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
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democratic Libertarian Party
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: August 4298
Description[?]:
| For the purpose of vital government works, the state has the Right to seize private property. However, the state appealing to court of compensation deems to high is nonsensical. We should protect the peopl and pay them what they deserve. Of course, we acknowledge the existence of opportunist citizens that would exploit the rights given in this bill, but neither the citizens nor the government shouñd decide how much the compensation is worth. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 | 16:28:08, November 04, 2017 CET | From | Democratic Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain |
| Message | The government must remain transparent, so a neutral body to determine compensation is necessary to meet both the citizenship's and the government's requirements and to ensure the right of both parties are respected. Jacqueline Oppenheim Chair of the Democratic Party Infrastructure and Transport Committee |
| Date | 20:48:43, November 04, 2017 CET | From | Conservative party of Likatonia | To | Debating the Eminent Domain |
| Message | NO! |
| Date | 21:08:29, November 04, 2017 CET | From | Democratic Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain |
| Message | Conservative Party, bill discussions are to be taken seriously. A simple no doesn't explain why your standing is in opposition of the bill. Jaqueline Oppenheim Chair of the Democratic Party Infrastructure and Transport Committee |
| Date | 21:10:26, November 04, 2017 CET | From | Democratic Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Eminent Domain |
| Message | The transparency of the government is necessary to maintain a peaceful relationship with the citizenship. It isn't fair for citizens that the government sets the standards for compensation, but neither it is for the government when citizens set the standards themselves. That is the reason why we believe a neutral body should set the standards, so it is imparcial. Jaqueline Oppenheim Chair of the Democratic Party Infrastructure and Transport Committee |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 322 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 103 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: Time and again, the police prove themselves to be the Class Enemy, an armed mob used to oppress the masses and maintain the wealthy in their privileges. ~Friedrich Pfeiffer, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |