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: Infrastructure Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Elitist Party
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 2994
Description[?]:
| The Rutanian Elitist Party is proposing a comprehensive infrastructural reform meant to broaden the scope of governmental action. We do not wish to abandon our policy of strong devolution, quite the contrary we wish to preserve the current prerogatives of local government in this area. Nonetheless we think that the presence of central government in this vial area is needed in order to facilitate faster development and coherence. Henri Molder, MP |
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 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 government determines compensation for victims of eminent domain; victims can sue if they deem it unfair.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on energy generation.
Old value:: Private power stations provide energy for the entire power grid.
Current: Private and public power stations exist side-by-side.
Proposed: Private and public power stations exist side-by-side.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on the nation's power grid.
Old value:: Multiple private companies each own and maintain sections of the national power grid.
Current: Each region owns and maintains its own power grid.
Proposed: Each region owns and maintains its own power grid.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy in respect to highways.
Old value:: This is left to local governments.
Current: There is a national highway system constructed and maintained by the national government, and local systems by local governments.
Proposed: There is a national highway system constructed and maintained by the national government, and local systems by local governments.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The decision is left up to local governments.
Current: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Proposed: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Train Operating Companies (TOC).
Old value:: Private companies operate TOCs throughout the country.
Current: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Proposed: The State owns and operates a national TOC, alongside private TOCs.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:16:27, September 01, 2010 CET | From | Subsidiarity Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | TSP is opposed to this bill, and will fight it in the legislature. We believe many of the elements of this bill threaten the freedoms of the people of Rutania and the Provinces of the Commonwealth. Such an enlargement of our government at the expense of people's hard-earned property and goods is inexcusable. |
| Date | 10:21:46, September 01, 2010 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | We understand the stance of the Subsidiarity Party and we acknowledge it. However we deem these measures necessary. I hope this small misunderstanding will not break our strong partnership. |
| Date | 13:28:30, September 01, 2010 CET | From | Rutanian Syndicalist Worker's Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | The RSWP sees the use of imminent to seize power for private (corporate) interests as ripe for abuse. Other that that, the RSWP supports this measure. |
| Date | 13:29:54, September 01, 2010 CET | From | Rutanian Syndicalist Worker's Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | OOC: "eminent" (damn) phone |
| Date | 21:40:20, September 01, 2010 CET | From | Subsidiarity Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | TSP understands the differences between the parties, and acknowledges those between us and the REP. We have the utmost respect for the REP and will work together in the future. Nevertheless, TSP will oppose this bill as it violates our platform and deepest beliefs. |
| Date | 05:15:36, September 03, 2010 CET | From | Rutanian Syndicalist Worker's Party | To | Debating the Infrastructure Reform Act |
| Message | The RSWP cannot back a bill that allows the government to seize property for corporate use. This goes against our very fiber. As such, this bill will *not* receive the backing of the RSWP. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 9 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 322 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 174 |
| 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: "I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." - Martin Luther King Jr. |