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: Restitution of Land Seizure Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Conservative Party
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: October 2087
Description[?]:
| Regarding eminent domains. |
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 government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain; victims can sue if they deem it unfair.
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 | 22:45:41, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | Other Options: Eminent Domain. The government may seize private property for vital government works. Alternatives: The government may not seize private property. The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments. The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use. The government may seize private property for any reason. Eminent Domain compensation. (if Eminent Domain is legal) The government does not compensate victims of eminent domain. Alternatives: The government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain. The government determines compensation for victims of emmient domain; victims can sue if they deem it unfair. A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal. The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high. The victim of eminent domain determines just compensation. |
| Date | 22:47:20, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | We are still trying to decide if the government should be able to seize land. As the current law allows this only for vital works we are tentatively in favour but think that compensation should be given. |
| Date | 06:11:49, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Family First Party | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | We propose that there should be some form of compensation. We would prefer 'A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal' (ie the proposed) but are willing to comprimise. |
| Date | 07:59:43, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Party | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | OOC: What on earth is Eminent Domain? |
| Date | 09:31:00, July 27, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | OOC: Basically, if/how much land can the government take for whatever reason. Eg: the government builds a railroad that needs to cross through some houses. The govt will exercise its emminent domain powers and take that land and houses, and depending on the laws in the country, may compensate the land owners. |
| Date | 00:59:37, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | Agreed with the current proposition. |
| Date | 18:17:38, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Restitution of Land Seizure Act |
| Message | The current one is good. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 288 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 112 |
| Random fact: The forum contains a lot of useful information, it has updates to the game, role playing between nations, news and discussion. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "Only the educated are free." - Epictetus |