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: Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794
Details
Submitted by[?]: Nationale Demokratische Union
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: May 2795
Description[?]:
| * Will go to vote after elections. The Hulstrian Statute of Rights, Article V, and Sections 1 & 4 guarantee our people a right to property and under our current law, local governments have the option to go against the right of property. To further assure the property rights of Hulstrians, a national law must return stating that the government may not seize private property, as ensured in the Statute of Rights. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=222954 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Current: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Proposed: The government may not seize private property.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:49:49, July 30, 2009 CET | From |  Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | Leave it to the locals. |
| Date | 02:57:28, July 30, 2009 CET | From | Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | Plus, I don't think the current law violates anything. |
| Date | 03:05:47, July 30, 2009 CET | From | Nationale Demokratische Union | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | The current law does not violate anything, but it leaves local governments open to the possibility of being able to violate the Statute of Rights. |
| Date | 06:21:03, July 30, 2009 CET | From | Konstitutionelle Monarchie Partei | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | Local governments then will have to get a court order, mandated by the Statute of Rights, to pursue eminent domain anything farther than vital government works because anything beyond that would be classifed as unfair practice. We could however put an amendment to the current law; while still keeping the policy we have in place, we can abolish local governments from taking over property for whatever reason and local governments will need to get approval from the Finance Ministry to pursue eminent domain for corporate use. |
| Date | 06:46:21, July 30, 2009 CET | From | Nationale Demokratische Union | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | Hmm...maybe an amendment would actually be a good idea, at least that would set solid rules for the locals. |
| Date | 22:01:24, July 30, 2009 CET | From | Kolonial Partei | To | Debating the Reassurance of Property Rights Act of 2794 |
| Message | Teetering back and forth between status quo and proposed. Right now - willing to support proposed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 321 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 404 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is set in the fictional world of Terra, which mirrors the real world of today and yet is not quite like it. |
| Random quote: "A leader has the vision and conviction that a dream can be achieved. He inspires the power and energy to get it done." - Ralph Nader |