|
I. Background
Past and Current International ActionIn blazing the way for technological acceleration, many NGOs have taken the lead. Among the ranks is the “Usage of Fair Care Labs” by the NDWA National domestic workers alliance. The Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Development, or ICT4D, celebrated its 10th committee session 2018 in Lusaka, Zambia. During this conference, representatives from NGOs across the world discussed the future for NGO leadership in the technological development field. AnNGO working in this field is NetHope. NetHope’s mission is to create “a consortium of American NGOs that works to join nonprofits with technology innovators worldwide.” While NetHope is one of the more-known non-governmental organizations promoting the expansion of technology, multiple other NGOs have avidly paved the path for a more technological world. According to the World Economic Forum, the digital economy could unleash over $100 trillion by 2025. While these efforts have been largely crippled due to the high impact of COVID-19, their status remains as their work continues on through the pandemic. The United Nations has also encouraged technological growth. The General Assembly of the United Nations held a conference about “The Impact of Rapid Technological Change on the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets” At the conference, they discussed new ways to continue pursuing technological advancement despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, in April of 2020, the United Nations stated that “digital technologies [are] critical in facing COVID-19 pandemic.” It was noted that approximately 57% of UN member states had been using their official websites to share news to their citizens on the impacts of COVID-19. This is a landmark symbol for the international community, signifying the new steps national governments are taking to develop their web presence. Policy briefings from this committee session stated that “Policymakers should seize the COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity to establish tailor-made digital government tools, strategies and collaborations for the future.” In summary, the United Nations have been viewing the pandemic as an opportunity for countries to take a step in accelerating their digital sphere. They ended the policy report with the following: “Governments should embrace these policy- and technological developments and harvest the digital opportunities that can support the long-term sustainable development of their countries.” II. Country’s Position The Republic of Chile is dedicated to protecting the individual rights of our citizens while developing our technological scope. Our technological development legal history started in 1999 when we passed Law No. 19,628. Law No. 19,628 was the first development regulatory policy to pass in Latin America. This legislation defined the boundaries in which public and private databases have the ability to store data. Specifically, it declared that personal data may only be processed when permitted by the law. This gave very few exceptions, making strict boundaries in which companies could store data. Law No. 19,628 stands as a symbol of Chile’s dedication in providing developmental guidelines. Since then, Chile has passed more specific laws; In 2012, our government passed Law 20,575/2012 which redefined what the “purpose principle” for processing personal data is. Additionally, Law 20,584/2012 regulates the rights and duties of individuals in the context of healthcare. In 2010, Chile became a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Through this organization, our country symbolically committed to creating new spheres of technological development while maintaining regulated “data flow,”. Seven years later on 15 March 2017 when the government of Chile presented Bill No. 11144-07 which modified standards. It allowed companies to regulate and process personal data, spearheading a new direction in which technology companies should move towards into the future.. Since the start of COVID-19 in 2020, our country has worked to accelerate the growth of technology while keeping data privacy in place. While many countries across the world have been using “location tracking” or such to bolster the reactionary fight against COVID-19, Chile has not yet done so.However, this has little to do with our government not wanting to use location services but rather the lack of a clear policy. No such policy pertains directly to this topic, so the government does not currently have a guideline on how to approach “location tracking” technological advancements that have developed across the world due to COVID-19. While Chile has made all these technological development contributions to the international community, our country still has room for improvement. Our legislation covers a vast variety of technology industries, but our laws do not include details pertaining to specific violations. This has hindered compliance from different entities and made it harder for regulators to enforce as they often lack a clear precedent or definition to work with. Moreover, the highest fines amount to $3,500. While high for individuals, this is not enough to punish major companies even if they have not been utilizing their power morally. III. Proposed Solutions Chile proposes three major policies: the creation of an international committee, the passing of new policies, and the revamp of educational movements. First, Chile believes there must be a research forum named COTA (Commission on Technology Acceleration), created for the purpose of advising and collaborating with nations on oversight of technology development. This commission would report and advise countries on their technology development, oversee policies, and research growth opportunities. Chile strives to maintain its favorable ranking on corruption (ranking the 24th least corrupt country on the 2016 Corruption Perception Index), and therefore feel the rest of the world should seek ways to promote transparency and anti-corruption policies within their own nation. This committee should address issues of potential corruption and political instability that could be causing irresponsible technology development. The commission would be composed of government representatives, scientific and technological professionals, university professors, and humanitarian reporters, selected by experience. In addition, Chile also pushes for an international forum where these reports would be shared between member states of the United Nations. To further international action, Chile also proposes a new resolution be passed by the Commission of Science and Technology for Development. This would be similar to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that the United Nations passed back in 2015; The resolution would outline the basic international standards and how countries must work to technologically develop their nation. While independent member states can choose to add more to the international standards, Chile suggests that the international community act swiftly to create a common goal: responsible and sustainable technology development. Specifically, Chile advocates that CTSD state a specific goal that countries can follow as a guideline. Chile also believes that there must be new laws within nationals that better define the legal boundaries of technology. For example, two fields where Chile has been lacking legal definitions are in the field of transportation and agriculture. With the rise of COVID-19, many countries have been turning to location tracking to flatten the curve. While Chile has yet to apply this style of addressing the pandemic, we feel more detailed policies should be defined pertaining to this matter. In addition, as one of the leading food producers on the planet especially in cherries and wine, Chile advocates for the application of more regulations, believing that there is a lack in how agricultural data is collected as no statement of law in many nations’ constitution addresses this issue yet, as with most countries in our community. To protect national sovereignty, this idea would be implemented by the individual member states of CSTD instead of having a committee oversee them. Chile hopes that the CTSD will make statements of support in order to motivate national governments to specify their legislation. However, Chile is most dedicated to utilizing educational solutions. We urge the construction of a research forum where universities would directly communicate research materials regarding this topic to each other. 93% of our population currently hold smartphones, and we suggest researching ways to utilize mobile apps to help facilitate the knowledge we have accumulated. Our nation, as with many others in our region, does not lack the resources to fit our citizens with advanced technology but rather the initiative to educate them on how to use them. For example, within Latin America, we hope to have the University of Chile take the lead and create free educational programs where citizens can learn about newly developed technology and how to approach them. We also urge the opening of seminars at the University of Chile and other flagship universities where people can come together and speak on this issue. Chile also supports having a Global STEM Competition for Youth centered in Santiago, Chile with large government-funded scholarships. The idea behind this is that the competition should foster hope for technological advancements in places where there lacks hope. Latin America is among the poorest regions in the world with approximately 30% of its population being below the poverty line. Chile hopes that through our efforts, more low-income students will be able to get involved with technology. In addition, for young women waiting to get involved with STEM, we urge the creation of government sponsored scholarships where females wanting to major in STEM from low-income families can receive money to continue their education. While this idea is mostly centered around high-poverty areas such as Latin America, Chile believes that other CTSD member states can start applying this plan internationally. We urge the committee to pass statements supporting this educational plan. IV. Questions to Consider (2) In a technological world do people have fundamental rights to certain technologies such as wifi or should technology be considered a luxury? Chile believes that all of our citizens have a fundamental right to certain technologies. Approximately 72% of citizens have access to a wifi network in our nation, pointing at the availability of basic technology. With such a high number of people in our country who have access to high-tech materials, we believe that people who don’t have access to these technologies will fall behind in all sectors. Even for our citizens in the agricultural field, a rather basic industry, it has become evident that modern farming cannot happen without the usage of technologies. In addition, it has become more evident with the rise of COVID-19 that citizens without access to these certain technologies cannot stand in this global age of connectedness. Chile strongly feels that these basic technologies must be given for all people to utilize. (3) How can governments help innovation thrive while also protecting individuals’ rights? Chile firmly believes that in order to have an innovative population while protecting individual rights, the government should set certain regulations to define what “violations” and “breaches” of personal data are. However, we should refrain from taking direct action. Instead, Chile would prefer funding universities, awarding students with scholarships, and creating individual programs to develop our topics. By doing this, we believe that the individual entities will work to develop technology in our country; Competition would spurr between these different entities and we feel this will pave the path for innovation. Additionally, because our laws and policies would clearly set the standards to which companies or other entities could collect personal data, the individual rights of our citizens would be protected and allow a thriving technology development to succeed. V. Works Cited “Digital Technologies Critical in Facing COVID-19 Pandemic | UN DESA Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” United Nations, United Nations, 15 Apr. 2020, www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/digital-technologies-critical-in-facing-covid-19-pandemic.html. Jerving, Sara. “A Strategic Mindset Shift Is Needed by NGOs to Fully Embrace Technology.” Devex, Devex, 15 May 2018, www.devex.com/news/a-strategic-mindset-shift-is-needed-by-ngos-to-fully-embrace-technology-92749. “Law.” Law in Chile - DLA Piper Global Data Protection Laws of the World, 28 Jan. 2021, www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=CL. “The Impact of Rapid Technological Change on the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets - General Assembly of the United Nations.” United Nations, United Nations, 11 June 2020, www.un.org/pga/74/event/the-impact-of-rapid-technological-change-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-and-targets/. Alvin Heng, Justin Heermann, Chamal Samaranayake, & Lilly Sath. “Technology Trends in Latin America.” Technology Trends in Latin America - Chile, cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/TechnologyTrendsLatinAmerica/chile.html. Coca, Nithin, and Ben Valentine. “Incubators for Change: How NGOs Are Developing Apps and Tech Tools.” MobLab, 12 Sept. 2019, mobilisationlab.org/stories/incubators-for-change-ngo-developing-apps/. UN SECRETARY-GENERAL’S STRATEGY ON NEW TECHNOLOGIES, Sept. 2020, www.un.org/en/newtechnologies/images/pdf/SGs-Strategy-on-New-Technologies.pdf “UN Secretary-General's Strategy on New Technologies.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/newtechnologies/. “Biomedical Research Ethics: Updating International Guidelines.” Portada Universidad De Chile, www.uchile.cl/portal/investigacion/centro-interdisciplinario-de-estudios-en-bioetica/documentos/76304/biomedical-research-ethics-updating-international-guidelines. 12, June. “Dispatch from Chile: The Ethics of Health Priority Setting, or Searching for True North Without a Compass.” Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, 12 June 2013, ethics.harvard.edu/blog/dispatch-chile. This policy would be extremely effective in assisting the homeless population. One of the largest obstacles faced by the homeless population in California is that they have no way of protecting themselves against state violence. Given this, and the fact that being a marginalized population should grant them Extra Agency, it's important that they receive some form of legal representation should they face it's right from their Community or state. While policies like this have never been experimented with, the unique position of the California homelessness crisis makes it an ideal time to try this policy. Moreover, during the training period for public prosecutors, if the consequences of the program go awry under the stewardship of the contracted firms, legislators can always end the program prematurely. The pros of this policy include: offering rights to the homeless that they are not normally given, preventing displacements or mistreatment of the homeless population, and potentially decreasing homelessness via settlement money from the lawsuits. Conversely, there are several downsides to this policy. namely there's no mechanism to stop a potential snowballing of cases against the state. This could lead to California making massive payouts, which could compromise on other social programs or potentially lead to tax increases
Such a step would attempt to reform the current healthcare system by making all medical infrastructure state owned. Tragically, of the ~151,000 homeless people in California 68% have outstanding medical debt. In fact, 17% of homeless people are veterans (undercovered by the VA and other government agencies) The pros of reform would revolve around increasing public access, erasing medical debt and mitigating the need to reduce government programs via a bipartisan appeal. Such a system could also increase medication access by taking advantage of the economics of sale. However while such a system may seem beneficial in all ways there are some major downsides that should be noted. As a con such a reform requires upfront capital expenditure in order to transition evertyin to a new light. Furthermore, nothing is guaranteed that the savings from the reform will even materialize into reality. In addition, average middle class families will also be greatly impacted. Under the Affordable healthcare Act for example the average savings per person was $74 but for a family of 6 spending rose to $1000 each year. Finally, this system only works if the majority complies. So there will be a system of penalties which will somehow always affect people who can’t comply somehow. Overall, the effectiveness system can’t truly be determined as transitioning the state from its current system formulates a gap of uncertainties in terms of affecting various groups of people across the state.
AB-328 was authored by Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, and co authored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta. It has been in the Appropriations Committee since March 2021. The bill would first establish a Department of Housing and Community Development to administer a slew of laws focused on solving the California housing crisis. Primarily, it hopes to enact a Reentry Housing Act, something which would keep recently incarcerated people out of homelessness and stay housed instead. It would do this from July of 2022 by first scoring applicants on a series of criteria to determine what type of aid they should receive and what their outcomes should be from that aid. The program would then give them aid that helps them receive housing, incentivise landlords to rent out to them, and give them a segue into more permanent state housing assistance programs. The mechanism for awarding this funding would be a 5 year contract with whichever body is receiving the aid, or based on how allotting the money could best help the program member in question. For example, some program members could be best helped if they are directly given money, while others might benefit from the government giving their landlord money directly. At the end of every year, the program beneficiaries will be assessed by an independently contracted agency which will decide how effectively they have used the aid. This will help fine tune aid distribution and mitigate the risk of abuse of funds.
SB 290 authored by Senator Nancy Skinner has not been vetoed but is still in the legislative process. It was referred to the committee on Assembly Appropriations. According to the California Housing Partnership Corporation, the state currently has an estimated 1.3 million-unit shortfall of rental units affordable to very low- and extremely low-income households. Four out of five extremely low-income households pay over half of their income in rent, as do nearly half of very low-income households. Such issues are relevant to student housing as many fall under the low - income spectrum. This bill seeks to further incentivize housing for lower- income students by additionally making such a development eligible for one incentive or concession. To make students eligible, at least 20 percent of the units for lower- income students will have to be constructed by housing development projects. The bill will also expand on what units can benefit from a density bonus by tearing down the law which requires that units be in a "common interest development." Instead this will be for developments in which the units are for sale. Incentives or concessions will increase based on the total percent of total units for lower income households. For example, three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in development in which the units are for sale. Furthermore, establishments that include 40 percent moderate income for-sale housing and are within one-half mile of a major transit stop will receive a parking reduction of 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom.
I. Background and Introduction
For decades, most people in the United States and the Western World have treated dogs and cats as adorable household pets. Although the consumption of dog and cat meat is uncommon in America, there have been a number of cases found in US states such as Hawaii, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and New York and in foreign countries such as South Korea, China, The Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam where they consider dog or cat meat as a regular house meal and sometimes even a specialty. According to one source reporting on South Korea’s dog meet culture: “The meat has long been a part of South Korean cuisine, with about 1 million dogs believed to be eaten annually, but consumption has declined and the practice is now something of a taboo among younger generations amid increased pressure from activists” (The Guardian). There have, undoubtingly, been efforts by the government to act on this issue as activists claim that the act of killing and eating dogs is too brutal. However, dogs are an important source of nutrition for many groups of people. According to the economist, “hunters got about 10 yuan ($1.30) for a kilogram of meat, so a medium-sized dog might be worth 70-80 yuan” while “The average price of a pound of pork at retail was $3.753 per pound in March, up 1.3 cents from February, but down 2.7 cents” (National Hog Farmer) While the difference is relatively littler (approximately 30 more cents per pound), these differences add up for low income farming families situated across Asia’s farmlands. Hence, as a result, there is a clear lack of bans in countries such as South Korea as governments hesitate to ban an important food source for many of its citizens. “Dog meat consumption is a grey area in South Korean law. Despite no specific ban, authorities have invoked hygiene regulations or animal protection laws that ban cruel slaughter methods to crack down on dog farms” (The Guardian). While this has been the historical case and the continuing trend in most of Asia, the United States have adopted a law that prevents the consumption of these animals. II. Legislature Overview The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act is a law that was passed in the US in 2018. This law, also referred to as DCMTPA, penalizes the commercial slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption, with fines of up to $5,000. DCMTPA was first introduced in March 2017 by Congressman Alcee Hastings and has lobbied animal rescue organizations like the Animal Hope and Wellness Foundation (AHWF). Directly, in the Dog and cat meat trade prohibition act of 2018, it is stated the following: “(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (c), no person may— (1) knowingly slaughter a dog or cat for human consumption; or (2) knowingly ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, possess, purchase, sell, or donate— (A) a dog or cat to be slaughtered for human consumption; or (B) a dog or cat part for human consumption. Exception For Indian Tribes.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to an Indian (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) carrying out any activity described in subsection (a) for the purpose of a religious ceremony. Penalty: Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to a fine in an amount not greater than $5,000 for each violation. Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 2018.” This enactment clearly states the fact that there is not to be any slaughtering or consumption of dogs or cats. This is added on by specifications for certain groups. As dog-eating may or may not be part of Native American culture, the legal enactment excludes them to prevent cultural clashes. However, for all else in the United States, those who violate this law are subjected to a penalty that goes up to five thousand dollars. The future of this legislation as well as its impact is not clear yet and is still up for debate. However, as evidently seen in the findings of this paper, there are benefits and negatives to both sides that must be put into consideration when making a final decision. Works Cited 16, Ron Plain | Apr. “Hog Prices Turn the Corner to Head Higher.” National Hog Farmer, 28 Dec. 2018, www.nationalhogfarmer.com/marketing/hog-prices-turn-corner-head-higher. says, Mari, and The Plant Way. “Why We Should Legalize the Sale & Consumption of Dog Meat.” ThePlantWay.com, 18 Feb. 2020, www.theplantway.com/legalize-dog-meat/. Buchanan, Vern. “Text - H.R.6720 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of 2018.” Congress.gov, 17 Sept. 2018, www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6720/text. I. Background
On May 30, 2019, 136 dogs were found held captive in a house at Orange, CA. These dogs were living in harsh conditions and the police department had even thought that it was impossible to live with this environment as there was urine all over and barely any furniture. When incidents like this happen all over the world, laws like the Anaheim Title 18. The Zoning Chapter will help to prevent these types of issues by setting a limit to how many animals are allowed in each household and what animals are allowed to be owned in the first place. II. Introduction to the Legislation The Anaheim Title 18. Zoning Chapter 18.38. Supplemental Use Regulations, 13.30.030 Animal Keeping is used to provide owners who wish to own animals an overview of what they can and cannot do. This law shows the certain zoning restrictions of animals and how many animals are allowed in each household. In Anaheim, any domestic animals must stay at least 50 feet away from any other buildings and at least 20 feet away from any other property lines. Title 18. Zoning mentions how much square feet per animal is allowed and that they must be well taken care of. The rules go as far as how many dogs and cats each household is allowed to own, the number of dogs and cats in Anaheim must be kept at a maximum of 3 each. The restrictions into the requirements of owning a pot-bellied pig are very in depth, they must have an annual certificate that is signed by a veterinarian and includes the animal's weight, height, length, and updated versions of its vaccinations. Owners in Anaheim are allowed to take care of pot-bellied pigs as long as they are kept under the owner’s property. The Title 18 rules of animal keeping are important so that you could be prepared with whatever may come from owning animals aside from dogs and cats. III. Similar Laws In Lancaster, CA, there is a similar law called Article IV Standards for Specific Land Uses, 18.08.170 Animal Keeping, but this law has more exceptions to what animals are allowed. Of course, it maintains the number of animals allowed in each household, but they are allowed to own animals such as horses and cows. People are only allowed a maximum of 9 large animals per lot and must have a permit. These animals are to not be near any highway or streets and must stay at least 150 square feet. Unlike Anaheim, Lancaster is allowed to own 1 rooster per acre. Other animals such as sheep, goats, and dogs must not exceed the number of 3 each for each lot. Lancaster is filled with animals such as antelopes and armadillos, these animals are to not be kept under people’s properties and more information would be on the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 671. IV. Legislation Analysis Due to the diverse conditions these animals may be kept in, the legislation pointed at many different subparts in hopes of bringing most of those issues to light. The most notable one was regarding animal domestication for non-commercial issues. It was directly stated as follows: “.010 Animal Maintenance – General. The keeping of animals for domestic, noncommercial use shall be permitted in residential zones, subject to the provisions of Chapter 8.08 (Animal Control, Welfare and License Requirements) and this section” (Anaheim Municipal Code). This ultimately states that any animal for domestic non commercial purposes in Anaheim must be permitted in residential zones and stay at least 50 feet from any other buildings that contain humans. It also states that the animals must be kept at least 20 feet from any other property lines. This is to prevent animal keeping issues from arising. Public doubt about animal keeping within a local area arises whenever there are clear problems with their control. Hence, by having limitations regarding their distance to other humans, this law helps in preventing such issues from arising. The codes also list out regulations on less common animals that people own, stating “Each Poultry, Birds, Rabbits and Rodents must not take up more than 1 animal person 1800 square feet, in this lot, they must be maintained and taken care of. Roosters and peacocks cannot be in any land unless in an underlying zone” (Anaheim Municipal Code). In reading this, it is evident that the legislation is not trying to change the way that these animals are kept but rather the way people treat them. These animals are usually not seen as pets but rather commercial animals humans eat. In many cases, the treatment of these animals are low quality and lack features animals need. Hence, this passage is pointed towards commercial animal owners to ensure that they keep their animals in good condition. The section about less common animals is followed up with a passage regarding well-known pet animals: dogs and cats. “.060 Number of Dogs. The number of dogs per dwelling unit shall not exceed three (3) animals over the age of four (4) months. A noncommercial kennel may be permitted, subject to the approval of Animal Care Services of the Orange County Health Care Agency” (Anaheim Municipal Code) This section highlights two key parts which are important to solving animal keeping issues: 1) The number of dogs allowed in Anaheim should be kept to the maximum of 3 for all households and 2) The number of cats allowed in Anaheim should be kept to the maximum of 3 for all households. Animal keeping issues mostly arise when animal owners have more on their plates than they can control. Hence, within this passage, the code hopes to stop these issues from arising by limiting the number of animals an owner can have. One key aspect of this resolution is its emphasis in the treatment of pigs. Because of the wide-spread consumption of pork all across the world, the treatment of these animals, especially in an area such as Anaheim represents a lot. Following is the statement from the municipal code: “.080 Pot-Bellied Pigs. Pot-bellied pigs (meaning a pig classified as Sus Scrofa and commonly referred to as a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig, pygmy pig or mini-pig) shall be permitted subject to the following conditions. .0801 Only one (1) pot-bellied pig may be kept on a residential lot; .0802 Subsections .010 through .020 above shall apply; .0803 The breeding of pot-bellied pigs is prohibited; .0804 The pot-bellied pig shall be tested and vaccinated for leptospirosis and erisipelis, pseudo-rabies and any other communicable diseases for which a vaccine is available and generally recommended for such animals. Any person owning or having custody of a pot-bellied pig shall maintain an annual certificate from a licensed veterinarian that the vaccination(s) are current; .0805 The pot-bellied pig shall weigh no more than two hundred (200) pounds, stand no higher than twenty (20) inches, measured from the shoulders, and shall be no longer than forty (40) inches, measured from the tip of the head to the end of the buttock. Any person owning or having custody of a pot-bellied pig shall maintain an annual health certificate, signed by a licensed veterinarian, identifying the weight, height and length of the pig; .0806 A male pot-bellied pig older than two (2) years shall have its tusks removed, cut or filed to a length of less than two (2) inches by a licensed veterinarian;.0807 The pot-bellied pig shall be spayed or neutered by two (2) months of age. Any person owning or having custody of a pot-bellied pig shall maintain a certificate of sterilization signed by a licensed veterinarian;” (Anaheim Municipal Code). Conclusively, it can be derived that the pot-bellied may be kept on property owned by the owner and that the breeding of the pig is banned and it should be tested for leptospirosis and erysipelas and any type of rabies before coming into the home. It is added that ownership of a pot-bellied pig should be provided with an annual certificate from a licensed veterinarian to make sure that the vaccinations are still in date. Additional detail features include that the pot-bellied pig must be under 200 pounds, shorter than 20 inches from the shoulders, and shorter than 40 inches from head to buttock. The annual certificate should say the veterinarian, weight, height, and length of the pig and that the pig must be on a leash at all times when out of their property. The general hope behind having these articles is that animal owners don’t abuse animals by prioritizing commercial convenience over animal life quality. V. Conclusion These restrictions are very important because it will help maintain the amount of control we have in our cities. If we did not have these restrictions, some owners may own multiple pets and not have enough resources or land to take care of them. Not only would the animals suffer many of the lands would get destroyed and the owners would have to take care of that in addition. The zoning restrictions will help the condition of the animals and help the owners in many ways to make sure that they could always have the power to control what happens on their lands. Works Cited Code, Anaheim Municipal. “18.38.030 ANIMAL KEEPING.” American Legal Publishing Corporation, 0AD, codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/anaheim/latest/anaheim_ca/0-0-0-68050. m https://www.ocregister.com/2019/05/30/nearly-100-dogs-seized-at-house-in-orange-residents-cited-for-alleged-animal-cruelty/ https://www.ocpetinfo.com/services/petlaws I. Background
The Golden State of California experiences heavy damage from wildfires annually. Many “Experts at Stanford University believe that the wildfires in California—which have burned through at least 4 million acres throughout the state this year alone—could cause at least $10 billion in damage” (News Week). It was reported that “severe burn damage from California wildfires” were “seen from space” (Live Science). Moreover, in 2020, California fires caught national attention after Mexico sent 100 firefighters to the United States to help battle fires (US News). The economic, environmental, and social effects of these fires have become more evident over the past few decades and it is clear that local legislations must address this problem directly. II. General History of AB38 Assembly Bill AB38, addressing “Fire safety: low-cost retrofits: regional capacity review: wildfire mitigation” was passed in September 2019 in hopes of solving this issue. First being passed in April of that year, the Assembly Bill was finalized and passed on the Assembly Floor on September 14th, 2019 and approved by the Governor on October 2nd, 2019. The legislature kept in mind a number of things on the topic of wildfires as they went through writing up this bill, outlined in Section 1 of the article. The first topic was regarding climate change and the recent change in the general temperature. “Climate change has resulted in higher year-long temperatures and increasing dry weather conditions in California, resulting in extended, sometimes multiyear, droughts; extended wildfire seasons throughout the year, with higher temperatures during dry season conditions; and impacts on vegetation wildfire fuel loads and increasing decay and loss of vegetation due to insect infestations and plant diseases” (Section 1a). The lawmakers declared in the above that the devastation of wildfires in recent years were heavily linked to the change in climate due to human activity in the recent years. This is essential to keep in mind throughout this bill for a number of reasons. First, it outlines the fact that climate change needs to be addressed in some way or another in this bill and also that it’s not a topic that this council will ignore. The article also pressed on the idea of needing change in how we fight these wildfires, stating as follows: “(f) There is a pressing need for wildfire prevention and minimization strategies, on an area-specific basis, that combine increased wildfire resistance within developed areas to minimize wildfire impacts with comprehensive vegetation management measures in wildlands to prevent or severely limit large-scale wildfires from developing and spreading” (Section 1f). This is a key cause of this assembly bill; from past disasters, it was clear that the way that the state and local governments were dealing with wildfires weren’t as efficient as it could be. This is followed up with specific programs that this bill intends to include which include but aren’t limited to wildfire minimization programs, wildfires prevention programs, and wildfire response planning. III. Bill Analysis While Section 1 of AB38 was mostly a note of the topics the lawmakers had in mind while they were writing this bill, Section 2 and Section 3 are the parts that state the main changes this bill will include. Section 2 outlines an important change in the way homes are built. “A list of the following features that may make the home vulnerable to wildfire and flying embers. The notice shall disclose which of the listed features, if any, that exist on the home of which the seller is aware: (A) Eave, soffit, and roof ventilation where the vents have openings in excess of one-eighth of an inch or are not flame and ember resistant. (B) Roof coverings made of untreated wood shingles or shakes. (C) Combustible landscaping or other materials within five feet of the home and under the footprint of any attached deck. (D) Single pane or nontempered glass windows. (E) Loose or missing bird stopping or roof flashing. (F) Rain gutters without metal or noncombustible gutter covers” (Section 2a3). As stated before, the main changes that this bill is intending to address is in the way homes are built. The bill doesn’t state that homes already built in this manner are in the wrong but instead that buyers and sellers are both notified of certain features that make homes vulnerable to fires. If both the buyers and sellers of real estate property are notified that a house has flammable features, the property would be less favorable, pushing property developers to build less flammable houses. While this isn’t an immediate solution in combating wildfires, it’s a good start to having long term sustainability in fire hazard safety. In addition to this, Section 3 outlines ways that people should be notified of the features above. This section states as follows: “(1) In a local jurisdiction that has enacted an ordinance requiring an owner of real property to obtain documentation that the property is in compliance with Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or a local vegetation management ordinance, the seller shall provide the buyer with a copy of the documentation that complies with the requirements of that local ordinance and information on the local agency from which a copy of that documentation may be obtained” (Section 3a1). In summary, this section is really meant to make sure that regardless of what the local jurisdictions are, key people relating to a property are aware of features of their property that pertain to wildfires. Again, this section is not an immediate solution but rather a key documentation that makes sure individual property owners are aware of information the law entitles them to. IV. Conclusion This bill was finalized in October of 2019. It was necessary to protect the property since the amount of california wildfires is growing and the new-built homes are building closer to each other. Homeowners need to retrofit their homes in a cost effective way set by the State Fire Marshal in order to protect their homes from the dangerous wildfires. According to an article by Wood on the bill addressing wildfire resiliency, and why it is necessary, it was stated that “establishing statewide standards are critical because wildfires do not respect jurisdictional boundaries or property lines,” said Wood. “If just one homeowner on the block hardens their home but the rest of the houses do not, those unprotected houses can provide more fuel to burn down an entire neighborhood” (CA State Assembly Democratic Caucus). In conclusion, the bill not only set the home statewide standards, retrofit homes collectively to make them fire resistant, but it also educates the home buyers by requiring sellers informing buyers if the property was retrofitted according to the plans and requirements set by AB 38. Works Cited Democratic Caucus, CA State Assembly. “Governor Signs AB 38 and Other Legislation to Address Wildfire Resiliency.” Assembly Democratic Caucus, 2 Oct. 2019, asmdc.org/press-releases/governor-signs-ab-38-and-other-legislation-address-wildfire-resiliency. Farivar, Cyrus, and Alicia Victoria Lozano. “Federal Wildland Firefighters Say They're Burned out after Years of Low Pay, Little Job Stability.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 1 Nov. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-wildland-firefighters-say-they-re-burned-out-after-years-n1245576. Grzeszczak, Jocelyn. “California Wildfires Could Cause at Least $10 Billion in Damage, Economists Believe.” Newsweek, Newsweek, 10 Oct. 2020, www.newsweek.com/california-wildfires-could-cause-least-10-billion-damage-economists-believe-1538097. Kasler, Dale. “Claims against PG&E for California Wildfires Are Piling up Again. Here's the Latest Tally.” Sacbee, The Sacramento Bee, 18 Dec. 2020, www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article247919345.html. Madani, Doha. “West Coast Residents Struggle with Psychological Burden of Repeated Evacuations as Wildfire Seasons Worsen.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 21 Nov. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/west-coast-residents-struggle-psychological-burden-repeated-evacuations-wildfire-seasons-n1248451. Pappas, Stephanie. “Severe Burn Damage from California Wildfires Seen from Space.” LiveScience, Purch, 19 Oct. 2020, www.livescience.com/california-wildfire-damage-2020.html. Sacramento Bee, The. “Latest California Wildfire News Updates: The Sacramento Bee.” Northern CA News, Sports & Politics, 2020, www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/. State Assembly, California. “Bill Text.” Bill Text - AB-38 Fire Safety: Low-Cost Retrofits: Regional Capacity Review: Wildfire Mitigation., 2019, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB38. TrackBill, TrackBill. “California AB38.” TrackBill, 2019, trackbill.com/bill/california-assembly-bill-38-fire-safety-low-cost-retrofits-regional-capacity-review-wildfire-mitigation/1609304/. US News, Associated Press. “Mexico Sending 101 Firefighters to Help in California.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-09-23/mexico-sending-101-firefighters-to-help-in-california. Web Page, Assemblymember Jim Wood's. “Governor Signs AB 38 and Other Legislation to Address Wildfire Resiliency.” Official Website - Assemblymember Jim Wood Representing the 2nd California Assembly District, 2 Oct. 2019, a02.asmdc.org/press-releases/20191002-governor-signs-ab-38-and-other-legislation-address-wildfire-resiliency. Western Wildfires, NBC News. “Western Wildfires: California, Washington, Oregon Wildfire News - NBC News.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 2020, www.nbcnews.com/western-wildfires. I. Background
Discrimation based on hair has always been a serious issue the global society has been needing to deal with. Hair style represents diversity and cultural trends from all across the world and for that reason, people have been prejudiced against. Although the general trend for discrimnation has significantly went down in comparison to centuries ago, hair discrimination persists on into the 21st century. According to research found by the Crown Act Official Page, “Black women are 1.5 times more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair” and “Black women are 80% more likely than white women to agree with this statement” II. Legislature Introduction The Crown Act was originally a petitionary campaign that began in 2019. This movement was kindled through social media platforms as well as their official website. The concept behind this movement was simple: “People should not be forced to divest themselves of their racial cultural identity by changing their natural hair in order to adapt to predominantly white spaces in the workplace or in school” (Crown Act Official Page). Eventually, the fire of this movement reached out to government officials who acted and passed this legislation. It was passed on June 27th, 2019 and signed into law on July 3rd of 2019, all sponsored by California State Senator Holly Mitchell. III. Social Impact, Analysis, and Conclusion There have been numerous studies done showing that “appearance is linked to success, so no wonder employers want to regulate the appearance of their workers. One’s looks can affect perceived traits such as intelligence, motivation, and overall capability” (JD SUPRA). More importantly though, the amount of confidence and pride one is able to have in their appearance is what allows for true success on a long term. For that reason, discrimination that can exist based on appearence can often hurt and hold back a number of people. Washington, the District of Columbia, has for example passed legislation to prevent personal “based on bodily condition, beards, hair style, personal grooming, and dress” (JD SUPRA). Moreover, “Michigan is an outlier state that has specifically banned employment discrimination on the bases of height or weight. But, until recently, Michigan’s law did not protect someone’s hair” (JD SUPRA). Many states have hesitated in passing this progressive law as many found it to be too much of a change on both the employee and employer’s part. However, there has been many notable benefits of banning discrimination. As stated as a part of the Alberta Human Rights Act, “There are many benefits to employers for creating a work environment free of discrimination and harassment. The benefits include: a harmonious work environment, increased productivity, reduced absenteeism, decreased turnover, an environment of trust, collaboration and cooperation between employees, and increased employee and customer/client satisfaction.” Many people are on their best state of mind when they are in an environment where they can work free from the stress of facing discrimination and it has become evident that passing the CROWN Act would help in utilizing those issues. Works Cited Author, Dove. “The CROWN Act: Working to Eradicate Race-Based Discrimination.” Dove US, 19 Nov. 2020, www.dove.com/us/en/stories/campaigns/the-crown-act.html?utm_source=google. “Benefits.” Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/employment/employer_info/benefits_of_discrimination-free_workplace/Pages/benefits_of_discrimination-free_workplace.aspx. “The Roots Of The CROWN Act: What Employers Need To Know About Hairstyle Discrimination Law.” JD Supra, www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-roots-of-the-crown-act-what-85819/. Yancey-Bragg, N'dea. “Florida School Receiving Death Threats after Turning Away 6-Year-Old with Dreadlocks.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 16 Aug. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/08/16/florida-school-faces-backlash-rejecting-6-year-old-dreadlocks/1010132002/. I. Background
Racial discrimination. This issue has been around for as long as history stretches back. Throughout most of human history, the concept of having certain races be superior has always existed. Genocides occured all throughout the world and the most popularized one, the Holocaust that happened under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, have targetted races that are deemed “inferior.” While such actions are happening all over the world even in the modern day, Americans revisited the horrors of the imbalance once more in 2020. Amidst the chaos and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor rekindled the fire for the Black Lives Matter movement, involving millions of people united under one cause: racial inequality. Police brutality towards certain races were distributed all over the media as fear swept through the hearts of many Americans. It was clear that something must be done to prevent issues such as this, especially in the legal sense. Racial discrimination and social inequality as a whole was something that America has been needing to address but something that hadn’t been worked on yet. Around the same time, as the protests and debates were raging on, the general media started to circulate what seemed like a light at the end of the tunnel: California Proposition 16. II. Origins of Proposition 16 and its Controversy To understand where Proposition 16 came from, we must first understand Proposition 209 that happened in 1996. This is because Proposition 16, according to BallotPedia “is a constitutional amendment that would repeal Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” California Proposition 209, or the Affirmative Action Initiative, essentially prevented that there be no discrimination based on race. On the surface, Proposition 16 seems to only have benefits. It would give more opportunities to underprivileged minority ethnicities and races; however, there is more to the effects of this proposition that isn’t entirely good. If Proposition 16 did pass in the 2020 November election, it would give more opportunities to underrepresented races but many people believe it would take opportunities away from more-deserved people. However, since 1996, the demand for post-high school education has grown unprecedented, setting new records. As a result, universities and colleges, namely the schools under the University of California (UC) system, have recently reconsidered Proposition 209. Although this problem has been around for decades, the Black Lives Matter movement has pushed colleges to think of ways to give underrepresented ethnicities, namely the African-American communities, more admission chances. According to vote guide, Proposition 16 would ultimately “Permit[s] government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities. The effects of the measure depend on the future choices of state and local government entities and are highly uncertain” (Voterguide). Colleges try to maintain a certain ratio of each ethnicity or race by putting that into consideration each admission year, but the general college admission process for most students is based around one thing: merit. It has been found through numerous research studies done on this subject that poorer, underrepresented ethnic groups have been lacking “merit” compared to more widely represented groups. Hence, viewing this from a certain perspective, if Proposition 16 does pass, students with less merit may be accepted just because they come from a minority group while students with more merit may be rejected. While it’s more complex in depth, the newly proposed proposition would allow governments, universities, and other public facilities to have preferences on race, sex, and ethnicity when picking people for a position. This main function of this law is to promote more diversity and support minorities by giving them more opportunities but at the same time, it may also take away opportunities from students who need it. III. Potential Effects of the Proposition 16 Part of the reason why this proposition was proposed was to solve the underlying issue of social inequality, as mentioned before. If Proposition 16 passes, it would indeed help underrepresented groups prosper. While it has been put into question these days, having a college degree does seem to correlate with higher income in general and by giving more minority students access to college education, it would greatly help those communities grow. At the same time though, had his proposition passed, it would indeed become a controversy resulting in fierce debates. Many students, mainly the students from Asian backgrounds, would be penalized for something they cannot control: race. Although critics of this stance argue that there is no such penalization, the writing on the wall is clear: this proposition is made to benefit the African-American communities and not the Asian communities, although both are minority races. According to an article by InsideHigherED: “Fighting for the Asian American vote was a key part of the campaign against Prop 16. While there were prominent Asian American backers of the measure, Zhao noted that many Asian Americans feel that affirmative action in effect legalizes discrimination against them. At Berkeley this year, 42 percent of freshmen are Asian, 21 percent are Latinx, 17 percent are white and 4 percent are Black” (InsideHigherED) Conclusively, the potential effects of Proposition 16 was that it would benefit certain groups while penalizing others for race/ethnicity. Although critics and supporters for both sides argue against such a stance, it is clear that inequality exists whether this proposition passes or does not. IV. Conclusion In the end, Proposition 16 did not pass during the November 2020 election. Although it did not succeed in the end, this proposal is a sign of a growing concern that’s happening in California: a move towards the far-left. According to an article by edsource following the rejection of Proposition 16 at the 2020 election: “We have successfully defeated a far-left measure in America’s bluest state,” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of Californians for Equal Rights, and head of the No on 16 campaign, said in a statement issued early Wednesday. “We won and the principle of equality has prevailed again, against a powerful opponent backed by the political establishment, corporate billionaires, and special interest groups.” Although people generally tend to prefer liberalism of conservatism, history has shown us that a balance of the two opposing political views are needed in order to prosper. While the idea itself - giving minority group students more opportunities - was good paper, it lacked the means to do so as it could accomplish its goal without facing controversy. In conclusion, Proposition 16 was a fitting result for the general direction that both the American and global society have been progressing towards. It tried to address a key issue our society faces today: racial discrimination and ineqaulity. However, while the plan seemed to be good from one perspective, it was clear that many students would be penalized for things they cannot fully control and in the end, it did not pass in California. This proposal idea, despite not working out, does signify the direction that our world is moving towards: equality for all. Although it will take decades or perhaps centuries, it can be derived from this proposition that our world, despite all the hardships and unfairness it holds, still has goodness embedded deep inside that pushes human society towards equality. Works Cited “12 Things Other Countries Have Done to Promote Gender Equity.” American Civil Liberties Union, 13 Nov. 2020, www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/12-things-other-countries-have-done-promote-gender-equity. “Affirmative Action Divides Asian Americans, UC's Largest Overrepresented Student Group.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 1 Nov. 2020, www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-01/affirmative-action-divides-asian-americans-ucs-largest-overrepresented-student-group. “California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020).” Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020). Coverdell, Paul D. Global Issues: Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment, 1989, www.peacecorps.gov/educators/resources/global-issues-gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment/. “Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment – United Nations Sustainable Development.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/. “Gender Equality.” UNICEF, www.unicef.org/gender-equality. Kijakazi, Kilolo, et al. “Racial Inequities Will Grow Unless We Consciously Work to Eliminate Them.” Urban Institute, 1 July 2020, www.urban.org/urban-wire/racial-inequities-will-grow-unless-we-consciously-work-eliminate-them. Har, Janie. “Politically Liberal California Rejects Affirmative Action.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 4 Nov. 2020, apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-campaigns-san-francisco-college-admissions-california-4c56c600c86f37289e435be85695872a. InsiderHigherED. “Inside Higher Ed.” Experts Discuss the Failure of California's Proposition 16, www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/11/09/experts-discuss-failure-californias-proposition-16. Michele S. Moses Professor of Educational Foundations, and Laura Dudley Jenkins Professor of Political Science. “Affirmative Action around the World.” The Conversation, 20 Nov. 2020, theconversation.com/affirmative-action-around-the-world-82190. Muscati, Samer. “Women's Rights.” Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.org/topic/womens-rights. “Proposition 16: Official Voter Information Guide: California Secretary of State.” Proposition 16 | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State, voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/16/. “Proposition 16: Reinstating Affirmative Action.” CalMatters, 30 Oct. 2020, calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-16-affirmative-action/. Richard A. Oppel Jr., Derrick Bryson Taylor and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs. “What to Know About Breonna Taylor's Death.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 Oct. 2020, www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html. Sturgis, Lisa. “Proposition 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment.” KYMA, 7 Sept. 2020, kyma.com/news/2020/09/07/proposition-16-repeal-proposition-209-affirmative-action-amendment/. "What Is Gender Equality Sociology Essay." ukessays.com. 11 2018. UKEssays. 11 2020 <https://www.ukessays.com/essays/sociology/what-is-gender-equality-sociology-essay.php?vref=1>. |
Contact Us
HoursM-F: 7am - 9pm
|
ocstudentlawreview@gmail.com
|