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: Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2438
Description[?]:
| In light of historical disasters in which great loss of life has resulted that could have been prevented had the correct infrastructure been present or the city/town not been built in an area that is naturally dangerous, we, the Democratic Socialist party do here-by propose the following. I All future planning for sub/urban must include in it the checking of the area, both in the present and through historical records whether the area is prone to natural disasters or can/could be devastated by the after effects of such eg. a city below sea level being permanently flooded after a Tsunami. II All infrastructure, private and public must be built to withstand the natural disasters that occur in the area, or in such case as the area not being prone to such the building be built to be withstand a minor to medium version of whichever disaster is the most likely to occur. III Disallow large scale habitation such as cities in areas that are especially dangerous and prone to disaster. IV All existing buildings and infrastructure, starting in the most danger prone areas, shall be retrofitted to be up to the standards for all new infrastructure/buildings proposed in this bill. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:43:29, August 01, 2007 CET | From |  Sekowan Communist Party | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | The SCP supports this bill, though we think that a provision about the retrofitting of existing buildings would be good. |
| Date | 05:48:45, August 01, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | Ah, I had'nt thought of that, that is indeed a very good provision to add to it. I shall make that part 4. |
| Date | 08:15:26, August 01, 2007 CET | From |  Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | CeC is in support of the bill but we would like to see this bill go further in limiting the cost, not just in terms of lives but in monetary values, of natural disasters. CeC notes that many of the problems associated with recovery after a natural disaster are from private residences that were under insured or flat out uninsured for that type of disaster. Thus the CeC requests a provision requiring all private residence owners be insured for 100% of property value and be covered for all liability from disasters that have historically occurred or are deemed possible to occur in the future for the region. We understand that this requirement will impact some of our citizens more directly than others so we would also propose a tax subsidy that would help offset the increased insurance costs based on the households income. |
| Date | 10:17:10, August 01, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | We feel that that is a good addition to this bill. Since it was the idea of the CeC, we are wonder if the CeC would like to be the author of the wording for this provision to be added to the bill. |
| Date | 11:41:08, August 01, 2007 CET | From | Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | There has been some debate in CeC about how the requiring full insurance could be implemented. Some advisors are arguing for a government agency be created to offer insurance to residential owners. With a financial goal of being self-supporting but not necessarily make a profit this could all us to significantly lower the cost to low - middle income families. History has already showed us cases where for-profit insurance companies have needed government bailouts following large natural disasters because they couldn't afford to pay all the claims. It`s safe to assume that another big natural disaster will one day hit and the government would be the one absorbing all the costs. So why should we support a failed private business model that only benefits their stockholders? Others in the party are still arguing for requiring private inscurance companies to offer the policies and offer subsidies for those people least able to absorb the increase in inscurance costs. Thoughts? |
| Date | 18:23:02, August 01, 2007 CET | From | Christians for a New World | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | I will suport this 100% |
| Date | 21:38:46, August 01, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | Perhaps a midleground is possible. That is private insurance companies offer protection for the more minor damage like flood damage or reroofing and a government run or public-private plan covers large scale damages. |
| Date | 00:29:50, August 02, 2007 CET | From | Chattes en Chaleur | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | At this time CeC would like to withdraw the amendment and urge passage of the bill in its current state. We would politely request the government to setup a commission to study the issues that have arisen from the fully insured idea, and to issue a report of their findings and recommendations. |
| Date | 00:50:25, August 02, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | Given that there seems to be concensus, and at the request of the CeC the bill is now up for vote. |
| Date | 04:14:47, August 02, 2007 CET | From | Superhuman Creation Party | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | There are no Proposals in this so I'm just going to vote no to go against oyu guys. |
| Date | 06:48:45, August 02, 2007 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Population & City Safety and Infrastructure Survivability Act |
| Message | It is of no matter how you vote since you basically don't have any real voting power (unless other parties agree on the bill), and are really nothing more than an annoying and immature troll. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 121 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 4 |
| Random fact: There are two countries based on Egypt in the game. Cobura is based on modern Egypt with a retro twist, while Hawu Mumenhes is based on Ancient Egypt with a modernist twist. |
| Random quote: "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity." - Maximilien Robespierre |