 

[Minilarro]

I do not believe this law reform would bring any good, as your new version makes it so LEOs can demand that any property they visit must show them their living quarters, with exception of these "zoned" properties, which in my opinion, already are obvious as they refer to those properties where living quarters are set; apartments, suburban houses and cabins. This is in my opinion, stupid, for lack of a better word. A LEO should not have the power to demand to inspect a property at any given time for the sake of seeing whether or not someone meet acceptable living standards. The current law makes it so one must have adapted a property in order to live in it if there is not already acceptable living quarters. I see no reason for this at all, there is no need to enforce a law. It is not realistic in the slightest for a LEO to enter a property to inspect the living area unless there already isn't suspicion of other illegal activites that may be connected.

I can only imagine shootouts happening because a LEO demanded to inspect the base of operations for an organization, only to be denied entrance. Alternatively, if let inside, the LEO could possibly be looking specifically for other illegal activites, or the residents have simply forgot to furnish the property, which again could possibly lead to the LEO demanding to look around the whole property for the sake of checking for any furnishing which betters the living conditions, which again could house illegal activity such as drug production.

 

[Puma]

I like this suggestion because it is good while mini is special

 

[Not european]

show them their living quarters

Except that property wasn't intended to be used as a living quarter, therefore, why shouldn't you be required to prove that it's suitable for, you know living?

A LEO should not have the power to demand to inspect a property at any given time for the sake of seeing whether or not someone meet acceptable living standards.

Why not?
In pretty much every developed country on earth, you have zoning bylaws in which are to be strictly followed. Since we don't have a dedicated agency to keep track of that we instead hand that power to the police.

he current law makes it so one must have adapted a property in order to live in it if there is not already acceptable living quarters.

How is this any different in my suggested law?

I see no reason for this at all, there is no need to enforce a law.

Then why does it exist?

It is not realistic in the slightest for a LEO to enter a property to inspect the living area unless there already isn't suspicion of other illegal activites that may be connected.

It's not realistic to have people living inside a place in which would otherwise be dangerous for residence.

• Would you see someone living inside a factory?
• Would you see someone living in a McDonalds?
• Would you see someone living in a dangerous scrap yard?

The answer is no and that's because we have regulations in which are enforced to ensure that doesn't happen. unfortunately, since we can't have an entire city on a single GMOD server we should settle for the next best thing which is handing it to the police, rather than make a separate agency.

I can only imagine shootouts happening because a LEO demanded to inspect the base of operations for an organization, only to be denied entrance.

This is a bad thing?

Alternatively, if let inside, the LEO could possibly be looking specifically for other illegal activites, or the residents have simply forgot to furnish the property, which again could possibly lead to the LEO demanding to look around the whole property for the sake of checking for any furnishing which betters the living conditions, which again could house illegal activity such as drug production.

This is a bad thing?
Don't grow drugs in the grocery store in the busiest area in the city and you won't have this problem.

 

[Daigestive]

I don't feel this is necessary for the same reason as Minilaro has said.
The previous law states:

11.3 Buildings of Residence
Any person who takes or offers residence in a property not intended or adapted for such a purpose commits an offence.

This law is in place to give officers something to refer to if a business is not providing any service or product. Even though they are unable to charge anyone for it, they can ask a LT if they feel it's necessary.

But most cases, if I find someone is living in puffer with a shop that says "Permanently closed" I'd speak to the owner and ask when they are going to offer a product or service for sale.They'd 9/10 say that they are under construction and to come back in a few days. After giving them considerable amount of time, if they did not do this I would perhaps take it further.

 

[Chrissy]

Rejected.