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: KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kirlawan Popular Front
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: May 2692
Description[?]:
| . |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may not seize private property.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Eminent domain compensation (if eminent domain is legal).
Old value:: The victim of eminent domain sets compensation, government can appeal to the courts if they deem the cost too high.
Current: A neutral body appointed by the courts determines the compensation, either party may appeal.
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 | 00:27:45, January 04, 2009 CET | From | Kirlawan Austrian Party | To | Debating the KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain |
| Message | Opposed. Eminent domain is bare-faced theft, and no changes with regards to compensation will change that fact. |
| Date | 17:25:17, January 04, 2009 CET | From | Kirlawan Popular Front | To | Debating the KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain |
| Message | It's not theft if you only have land at the behest of the State anyway. Seeing as it's the state that creates the functions necessary for landowners to operate, and that it protects their land with its military and police force, we think that is the case. |
| Date | 20:00:24, January 04, 2009 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain |
| Message | We agree with the KAP. It's easy to talk casually about this ... until your home or farm or small business is the one which some bureaucrat considers to be "in the way". We would eagerly support a hypothetical compromise -- no restrictions on the use of eminent domain to seize corporate-owned property, but for eminent domain to continue to be strictly forbidden otherwise -- but such an arrangement is not among the law options currently available in Particracy. |
| Date | 00:09:04, January 05, 2009 CET | From | Kirlawan Austrian Party | To | Debating the KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain |
| Message | "We agree with the KAP." OOC: What a momentous occasion! ;) |
| Date | 03:00:24, January 05, 2009 CET | From | Kirlawan People's Justice Party | To | Debating the KPF 2690i: Eminent Domain |
| Message | :) Happy to find an issue on which we agree! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 400 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 281 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 36 |
| Random fact: You can inactivate yourself on your User Page. You will then lose all your seats but your party account won't be deleted, and your party's Visibility ratings will not diminish. Reactivation can be requested in the "Reactivation Requests" thread in the Game Moderation section of the Particracy Forum. |
| Random quote: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." - Dwight D. Eisenhower |