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: Infrastructure Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Party of Aldurian Republic
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: September 2090
Description[?]:
We must making this law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may seize private property for any reason.
Article 2
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.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: All housing is privately-owned.
Current: The state owns and maintains all housing.
Proposed: Housing policy is to be determined by local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 21:06:41, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Radical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Act |
Message | vote no againist local facism in Alduria |
Date | 00:21:37, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Nous-Mêmes | To | Debating the Infrastructure Act |
Message | As the Moderates do not agree with Article 1, and to an extent Article 3, we must vote against the entire package. The first article takes the concept of eminent domain to an extreme that is too much of an enfringement of private property rights. That said, we do applaud the DP for at least proposing that those who are affected by eminent domain are compensated, but in the situation where the seizure would not be necessarily for a vital entity, the government should only act as a possible buyer, instead of forcing the sale. As for Article 3, while we do not oppose the idea of offering public housing to those in need, we feel that the lattitude given to the localities is too vauge for enactment. |
Date | 05:45:13, August 04, 2005 CET | From | Market Socialist Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Act |
Message | We disagree with Article 1, as we believe that the owners of the property should have full control and such matters should be left to market forces, not government forces. We agree however, with Article 1 & 2. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||
yes | Total Seats: 48 | ||||
no | Total Seats: 33 | ||||
abstain | Total Seats: 19 |
Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
Random quote: "The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other." - Will Rogers |