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
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom 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: March 3486
Description[?]:
| The Werin Deg sees the current law on eminent domain as ineffective as it does not allow for eminent domain for the sake of corporate use. Meaning that only state-owned railroads, electrical grids, docks and so on can be made possible through eminent domain. The Werin Deg believes in a market in the hands of private entrepreneurs to a large extent, and the current policy isn't optimal for that. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Eminent Domain.
Old value:: The government may seize private property for vital government works.
Current: The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments.
Proposed: The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:06:53, May 15, 2013 CET | From | Dranish Conservative Party | To | Debating the Eminent domain reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, we can envisage that there might be rare cases where an overwhelming public interest can be proved for using compulsory purchase powers in order to allow a corporate project to go ahead. What if this is needed in order to allow the construction of a factory that would provide 1000s of jobs do an area where unemployment is very high, for example? Robert Zavala MP Minister of Trade & Industry |
| Date | 13:07:30, May 15, 2013 CET | From | Dranish Conservative Party | To | Debating the Eminent domain reform |
| Message | do an area = to an area doh at my spelling! |
| Date | 17:16:26, May 15, 2013 CET | From | Grand National Party | To | Debating the Eminent domain reform |
| Message | Mr Speaker, we staunchly object to the utilitarian argument put forward by Mr Zavala, since it would be based on the premise that individual rights do not exist if one is outnumbered. This is a fascist approach, essentially. Troy Overton MP Member for Elbian RFR Chairman |
| Date | 21:41:40, May 15, 2013 CET | From | Dranish Conservative Party | To | Debating the Eminent domain reform |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, it is not fascist to put the welfare of the many over the private interests of a few individuals. That is democracy, not fascism. Roberto Zavalo MP DCP spokesman |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 82 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 317 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "An independent is someone who wants to take the politics out of politics." - Adlai Stevenson |