We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Just Compensation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2087
Description[?]:
| Given that, according to current Lodamun law, the government may seize private land, we propose that the victims of such actions be compensated. The owner(s) of the land shall set the price, as they would for a private sale, while the government submits an offer for the land. Should the two parties be able to agree on a value, such value shall be paid for the land. If the government bid is not as high as the lawful owner's bid, a court shall determine which value, if either, they determine to be fair. Otherwise they shall set a value in between the two competing bids, which shall be paid for the land. If either party considers the price to be unreasonable, they shall have the ability to appeal to a higher court, which shall review the evidence and set a reasonable price for the land, independent of previous bids, that shall take into account all factors influencing the value of the land. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: The government does not compensate victims of eminent domain.
Current: The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high.
Proposed: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:14:31, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Well it is better than the current, but we would prefer to see a neutral party defining the compensations, allowing both sides to appeal if necessary. The way specified in this law means we can end up spending too much tax payers' money on appeals against ludicrous self assessed awards. |
| Date | 00:31:35, July 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | We felt that the owners("sellers) of the property should have a bit more say on the price than the government takers("buyers"). Thus, while we are always against wasteful usage of tax monies, we felt that the appeal mechanism would prevent people from successfully asking too much. Also, this serves to safeguard investment properties from arbitrary seizure. ((This is/has been one of the main effects of Kelo vs New London--investment properties are now able to be taken as soon as they are attractive to a developer)). We believe that the first price named in these situations should reflect the value placed on the property by its rightful owners. The appeals cost is miniscule compared to the possible costs to individuals who do not recieve what they could rightfully claim to be a fair price. |
| Date | 00:37:23, July 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Perhaps the government can award the victims compensation based on the property value they paid tax on. |
| Date | 00:40:10, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | I believe that would fall under the "The government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain." option.... Personally I would oppose that option... |
| Date | 01:13:22, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | ((You know my disagreement with that Kelo vs New London interpretation if you remember our debate)) While the previous owner setting the compensation would reduce the usage, it increases dramatically the cost when necessary. The usage i s limited to public projects, and as such your fear of general abuse is unfounded. However we can not support a bill that would provide the means for individuals to extort money from the government. The appeals process would have to either concern reimbursement by the compensated person, or delay the aquisition of the land. Neither are acceptable options. At least with a neutral tribunal setting the rate, this can be paid and the project go ahead without having to find millions extra to start with. If there is an appeal, it will not be against a ridiculous value either way. |
| Date | 01:21:35, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | ((I know; as I remember, that debate actually fizzled when I realized that much of my concern about it, that it blatantly violated the very constitution that SCOTUS is supposed to enforce, was foreign to someone living under a common-law system)) One of the reasons we preffered this option, though we would also support the neutrality option(and may amend this bill to that), was because we felt that the government created harm caused by forcing someone off of land that they own(often owned by a family for generations), where the "seller" has no authority to deny the sale, deserves a fair price, and if there is ANY unfairness, it should be in their favor. |
| Date | 01:23:35, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Also the fact that this proposal is unlinked to the other, related proposal means that "your fear of general abuse is unfounded. " is untrue. As we have seen recently from equitista, a law may be changed, then immediately changed again without debate or other hesitation. |
| Date | 03:18:52, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Our concern with the seller setting the price is the innevitable attempts that will occur to obtain 10 or 100 times the real value. Thus our preference for the neutral party. As to the undebated bills, nothing we can do about it at the moment. When we can we will. |
| Date | 09:25:41, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | The undebated bills reference: a law may change at a moments notice. Given the current makeup of parliament and equitista's habits, our eminent domain law may suddenly become "government can take any land for any reason." You said that a fear of general abuse is unfounded, but we would support any efforts to double safeguard against such a possibility, as real as these political times prove it to be. |
| Date | 10:08:32, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | AB: Hehe...browsing the forums I see that you were the one to propose the "neutral party sets price" option... |
| Date | 11:03:11, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Lodamun Centre-Left Coalition | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Opposed on the anthem count. |
| Date | 15:06:13, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | ((Yes I was and I had my reasons. Also what is the anthem bit doing here? This is not a constitutional matter, nor should it be, and even if it were I would not support any requirement to be nationalistic.)) We will not support this while it requires children to be indoctrinated. |
| Date | 16:45:24, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | also opposed on the anthem. We agree that forcing children to sing it would be indoctrination. |
| Date | 19:43:00, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | I was just kidding about the anthem bit...was browsing the laws of Lodamun and I saw that bit about making the kids recite "probably none" every day. "also opposed on the anthem. We agree that forcing children to sing it would be indoctrination." Agree completely, I wouldnt have submitted that... |
| Date | 20:11:41, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | We support this as it stands now. |
| Date | 20:12:19, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | ((The description does not match the proposal TiC. You need to do some editing.)) |
| Date | 20:37:38, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | ((Pasting the old description here for use as a future bill: Given that, according to current Lodamun law, the government may seize private land, we propose that the victims of such actions be compensated. The owner(s) of the land shall set the price, as they would for a private sale. If the government shall consider a price to be unreasonably high, they shall submit a counter-bid to the courts, which the courts shall consider the two amounts and set the price at whichever amount it finds to be closest to its own estimations.)) |
| Date | 20:37:44, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | Given that, according to current Lodamun law, the government may seize private land, we propose that the victims of such actions be compensated. The owner(s) of the land shall set the price, as they would for a private sale, while the government submits an offer for the land. Should the two parties be able to agree on a value, such value shall be paid for the land. If the government bid is not as high as the lawful owner's bid, a court shall determine which value, if either, they determine to be fair. Otherwise they shall set a value in between the two competing bids, which shall be paid for the land. If either party considers the price to be unreasonable, they shall have the ability to appeal to a higher court, which shall review the evidence and set a reasonable price for the land, independent of previous bids, that shall take into account all factors influencing the value of the land. |
| Date | 20:38:34, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | (last post is the new description) |
| Date | 20:47:56, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | I know that they are unlikely to pass, but in the future I plan to extend this more, and restrict eminent domain. |
| Date | 08:54:04, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Just Compensation |
| Message | 410 in favor, none opposed... Near unanimous, yay! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 422 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 28 |
| Random fact: For more information on Particracy's former colonial nations, check out http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6640 |
| Random quote: "If you cannot convince a fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement." - Leon Trotsky |