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: National Parks
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party for Equality
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: December 2067
Description[?]:
| Propsing to fund our designated national parks, covering an area of roughly 9000 sq miles, with an annual sum of $100 million. Any additional funding required can be raised from small entry fees to certain areas, or the formation of a charitable trust. This will not only preserve our ecology and wildlife, it will bring tourism to these regions and be a means to celebrate Likatonia's natural beauty. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:11:18, June 08, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | You must propose funding this time...or again we will run into the same sort of problem |
| Date | 13:41:37, June 08, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | How about charging entrance costs? that would not be ideal, but at least we would have some sort of ecological preservation.
we dont have to have many national parks - the number can be dictated by the amount of money available - we could designate a specific percentage of government income to be spent on it each year. |
| Date | 02:37:24, June 09, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | At present, we can have as many as we like - we have a privatized system. Groups that express a desire to run a national park are given access to a certain amount of land and watched by the government. If they abuse the land, we take it back from them and give it to someone else.
This system has been proven to work elsewhere. There are numerous benefits. First off, companies will more actively advertise the parks they own, thus increasing the tourist draw and aiding our economy. Secondly, we don't lose the money that would otherwise go into ecological preservation zones, and that money can be spent elsewhere. Lastly, we can preserve larger areas of land than if we funded it ourselves. |
| Date | 12:31:22, June 09, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | RWLP: We don't have free contraceptives. First off, that bill took only a few hundredths of our budget. Secondly, we scaled it back to only be a discount. |
| Date | 07:26:00, June 10, 2005 CET |
From | Republican Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | The Environment is something that needs to be protected. LFP, you continually talk about a national culture and are spending time debating our national sport but you won't support the state funded national park system where our children can learn about our history?
The private sector is all well and good, but this is the one thing my party will hold firm on, the government must make sure we are keeping as much land clean as possible (through the national parks system and otherwise,) and that we preserve our past.
|
| Date | 08:25:01, June 10, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | LLP: Please don't give in to feel-good socialism. Our country is more important than that.
We don't have the money to do this properly, so it's better to aim low for a mark we can maintain indefinitely than aim high for a mark that will run out of funding in months. If the money dries up, it is meaningless anyways. If we fund it ourselves, we WILL NOT HAVE state parks for long.
Therefore, for our culture, for our environment, for our past, and for our future - we cannot fund these parks. |
| Date | 08:28:42, June 10, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | I'd like to point out that the LFP is not blanket-against all social programs. We are not stingy, just budget watchers. We could support a tax raise to support this program, if you can offer approximate funding requirements. |
| Date | 11:31:13, June 10, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | If the private sector can do it so can we: they will be doing it to make a profit, so if there is indeed a market for that, we can run the system at a profit. if it is impossible to do, all the private parks will also go bust. Like this we can regulate them more closely, and revenue goes into the government coffers. Win win situation. |
| Date | 13:36:48, June 10, 2005 CET |
From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | LFP i thought youd say that i knew i just couldnt edit my reply and couldnt be bothered posting again.
Its still stupid! |
| Date | 18:38:31, June 11, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | Government run industries have historically not run well enough. It's because the government is not accountable the way a private company is.
When the government program screws up, it asks for a budget increase. When the private company screws up, it goes out of business. Government run businesses are non-competitive and thus have no incentive to offer very much. While this is great for protecting the environment, it doesn't turn into revenues. |
| Date | 06:57:20, June 12, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | I'm afraid you never proposed any budget numbers...
so no parks can be constructed anyway...
you had to specify how much this would cost so we ccould take it out of the budget.. |
| Date | 13:01:00, June 13, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | Estimate your own budget numbers. I gave you a roughly calculation to use. I'll flesh it out a bit more
Every three hundred acres costs a billion dollars. If even 1% of Likaton is converted into parkland, then that's 76 billion dollars.
(OOC: Assumes we have somewhat less than a third of Australia's worth of land.) |
| Date | 13:10:33, June 13, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | (OOC: Oh, and on an important note, there's a big flaw in my reasoning just waiting for anyone to find it.) |
| Date | 21:05:03, June 13, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | PP: i was waiting for the budget summary which you have now so kindly provided
how does three hundred acres take a billion dollars to maintain if we are letting it be in more or less its natural state? it is going to require mimimum mainainance and we can charge a small entry fee, if you so wish. to buy it, yes it will be a lot, but that is capital costs.
other that that i cant find a flaw. |
| Date | 21:07:44, June 13, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | except that privatisation doesnt necessarily mean any more accountability than state run, because as soon as it goes bust it just goes into administration and the state starts funding it again. a RL example is 'railtrack' in Britain - total privatisation disaster. |
| Date | 23:09:41, June 13, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | You found the flaw. I really don't know why it costs so much. Those are the costs I uncovered while researching the subject - but WHAT all that money is buying, I really don't know and could not find out during research. |
| Date | 13:17:06, June 14, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | that sounds more like national trust costs, where you are maintaining grounds or gardens and have to employ loads of gardeners to keep the lawns pretty and the gravel in the right place. And if, somehow, it does cost that much, there is no way a private company is going to make revenues on it. |
| Date | 23:19:40, June 14, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | Actually, that wasn't even a government operating cost. That was the cost-per-100-acres for a private company that was running it as a tourist attraction - and making profits on it. |
| Date | 23:22:14, June 14, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | they must have been charging a good bit. are you sure it was just pure national park - no primrose beds? |
| Date | 05:20:02, June 15, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | No, I'm not. Actually, much of the habitat was man-made and designed to look attractive, although the park had been scaling back that practice since it was found to be disrupting the local ecology.
So we've proven my research rather faulty. Budget numbers are hard to come by on this matter. Can you find an example of what it would cost if one's only concern was taking existing wildlife areas and just enforcing anti-development laws? |
| Date | 15:00:49, June 15, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | well, that is what national parks are for in britain - they still have people living in them and free access, and are funded by the government, who reason that they get there returns indirectly by increased tourism to the areas. The government spent £28 million on them in 2002, and while I couldnt find exactly what area they cover, it does say that they comprise about 10% of rural areas, which I calculate to be around 9,400 square miles maximum... so that is about £6000 per sq mile, or $11000 per sq mile. |
| Date | 15:02:07, June 15, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | this also funds maintainance of historic buildings, activity centres, stuff like picknick tables - we wouldnt have to include those things. |
| Date | 05:30:43, June 16, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | So about $103,400,000 ...but Likatonia is supposed to be more like America ..so the area should also be bigger? |
| Date | 13:05:09, June 16, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the National Parks | | Message | well, we dont have to have as many national parks. I dont want hundreds. I would be happy with just a few. so say $100 million. when we have a $42 billion income, that sounds quite small. I am putting it to the vote. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 173 |
| no | Total Seats: 27 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson |