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: Eminent Domain Reform Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Rationalists (PrCoa)
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: December 2569
Description[?]:
Eminent Domain is a much maligned concept. Its exercise is predicated on two conditions: 1) That there be a legitimate "public use" contemplated for property to justify its exercise, and 2) That the "victims" of Eminent Domain be awarded "just compensation" for their property. So limited, Eminent Domain is legitimate exercise of power on behalf of the public good. Sometimes it is necessary to build roads, parks, hospitals: sometimes the land required to do so is privately owned. In such cases where private parties refuse to sell the land required for a public purpose, it is reasonable to say the public good must override the private will. That's when Eminent Domain is appropriate. It is important to realize that the government rarely exercises its Eminent Domain power. Typically, the government negotiates a fair price with parties at arms length. When Eminent Domain has been exercised in Aloria's past, it has been done following the failure of negotiations for much needed land. The University of Sildar needed land owned by private landlords to build a set of badly needed dormitories for students. Though it could have exercised its Eminent Domain power, the University waited a full decade for each landlord to agree to sell his land by natural operation of the market. Were the land needed for something more pressing than dormitories; say, a hospital for students, at a location convenient for them to access by foot, it would have been appropriate to exercise Eminent Domain if needed to promote the public health and safety. The present policy is the functional nullification of Eminent Domain. Though provinces have a nominal power to exercise Eminent Domain, the simple fact is that the federal rule permits landowners to set prices at rates designed to prevent the sale. Our proposed policy seeks a balance. Landowners are permitted to set the price in the first instance; but the government may choose to bear the cost of an appeal to a court if the price set is so high that it is designed to nullify the exercise of the Eminent Domain power. Courts will give landowners wide latitude in setting their prices, but will reserve the right to set prices in the most extreme cases. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: The victim of eminent domain determines just compensation.
Current: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
Proposed: The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 19:17:27, April 30, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Union | To | Debating the Eminent Domain Reform Bill |
Message | Yes. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 455 | |||||||
no | Total Seats: 253 | |||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 42 |
Random fact: "Doxxing", or the publishing of personally identifiable information about another player without permission, is forbidden. |
Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |