Law Loppsi 2 against light habitat type Yurt?

[Flytox]

To summarize:

All campsites must close!
The motorhomes are now good for the hut!
Pre-fabs of all kinds are good for scrap metal!
And my dog, it will be banned from niche and end up under a bridge!

Logically, the capitals of political meetings .... will be prohibited, if it is they will appreciate the mildness of our winters and the sun of our summers ... No, there will be an amendment to be able to shelter the rascal .... the real one, the one who passes these kinds of laws

[aerialcastor]

To avoid speculation of all kinds


The official text

Article 32 b A (new)

I. - When an illicit installation in a meeting on land belonging to a public or private person with a view to establishing housing therein entails serious risks for public health, safety or tranquility, the representative of the State in the department or, in Paris, the prefect of police can put the occupants on notice to leave the premises.

The formal notice is accompanied by a period of execution which cannot be less than forty-eight hours. It is notified to the occupants and published in the form of a display at the town hall and on the premises. If necessary, it is notified to the owner or holder of the right to use the land.

When the notice to leave the premises has not been followed up within the time limit and has not been appealed under the conditions provided for in II, the prefect may proceed with the evacuation forced entry, unless the owner or holder of the right to use the land objects to it within the time limit set for the execution of the notice. If necessary, the prefect seizes the president of the tribunal de grande instance of a request for authorization to proceed with the destruction of the illicit constructions built to allow the installation in meeting on the ground being the subject of the evacuation measure. . The president of the court or his delegate rules, in the form of summary proceedings, within forty-eight hours.

When the owner or holder of the right to use the land hinders the execution of the formal notice, the prefect may ask him to take all the measures necessary to put an end to the attack on health, safety and to public peace, within a time limit that it fixes.

Failure to comply with the order made pursuant to the preceding paragraph is punishable by a fine of € 3.

II. - The addressees of the formal notice decision provided for in I, as well as the owner or holder of the right to use the land may, within the time limit fixed by it, request its cancellation at the administrative court. The appeal suspends the execution of the prefect's decision in their regard. The president of the court or his delegate rules within seventy-two hours from his referral.

available here

It is therefore only illegal installations that are targeted, we are not talking absolutely about eco and self-construction.

[dirk pitt]

thank you beaver!
I thought it was provocative bullshit. a guy wrote something stupid and it spreads like wildfire on the net. without taking a position for or against, I rebel against the dissemination of false information. yurts, HLLs (light leisure accommodation) and other eco or self-built caravans and caravans have nothing to worry about as long as they are legally installed.

[bamboo]

available here

It is therefore only illegal installations that are targeted, we are not talking absolutely about eco and self-construction.

Finally someone who thinks before bellowing ...

The others, excuse me, I approve of many things on this site, but as soon as it becomes political, there are not many people to think calmly.

Bravo arielcastor for putting it back flat.

[aerialcastor]

Propaganda, too, inflates me, whether it comes from one camp or another. That’s why I’ll always get the info from the source.


After the text is still far from encouraging, especially for the poorest: Roma, living in shanty towns, homeless, ....


And then:

poses serious risks to public health, safety or tranquility

bcp depends on the interpretation we make of it, how will dry toilets, yurts for thermal comfort, Canadian wells, etc. be judged, and all systems that do not meet current standards?

What is reassuring is that the owner can oppose the prefect's decision, it will then go through a judge, who normally is not under the orders of the government

[Christophe]

A)

Propaganda, too, inflates me, whether it comes from one camp or another. That’s why I’ll always get the info from the source.

Yes, rotten and erroneous mailings are legion, in fact the more the information is false or futile, the more I have the impression that the mailing is gaining momentum ...

For example: I never received a mailing on public debts ... which are at the origin of the current national crises ... on the other hand I received dozens about the privileges of the politicians in times of crisis ...

There is well http://www.hoaxbuster.com/ to "clean" all this but hey they can not do everything ...

The assos which fight against Lopsis 2 seem to me nevertheless very serious ... because there is a risk see B)

ps: I think everyone will have noted the "?" the title of the subject ... which is therefore not in the affirmative eh ... we open the debate, in short we do not propaganda on econology!

B) It does not prevent, on the bottom of the problem Lopssi one can worry about this passage, therefore +1 with you beaver:

poses serious risks to public health, safety or tranquility

There are a lot of things you can get under there ... especially public tranquility ... if you include visual tranquility ...

Some topics about Yurts:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/yourtes-et ... t1093.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/achat-ou-c ... t3764.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/yourte-aut ... t8798.html

So we tend towards a society where everything that is not authorized will be prohibited?

[Christophe]

Last question: when we expel a homeless person (French nationality), so who is already on the street, is it to expel him where?

[bamboo]

Last question: when we expel a homeless person (French nationality), so who is already on the street, is it to expel him where?

The poorly housed are put into hotels.
Needless to say, it is very, very expensive ...

[Christophe]

Pouted ... but it must not be permanent ...

I just noticed that we had focused on the housing part of this law, the "virtual" part is not more encouraging:

PRESS REVIEW: La Quadrature du Net

La Quadrature du Net is an organization defending the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. It promotes an adaptation of French and European legislation which is faithful to the values ​​which have governed the development of the Internet, in particular the free circulation of knowledge. As such, La Quadrature du Net intervenes in particular in debates concerning freedom of expression, copyright, regulation of the telecommunications sector and respect for privacy. It provides interested citizens with tools enabling them to better understand legislative processes in order to intervene effectively in public debate.
http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/filtrage-du-net

Loppsi 2: "The dictators dreamed of it, Sarkozy did it":
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societ ... 17757.html

Loppsi 2 bill on the Internet: Filtering, filing and hacking on all floors:
http://www.acrimed.org/article3289.html

cyberpetition:

In the coming hours, French deputies will adopt the first articles of a repressive new security law that establishes censorship consisting in filtering websites - a dangerous attack on our fundamental democratic freedoms.

Those who defend these measures claim that they will help to combat child pornography - but groups of citizens and of the fight against child pornography have denounced the law by indicating that, on the contrary, it would contribute to aggravating the sexual trafficking of children.

Our MPs have 24 hours to reject this bad proposal - if we raise a massive wave of citizen pressure all over France, we can get a vote in the right direction and protect our democracy. Send an urgent message!

http://www.avaaz.org/fr/france_internet ... 127&v=7811

[bamboo]

Those who defend these measures claim that they will help to combat child pornography - but groups of citizens and of the fight against child pornography have denounced the law by indicating that, on the contrary, it would contribute to aggravating the sexual trafficking of children.

This remark is also not consistent. To prove it, just ask yourself the following question:
Should we allow people to drive drunk to prevent them from driving without a license?

(I am not saying that censorship is a good thing in all circumstances, but simply that the subject is not simple: it is necessary to ask the question of the worst of the 2 evils)