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: Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
Status[?]: defeated
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: March 2493
Description[?]:
| ***SPECIAL NOTE***: While this bill does "technically" permit the Government to seize private property for use in the PUBLIC interests & GENERAL WELFARE on the one hand, on the other hand, however, it CLEARLY states that the VICTIM sets the terms of "JUST Compensation!!!" In a nutshell, if the Government wants to seize your private home, YOU have a right to demand a 10 BILLION Likaths (haha)!!!! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The government may not seize private property.
Proposed: The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Current: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Proposed: The victim of eminent domain determines just compensation.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:14:10, November 27, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | OOC: Isn't there actually a specific clause for setting compensation? If there is - use it, we don't want 'resolutions' that conflict law. |
| Date | 00:05:32, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | Immeressence, could you please give a RATIONALE for opposing this COMMON SENSE bill? |
| Date | 00:12:30, November 28, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | WE don't agree with the points made. WE oppose the arbitrary 10Bn LIK amount, we oppose seizing land as opposed to buying it at market rates, and we are sceptical of the idea that there is a 'neutral' body that can resolve these issues; everyone has an angle of some kind. |
| Date | 00:27:56, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | AMI, you have COMPLETELY mis-read the bill. On the contrary my bill ABOLISHES the SO-CALLED "neutral body." Let me explain clearer: if the Government (whether Federal or Local) needs to acquire land to development, they will simply OFFER a price. However, the intended VICTIM (owner of said property) will eventually SET the price of what he/she deems as "just compensation." In other words, the government might say "We will give you 500,000 LIK for the home!!!" The owner will then have a RIGHT to negotiate a price higher and can say "10 Billion LIK." Obviously, no government bureaucrat or corporation is going to pay such a REDICULOUS price for a home that is worth only "300,000 LIK" and will just naturally leave the citzen ALONE. All in all, the owner's home will NEVER be taken unless that rediculous price is paid to the owner. Thanks again for your full support. |
| Date | 00:50:45, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | No. This makes no sense. Whilst I appreciate better your point, a law this badly written shouldn't find it's way onto the statute books. |
| Date | 07:53:07, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | The problem, of course, is that sometimes Eminent Domain isn't such a bad idea. And the idea that one crazy can hold up essential work, because they want to hold out for some kind of unearned jackpot... well, it's frankly sickening. On the other hand - the CWFP is introducing a bill that actually expands eminent domain, allowing for more frivolous usage. Saying that the 'victim' gets to determine the price is beside the point - it just means we're going to have to rob the government reserves to pay way-beyond-reasonable demands. We honestly have trouble believing the CWFP can find a way to reconcile increased government spending, and increased ability for the state to seize personal property... with their prior agenda. |
| Date | 20:51:21, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | AMI, instead of just arrogantly saying "this makes no sense," how about you instead SHOW how the logic is "nonsensical." Usually, when people can't REFUTE an argument, they just spurriously BLURT out captions like "This is stupid/crazy/nonsensical" to distract the audience [ :( ] (2) "On the other hand - the CWFP is introducing a bill that actually expands eminent domain, allowing for more frivolous usage. Saying that the 'victim' gets to determine the price is beside the point - it just means we're going to have to rob the government reserves to pay way-beyond-reasonable demands."--TDP TDP, well the bill is NOT "robbing" the government of reserves "way beyond reasonable demands." For example, in a TRUELY ***Free*** society, the price of real estate (property) should be at the MUTUAL AGREEMENT of both the buyer and the seller. If not, and the owner is FORCED to accept "compensation" that is based on some miniscule assessment by a Government bureaucrat (i.e. the so-called "market value"), then that is the very definition of THEFT [the taking of private property by force (of Government as opposed of a gun)]!!!! Besides, you are neglecting the fact that the REAL value of a person's "CASTLE" is PRICELESS!!!! |
| Date | 21:11:57, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | We neglect no such thing. Because there is no such thing. Everything has a price. If not money, then something else. Would you take x LIK for your house? No... well, would you be willing to die to protect it? No? See we have our price. The CWFP concept is based on the fallacy that there is really such a thing as a thing without price. As it stands - the CWFP is increasing the scope of eminent domain.. this is not the worst of it, but it is FAR from the freedom the CWFP bleats about. The worst is - no matter what snivelling excuses the CWFP cares to conjure up, allowing ONLY the seller to set prices (with no negotiation), is tantamount to saying the seller can ask for as much as the government can afford. Or more. As it is - if I REALLY don't want to sell my house, but the government NEEDS my land to place a reservoir to provide water to Anakagrad, I can ask 10 billion LIK. The government then has the choice of not placing a reservoir (and, thus, facing water shortages)... or caving in to my demands. Well done CWFP, you who whine about government spending just cost the government of Likatonia (and therefore, ALL of us) 10 billion LIK for a farmhouse with a scenic view. |
| Date | 21:14:42, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | AMI, instead of just arrogantly saying "this makes no sense," how about you instead SHOW how the logic is "nonsensical." Can't be bothered. We don't feel we will change your mind through debate, and to be honest, don't feel you are up to the task of understanding our points. |
| Date | 21:33:51, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | "The worst is - no matter what snivelling excuses the CWFP cares to conjure up, allowing ONLY the seller to set prices (with no negotiation), is tantamount to saying the seller can ask for as much as the government can afford. Or more."--TDP TDP, you have DRASTICALLY misinterpreted this bill. It does NOT disallow negotiation. Rather, it ENCOURAGES. Case in point: The State needs to build a Resevoir, but the land is currently occupied by the Immerence Temple (haha); therefore, the Gov't makes an OFFER of what they would be willing to spend for the property; next, should the Government FORCE the Bishop of Immerence Temple to sell the land at the Government's offer??? OF COURSE NOT!!! The Bishop should have a right to COUNTER the proposal as in typical market bid. However, what will happen if the Bishop does NOT want to sell b/c the Temple is built on the very spot that the Prophet Immerence was martyred and ascended into Heaven (or whatever)??? Now, this means that the value of the land is PRICELESS and emotional. The mechanism of allowing the "victim" to "set" his own price just simply gives the owner the right to REFUSE to sell in accordance to his inalienable right to private property ("Inalienable Right" is that which Immerence gave us at BIRTH even if they are not recognized). Obviously, the Bishop sets a REDICULOUS price like "10 Billion LIK," the State is not going to spend that amount and thus bleed the treasury. In other words, the property will never get sold. Nevertheless, if the Government believes that it is in the common interest to build a resevoir, there are "Legal Loopholes" around this law (if it passes): (1) For example, the government can drastically raise property taxes to the point of making it too EXPENSIVE to live on the land and thus foreclose on the property; (2) Or a more shrewd way would be to simply "cave in" and meet the Bishop's rediculous price, and then use that rediculous price as a JUSTIFICATION to say that the "market value is high enough" to raise property taxes on the community to compensate the State for the loss in the excess revenues. (3) From a rational perspective it is a WIN/WIN/WIN, nonetheless, b/c the Bishop's rediculous price of 10 Billion LIK was met; the PUBLIC interest of a resevoir was met; and the State recuperated its loss in revenue from the sale. |
| Date | 21:46:25, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | [OOC] Ami, I respect your position that if you don't wish to be "bothered" with trying to persuade me. However, the point is that if you are not, you should not open up "blanket" statements that IMMATURELY say that my logic is non-sensical w/o proving it!!! It again, it is just tasteless, rude, and immature.....and this is coming from a person who is by his very nature "silly." |
| Date | 21:53:01, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | {OOC} Christian, time and time again myself and others have made simple request. Respect the roleplay nature of the game by not bringing in real world cases. Don't confuse in character speech with player statements. If the AM Immeressence Party wish to forestall debate with you, that is their right. I would appreciate it if you did not use this as an excuse to sling insults at myself, or anyone else. If you can't get this concept, then to be onest, I'd rather you went away, because it is long past tiresome. Given I am probably ten years your senior, far better educated to all outward appearance, and almost certainly smarter than you, as well as having a better understanding of ettiquette, manners and linguistic convention, you are ill placed to make these sorts of slights. This is the last time I am going to be this civil. |
| Date | 22:01:54, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | [OOC] First and foremost, I was NOT disrespecting the roleplay nature b/c I did insert "OOC." However, I called you by your game name b/c I FORGOT your real name. So, relax. Second, I did not insult you; rather, it was YOU that insulted me by saying that my logic did not make sense. If you wish to forestall debate, that is your EVERY right. However, if you do, don't insult my argument(s) as "nonsense" w/o evidence. Finally, you may be "10 years my senior," but that doesn't make you more mature....especially if you resort to tasteless and rude tactics to "bust my argument." And what makes you so certain that you are somewhat "smarter" than I am b/c of age??? Do you even know what my IQ is??? In fact, I personally know a 4 year old who is smarter than EINSTEIN (child prodigy). However, I am going to resort to your level by sayind that I am "smarter" than you (while objectively, I probably am) b/c that would be cocky and arrogant of me and thereby not mannerable. Thank you. |
| Date | 22:08:05, November 28, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | {OOC} Chris, I am sorry you can't get this. Immeressence Inc are being rude, busting your arguement etc. By directing your ire at me, you are confusing the role play (interaction between Immeressence Inc and the CWFP) with the real world (Stuart debating with Christian). Immeressence Inc. insulted the CWFP, no one insulted Christian, however Christian chose to insult Stuart as a response. Stuart reacted to Christian in kind. |
| Date | 06:44:54, November 29, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Eminient Domain Reform & COMPROMISE Act |
| Message | CWFP - So - your ideas are: pretend to go away deflated, and then illegally raise taxes? It's not ethical, it's not legal and... more to the point... it would get voted down in seconds. Seriously - have you seen how hard it is to raise taxes at the moment? In the meantime - no new reservoir, and 3 million Anakagrad citizens without water. Or: We should raise the property values to recoup our losses. Seriously? Recoup 10 BILLION LIK in tax? Are you kidding? And... we're going to tax, who? The reservoir? Your example just doesn't work. It's not practical, for one. It hurts the government, and thus - the people. It increases the money on the table for EVERY essential project. This plan just isn't feasible in a realistic nation. It might also be worth pointing out that cultural and heritage sites are considered when choices are made about essential projects. Your 'temple of Immeressen' is a red herrring, since the temple will have been considered for it's cultural impact during the planning stage, and the site would have been discounted, the church would have been approached, or the plans would have been altered to accomodate. It has to be said, though.. anyone who builds a temple IN a natural valley, derserves it to get flooded. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 85 | ||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 499 | ||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players must never be asked for their Particracy password. This includes Moderation; a genuine Moderator will never ask for your password. |
| Random quote: "The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty. The activist is the man who cleans up the river." - Ross Perot |