Change Of Social Security Number - Office Of The Registrar: Fill & Download for Free

Here is a good list:A Florida resident has a true, fixed and permanent home in Florida. Certain actions establish residency; other actions only indicate intent to establish residency. Combining the two action groups result in a well-documented change of residency to Florida.Actions to establish residency—the minimum requirements:File a Declaration of Domicile: File a Declaration of Domicile in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in which you intend to reside. You may download the declaration from your Florida County’s website. The counties require notarization of the form. The clerk’s office usually has a notary public on site. If the state of your former residence has a Declaration of Non-domicile, consider filing it. Some Florida counties include the Declaration of Domicile on the homestead property tax exemption form.Apply for a Homestead property tax exemption: Qualify for the homestead property tax exemption if you own your Florida residence. You have until March 1 to file for the homestead property tax exemption with the County Property Appraiser in your Florida county of residence. You may follow the links to the specific county property appraiser site to download the county’s homestead exemption application (Florida Dept. of Revenue). Call the appraiser’s office to see if you need to submit the form in person or if you can mail it in, as each county has a different procedure. You will need a copy of your deed, a Florida driver’s license, a Florida automobile registration (if applicable), your voter registration card and/or a filed Declaration of Domicile, and your social security number in order to complete the form. If you do not drive, you must get a Highway Patrol identification card issued at the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles office (DHSMV). For jointly owned property, both parties must furnish the proof.Register to Vote: After moving to Florida, register to vote as a resident of Florida. Contact the County Supervisor of Elections for residency requirements for voting and then register. Contact the county Board of Registrars of your former state of residence to notify the Board of your change of residence and instruct the Board to remove your name from your former county’s voting roll.Actions to indicate intent to establish residency:Florida driver’s license: Obtain a Florida driver’s license and plates for your automobile. You must visit a Florida DHSMV site in person to obtain an initial Florida driver’s license. Florida law requires identification, proof of date of birth (i.e. certified US birth certificate, valid US passport, Certificate of Naturalization), proof of residential address (i.e. deed, Florida voter registration card, Florida vehicle registration) and proof of social security number (i.e. social security card, W-2, pay stub) from all residents before issuing a driver’s license or identification card. If you’ve recently changed your name (i.e. marriage), be sure you’ve updated your records with the Social Security Administration before applying for a Florida license. Contact the local Florida DHSMV for driver’s license requirements (Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles).Income tax returns: File future Federal income tax returns using your Florida address. (IRS Service Center in Austin, TX if no payment due. IRS Service Center in Charlotte, NC if payment due.) If you have income sourced in a state outside of Florida (i.e. your former state of residence), file a nonresident income tax return in the state of the sourced income if that state has an individual income tax.Wills and estate planning: If you do not have a will or you have a will executed in your former state of residence, contact an attorney to draw a will declaring Florida as your state of legal residence. Execute your estate planning documents in Florida.Tax agency: Notify taxing officials of your change of residence by either calling the state’s Department of Revenue or, if your state of former residence has a change of address form, filing the change of address form. Most states’ part-year resident returns provide a place on the return to indicate your period of residency ending within the tax year.Physical presence: Be physically present in Florida for more than half of the year. Own or lease, and occupy, a dwelling in Florida.Stocks and ownership interests: If you own corporate stocks or own a Partnership/LLC interest outside of a broker account, notify the entities of your change of residence. This will not only indicate your intention to establish Florida residency, it will ensure you receive your Forms 1099 and Schedules K-1 to assist you in preparing your income tax returns. Transfer financial (i.e. securities, bank) accounts from your state of former residence to Florida. Change your mailing address to Florida for any out-of-state accounts (i.e. brokerage accounts, bank accounts) you maintain.Safe deposit box: Rent a safe deposit box in Florida to hold all your valuables.Contracts and other documents: In all future contracts and other documents containing reference to your state of residency, cite Florida as your state of residency.Club memberships: Withdraw membership in any club outside of Florida if a requirement of membership includes residency within the state of the club’s location. Change an out-of-state club membership to a “nonresident” membership, when possible.Religious affiliations: Transfer your religious affiliations to Florida.Communications: Declare Florida your state of residence in all oral and written communications concerning your residence or domicile.Hotel registrations: Register at hotels as a resident of Florida.Business: Transact business in Florida.Social Security: Notify the Social Security Administration of your change of address.Passports: Use your Florida address for your passport.Credit cards: Use your Florida address for your charge accounts.Insurance: Register your Florida address with your insurance company and Medicare.Checks: Have all income, pension, dividend/interest checks and other payments mailed to your Florida address.

This subject is as important as it is sensitive, so I’ve taken pains to be thorough and nonpartisan while also doing my best at being definitive.As the early articles that I read on this subject (from both sides) were similarly thin, I decided to sound out and weigh the evidence for myself.My findings? As I’ll outline in careful detail, I believe Sessions is a deeply problematic choice that voters from both parties should actively denounce.I feel this transcends politics. You may disagree. My goal is simply to outline the case and let each reader decide that question for themselves.The BackstoryMost of the media’s concerns with Sessions are tied to a set of events back in the 80s, when he was serving as a US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama.(A quick note for those unfamiliar: all federal criminal cases are initiated by one of 93 US Attorneys, each of whom is the Department of Justice’s top enforcement officer for their assigned district. The Attorney General — the role Sessions is now up for — is the equivalent of the CEO of that department as a whole.)Sessions was appointed to one of those 93 positions by Reagan in 1981. After five years or so, he was then put up for a promotion to a spot on the US District Court. This would have made him one of the judges that heard cases from their local US Attorney.Thing is, even the President can’t give out those jobs unilaterally. To preserve the balance of power within government, all they can do is make a nomination, which the Senate Judiciary Committee is then responsible to review.At the time, some 200 of Reagan’s prior judicial appointments had been confirmed without issue. Opposition to positions that low on the hierarchy was historically rare. But this time was different. Sessions became just the second nominee in 48 years to get rejected, by a vote of 10 to 8, which included two Republicans taking side against him.(Note: Much has been made of Arlen Specter saying decades later that he regretted his vote. Regardless of the sincerity of that remorse, it wouldn’t have mattered to the outcome. Ties are the same as rejections in committee voting procedures. Sessions would have needed two votes to flip.)Cause of RejectionHow did Sessions manage this particular feat?The single largest factor is that he’d chosen a year prior to issue an indictment against “the Marion Three” on charges of improperly altering 14 mail-in ballots collected from black rural voters.To understand why that was a controversial decision, a few points of context:One of the three, Albert Turner, was a highly-regarded civil rights leader. He’d been on the front lines at Selma 20 years earlier, and had personally led Martin Luther King Jr.’s funeral procession. He was one of the first blacks to cast a ballot in Alabama, and had been heavily involved in minority voter drives ever since. (One of the other two was Turner’s wife, who had a similar reputation.)The 14 ballots in question were from a package of around 500. And they were for a Democratic primary, not a general election. Even if they were fraudulent (they weren’t, as the jury upheld unanimously), it was a decidedly petty case.The defendants were charged under provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which Sessions has long been on record against as “an intrusive piece of legislation”.Taken together, it was enough to lead to widespread accusations that the indictment was more about voter intimidation than true justice. The trial represented a non-trivial amount of public resources and tax dollars, all to try three people of sterling moral character for 14 votes that didn’t matter based on what amounted to unsubstantiated hearsay.The Deeper DarknessBad as the optics were, that case alone wasn’t enough to sink his nomination. But it did lead the Judiciary Committee to launch a formal investigation to see if he had a history of racially motivated behavior. And, well, he did.Four other Department of Justice employees ultimately gave testimony against Sessions, two of which are noteworthy (taken together, they’re responsible for 95% of the quotes flying around in the press right now).J. Gerald Hebert, a white prosecutor, claimed (reluctantly) under oath that Sessions referred to another white lawyer as “a disgrace to his race” for choosing to move forward with civil rights cases. He also testified that Sessions made other comments he deemed concerning — including negative references to the NAACP and ACLU. Rather than denying most of these accusations, Sessions contextualized them, saying he was “loose with his tongue” sometimes.Thomas Figures, a black Assistant Attorney who had worked directly under Sessions for about four years, claimed that his boss had referred to him as “boy” on multiple occasions and once lectured him about how he “spoke to white people”. He also independently repeated many of the same claims as Hebert.Taken as a whole, this was enough to kill Session’s 1986 court nomination.But is it enough to disqualify him to be Attorney General today, 30 years later?You Shall Know Them By Their FruitFirst, it’s worth reiterating that we can only judge people relative to their times. Abraham Lincoln routinely said things about blacks that would rightly be judged as horrific today. Yet he still signed the Emancipation Proclamation. When we talk about his political legacy, we’re speaking to the balance.That in mind, is what Sessions said forgivable? Did he go on in later days to pursue his own balance?I’m largely charitable when it comes to his general comments. Most white lawyers in the deep south of the 1980s would have vented private frustrations about groups they deemed too liberal. Without excusing this attitude, it’s a thin case for deciding his fitness today.Harder to swallow is his treatment of Thomas Figures. Even if Sessions never did call him “boy” (he denied it and there were no witnesses to testify either way), there’s a larger problem still in play. Figures was so incensed by Sessions’ decisions on race cases that he quit in 1985. That was a big job to walk away from, which implies considerable cause.Ultimately, however, what we need to answer is simple: has Sessions clearly become a different person since those events, or has he simply learned to stay just ahead of the worst part of the curve? In the absence of unimpeachable evidence in favor of the former, it’s hard to see how he should be considered for the second-most important position in the country vis-a-vis racial issues.The Case For HimWe’ll start by considering the favorable evidence, as outlined by his defenders on the right.Claim #1: He pursued the death penalty against a KKK member in 1981.His office did indeed push for the conviction of Henry Hays for the murder of Michael Donald. But, upon a closer look, one finds that Sessions was a marginal figure in that particular case. The conviction was almost solely due to the efforts of Figures, who personally filed an appeal with the AG to force the FBI to re-open their failed investigation.Claim #2: He voted in favor of Eric Holder becoming the first black Attorney General.This is true, and I think somewhat meaningful. Two members of the Judiciary Committee did vote against Holder. And when it reached the Senate floor, 21 out of 41 Republicans said “nay”. Sessions could have joined them, if with no obvious cause. He chose not to, which should be viewed to his credit.Claim #3: He voted for the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006.While this is also true, he was joined by 100% of Senators from both sides of the aisle. In context, to do otherwise was politically unthinkable at the time.Claim #4: He co-sponsored the Fair Sentencing Act.In 1994, a US Sentencing Commission called for reform to how crack vs. powder cocaine possession was being penalized (at the time, the relative punishment ratio was 100-to-1 harsher for the former). Because crack was more common in primarily black communities, this has long been seen as a racially-motivated sentencing discrepancy.It took until 2009 for Congress to act on that recommendation. The House of Representatives put forward a bill that would have eliminated the gap entirely. The Senate rejected it. The only way that Sessions and Co. would give support was at a compromised sentencing ratio of 18:1, which eventually passed in 2010.You could argue that a drop that significant is still progress, but you could also argue that keeping it at 18:1 was to miss the point of the exercise.The Case Against HimI’m going to focus on a single example that I find symbolic of the whole.To preface, we need to recall some history about voting in the American South.From the days of Reconstruction through Jim Crow, black voters in said states faced special difficulties getting to the ballot box. Whether through overt acts of violence or “legal” disenfranchisement, the local white power structure threw up obstacle after obstacle to maintain their privileged position.Much of this changed with the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It set a universal standard of acceptable behavior and required historically problemed districts to request direct approval before making any changes to their local balloting procedures.In 2013, the Supreme Court, as part of Shelby County v. Holder, overturned part of the VRA, effectively throwing out those “pre-clearance measures”.Sessions was asked at the time how he felt about the court’s decision. His response:[These] states that had a real history of [racial discrimination]. But now if you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of their skin.Except they are. In droves.A Roadblock By Any Other NameSessions mentions a few states specifically, including his own and North Carolina.Well, guess what happened in those two states almost immediately after the Shelby ruling?Let’s start with the case of a 94 year-old civil rights pioneer in North Carolina.Beginning in January 2015, Eaton undertook a herculean effort to match her various documents and comply with the law. Over the course of a month, she made 11 trips to different state agencies—four trips to the DMV, four trips to two different Social Security offices, and three trips to different banks—totaling more than 200 miles and 20 hours.What was she trying to do? And to comply with which law?She was trying to vote. And she was being blocked from doing so by new state voter ID measures.When asked what the purpose of those laws are, legislators inevitably say the same thing: “we need to protect our democracy against voter fraud”.While that’s a commendable goal, that’s not what voter ID laws actually do. And we know that because in-person voter fraud is essentially a fictional problem. Study after study has confirmed this. There are a low two-digit number of confirmed cases over a decade in which well over a billion votes were cast.This makes sense. The chances of success are low, the upside is barely higher, and the punishment is severe. There’s just no logical reason to attempt it.So why do the laws exist?They’ve continually been found to be about one party disenfranchising blocks of citizens known to be more likely to vote against them. It happens surgically. Research firms are brought in to craft policy amendments that will affect just enough of the right people to give their own party an edge.And it so happens, in nearly every case we have on record, that the list of excluded people primarily consists of blacks and other minorities who disproportionately vote Democrat.(I need to stress again that I’m fiercely non-partisan. I have my conservative sympathies. But this isn’t a subjective topic. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: these laws place significant obstacles in front of minority voters while providing no discernible civic benefit.)The Man Behind The CurtainJeff Sessions is presently a US Senator for Alabama.Want to guess which state was ranked last in the 2015 Health of State Democracies report, receiving an F for voter access?At last count, some 250,000 Alabama residents were ineligible to vote because of unnecessary voter ID laws. To become eligible, they required licenses from the DMV.Well, guess what suddenly happened to about 30 DMVs in black-majority counties?This is not about budget cutbacks or voter fraud. It’s about winning at all costs.Lets quote Sessions again:But now if you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren't being denied the vote because of the color of their skin.Except they are. And he knows that.VerdictEarlier this year, a ceremony was held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Selma March. Sessions was one of the speakers (video link). The heart of his comments can be summed in one quote:I should have stepped forward more and been a leader and a more positive force in the great events that were occurring.That’s not an apology. That’s a vague acknowledgment, at best.Racism can be several things. It can be active hate, amplified by fear and shame, as was evident so often throughout US history (and has surfaced once again).But it can also be simple indifference. Some people don’t hate minorities. They just don’t register their concerns as equal in importance to their own interests.Sessions’ level of indifference concerning racial equality is exceptionally difficult to argue against. In addition to the voter ID laws, there are two other glaring marks against him:He recently objected to the Confederate battle flag being taken down from government buildings. (To clarify, we’re not talking about the historical flag of the Confederacy. This variation of the flag was popularized in late 40s specifically to signal sympathy and affiliation with white nationalist groups.)Sessions’ connections to organizations known almost exclusively for stances against Muslims and non-whites are widely documented. This includes his very public (and current) affiliation with FAIR, which has been listed as a hate group by SPLC for almost a decade.Now, consider the job he’s being appointed for and the context of the times:Next to POTUS, the Attorney General is the most important race-related job in the country.Racial tensions are currently high. Hate crimes are up. Minorities are on edge. Many feel (rightly or wrongly) that Trump is responsible for stoking those tensions.The Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice was on life support under Bush II. It took years for the Obama administration to give them teeth again, which they’ve since put to good effect with the police departments in NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, and Ferguson. (They also successfully fought some of the Voter ID measures in North Carolina.) That progress needs to continue.Trump believes, presumably knowing these things, that Sessions is the man for the job.I reject that idea. Firmly.Sessions may or not be a racist in his heart. Only he can say. But this is too important of a post and his record simply isn’t suitable for the job in question.Another Republican instead? Absolutely. But one with a record of sensitivity and commitment to racial justice.What Can Be DoneAgree with the above? Call your Senator. Tell them.List of phone numbers.(Don’t email them. Call them. It takes minutes.)This is especially important if they’re on the below list (GOP members of the Judiciary Committee who will vote on Sessions’ appointment):Chuck Grassley (Iowa)Orrin Hatch (Utah)Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)John Cornyn (Texas)Mike Lee (Utah)Ted Cruz (Texas)Jeff Flake (Arizona)David Vitter (Louisiana)David Perdue (Georgia)Thorn Tillis (North Carolina)Tell them that you will continue calling until:Sessions’ nomination is rejected.Sessions’ nomination is withdrawn and replaced with that of a more appropriate candidate.Sessions comes forward and makes several things clear, including but not limited to: guaranteeing uncut resources and full independence to the Civil Rights Department; publicly owning his past complicity in racist policies, coupled with a meaningful commitment to awareness and change.(In that last case, people could judge his sincerity for themselves. If they found it wanting, they could simply resume their phone calls.)Only two votes need to flip. A rejection would send a message to Trump that he needs to be mindful of the country as a whole, and of the gravity of his office. If his claims to care about those things are genuine, he can prove it.I don’t care which party you vote for. If you care about making the US a better and more united country, allowing Sessions to become Attorney General is a significant step backward.I’m happy to hear counter-narratives in the comments. But only those based on careful/reasonable arguments with links to credible sources.PS: Hat-tip to User-12553573656821395227 for calling me out re: the shutdown of DMVs in Alabama. There was an offset I missed in my research. They offered special Voter IDs via mobile registrar locations (some details here). Having thought on it for a day, I don’t think it changes my thinking much in the big picture — but it’s an important caveat worth noting.EDIT: Original answer written in November, 2016. Came in July, 2018 to improve the wording. A copy of the original was also posted to HuffPost at the time via my contributor account. As they no longer allow editing, and as I wasn’t satisfied with the quality of the locked version (or the supplied headline), I’ve now deleted it. You can view the original wording via Quora’s edit log.

How about when you and others like you who advocate for these same things, agree to all these same requirements on the right to vote?This is a simple thought experiment I encourage people who advocate for gun control to perform; apply the same restriction, as it would be implemented for guns by the political ideologues asking for the restriction, to the exercise of a right you actually care about.Case in point:Before you can vote, you will be required to attend a government-approved training course and pass a test covering a curriculum set by people hand-picked by the politicians who wanted this, for whom there are two acceptable outcomes; you vote for their party, or you don’t vote at all. If your answers sound even suspiciously like the rhetoric of the opposing party, you fail. In the practical qualification, if you take too long, don’t accurately check the correct box, or demonstrate any behavior that would make you unsuitable to vote, the instructor proctoring the qualification will dismiss you from the test facility and you will not be able to vote.Before you cast your ballot, you have to fill out a form with your name, address, place and date of birth, height, weight, hair and eye color, and Social Security Number, and then attest that you are in the United States legally and long-term (citizen or permanent resident), voting for yourself and not in someone else’s name, not convicted of any felony (except for a few financial regulatory crimes), not convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, not currently under information or indictment on any felony or misdemeanor domestic violence charge, not a fugitive from justice (warrant outstanding for any offense, even failure to appear on a traffic ticket), not subject to a court order restraining you from harrassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, your child, or a child of your intimate partner, not an unlawful user of narcotic drugs (marijuana is illegal under Federal law; if you consume marijuana or any derivative of same without Federal permission to do so, you cannot vote even if it’s legal in your state), not dishonorably discharged from the military, and not adjudicated as a mental defective, nor ever committed involuntarily to a mental institution (court-ordered inpatient alcohol/drug rehab counts).You must then hand this form, which is identity theft on a silver platter, to the volunteer running the polling place, who will input this information into a Federal system designed to say that you’re lying on at least one of these affirmations. If you are, and you knew or reasonably should have known it was a lie, you go to Federal prison for 5 years, and having been convicted of a “voting crime”, you will never get your voting rights back; Federal judges are prohibited by a budgetary act from considering your petition, and no President will ever pardon some random guy for such a heinous voting-related crime.You mentioned “tiers” of licensing; so the rules get stricter as the scope of your vote broadens. The “usual” vetting might allow you to vote for city and/or county representation; a stricter set of requirements are imposed for voting in State Legislature elections, stricter still for statewide office and for Federal Congress, and you better embody the Bureau of Voting and Free Speech’s ideals for a member of the electorate to vote for the President.Before you can vote, you have to provide 3 letters of recommendation from residents of the same voting district, whom you have known personally for at least 7 years, attesting that you are a fine, upstanding citizen with strong cultural ties to your community, who is highly unlikely to misuse your vote contrary to the community’s best interests. If you move, the 7-year clock starts over.Before you vote, you have to pay a $200 registration fee to the Bureau of Voting and Free Speech, and submit a detailed form regarding the circumstances of your registration to vote in a particular scope of election. The paperwork can take up to 9 months to complete. If you take your voter registration card across state lines, even to visit, you owe the BVF another $200, and God help you if you didn’t tell them about the move 10 months in advance.Any transfer of knowledge from one voter to another that could be material in making an election-day decision must be reported to the BVF before the transfer occurs, with a similar form required as to register to vote. This same reporting requirement applies to any material assistance given to a voter, including transportation to or from a polling place, aid in filling out paperwork or payment of fees, etc.And finally, before you can vote, you must register your intention to vote for a certain candidate with the polling place, in person, and must then wait 10 days before you can come back and cast your vote, to give you a cooling-off period during which time you will hopefully refrain from such a rash action.Consider all these points very carefully; each of them has a direct analog to a gun law and/or implementation of same in the Federal system or that of at least one State. Now, ask yourself the following 3 questions:How effective will this program be at preventing people for whom there is some broad supermajority consensus that they shouldn’t vote from doing so?By “broad supermajority consensus”, I’m talking about 85% or better of US citizens and legal residents who agree a person in the target demographic should not vote.How likely is this program to discourage those who could and would otherwise vote legally and responsibly from doing so?Bear in mind that the US political party more in favor of gun control also tends to have the larger problem with voter turnout among demographics that favor their party.How willing are you, personally, to put up with the required processes of this program in order to cast your own vote?A corollary; after going through all this, would you still feel that voting in US elections is a “right” that you can exercise without anyone else’s prior permission, or has it become a “privilege” extended to you by the government at its discretion?I can hear the counterarguments:“Voting is nowhere near as dangerous as owning a gun” - I beg to differ, and anyone who has paid attention to the last, oh, 20 years of US national politics would likely agree. As is commonly said, often to mock one’s opponents, “elections have consequences”. Further, whose who are scholars at virtually any level of expertise in 20th Century world history would say that voting your emotions in a time of turmoil and discontent with the status quo and the world order was the leading cause of untimely death in that century. No single citizen’s vote puts an incompetent or outright dangerous man in power, but the power of a very simple and direct sentiment, “f*** you”, isn’t just tolerated in voting, it is the essence of US national elections.“Some of these restrictions aren’t all that bad” - Maybe not for you. For the black voters in Louisiana that were given this literacy test, because they could not provide documented proof of a fifth grade education, the registrar might as well have said, “No, of course you can’t vote, what are you thinking, showing up with that color skin? Get out and don’t come back”.So it is with guns, in jurisdictions where many of your proposals are already law. If you’re not seen as the “right sort” by the permitting authority, no amount of paperwork will change that impression. The only type of paper that will make a difference is printed mostly in black on one side, green on the other. And if you doubt that, consider that both the left-leaning New York Times and the right-leaning New York Post say as much about firearms permitting in New York City.“Voting is the foundation of a democracy, of course it’s absolute” - I agree. And so is ensuring the government rules by consent of the governed, by in turn assuring that the government does not hold a monopoly on the legal use of deadly force. When government officials know that people not only take free and fair elections seriously, but have alternate means to ensure they are (which has happened, in living memory of some of our older residents), they’re going to bend over backwards to make them pass any test we can devise to define “free and fair” in an election.The advice stands; apply the restriction, in as close a form as you can, to a right you yourself freely and consciously exercise on a regular basis, and ask yourself if you would tolerate said restriction. If you can honestly envision a functioning democracy in which some fundamental right of the people other than gun ownership is subject to your restriction, complete with the “potential for evil” in the implementation of the restriction by the very last person you’d want to have running your government, then maybe we can talk.If, however, you find one or more of these restrictions unreasonably difficult to lawfully work through, self-serving to those in power, easily abused for personal gain in or out of politics, or just plain offensive or distasteful to your conscience - or all of the above - then you have begun to understand the reaction gun owners have to proposals for yet another set of restrictions on their lawful ownership of a piece of property and a tool for personal protection as well as for sustenance and recreation.