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: Land Control
Details
Submitted by[?]: Moderate Beluzians
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: September 2164
Description[?]:
| If "The government may not seize private property." concerning Eminent Domain than the government should have no say in compensation if they illegally seize land. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 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 | 09:21:48, December 29, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Land Control |
| Message | The government cannot illegally seize private property because it would be illegal and thus unable to carryout such an action for reasons of game mechanics. Also, what would prevent a victiam from demanding such an exorbitant amount that they bankrupt the government? |
| Date | 02:06:21, December 30, 2005 CET | From | Moderate Beluzians | To | Debating the Land Control |
| Message | I'll change the bill in response to your final statment. |
| Date | 05:17:38, December 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Populist Party - Zogist Mafia | To | Debating the Land Control |
| Message | I liked it better the 1st time. if I want 100 billion dollars for by ghost town shack, you've no right to pay me less and call it fair! |
| Date | 02:55:57, December 31, 2005 CET | From | Free Christian Party | To | Debating the Land Control |
| Message | well -- it does give power to the victum. Hmmm. Yeah I can support that. |
| Date | 04:46:48, December 31, 2005 CET | From | LiberalDemocraticFreedomTaxAndSpendParty | To | Debating the Land Control |
| Message | Well, this whole thing doesn't matter anyway, as eminent domain is illegal. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 23 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 26 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 35 |
| Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
| Random quote: "Society comprises two classes: those who have more food than appetite, and those who have more appetite than food." - Nicolas Chamfort |