Bill to be discussed: Land Powers of the Chancellor Act

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Approaching this from the direction that the need for Eminent Domain exists, but only under very specific circumstances, and with intense scrutiny of the reasons:

why not remove that section from any one arm of government's control - so remove reference to it from the Chancellor's mandate - and consider a specific Bill addressing it.

It might state that the Chancellor may bring a request to exercise ED to the Ra; a 2/3 majority of the RA voting in favour permits it, but only after an automatic petition to the SC to rule on whether the RA and Chancellor have provided suitable support for the need to take this action.

This involves all arms of gov't in reviewing such an action, and while there are certainly those who consider various arms of gov't to be corrupt/incompetent/self-serving depending on the day of the week, it is unlikely that all three arms would be so at any one specific time.

Calli

I wrote the answer to Pat before reading your message, Calli. I totally agree: eminent domain should be on a separate bill, not on the 'Land Powers' bill, and that point should be deleted from this proposal.

And I like your suggestion much better!

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Regarding 'renting' vs. 'ownership' — gosh, I surely hoped that old Pandora Box remained closed! — I fear to completely derail the discussion of this bill if I go into this, so let me just state two points, and then I'll hush (or start a new discussion elsewhere).

It is quite clear from this discussion that we're somehow trying to conform legislation to a bit of semi-obsolete software which clearly doesn't do what we want. So, instead of doing the right thing — fix what's broken, i.e. get Hippo to do what we need it to do — some of you are proposing the exact opposite: let's change our laws so that it conforms to the way Hippo works!

Since when are HippoTech the representatives of the citizens of the CDS?

I don't really need to explain my position further, do I?

Let me indulge just a little bit into a strawman argument: why don't we make the CDS much simpler? Instead of an elected Chancellor and a Representative Assembly, why don't we elect a Dictator-For-Life, turn the CDS into a huge group sandbox, ban anyone who is not a friend of the Dictator, and just have fun and peace building awesome things together? It would be way simpler that way — no more worries about 'citizenship' and 'elections'. After all, Luskwood is slightly older than the CDS, they work exactly that way, and they're still around, too. Surely we're able to manage as well as Luskwood? (They're nice guys, too!)

[Rosie Gray]

Gwyn... you are a laugh! I will have to respond seriously to this when I am more awake

[Patroklus Murakami]

It's great to see that you have discussed this with the former Chancellor Gwyn but, from my perspective, this rather lengthy bill has been dropped on us from high on 24 April. You have certainly never discussed *any* of this with the current incumbent. I appreciate that you want to get your manifesto pledges in before the end of the current term but... I think you should have been a bit quicker off the block this term with something as wide-ranging and important as this.

I'm pleased to see that you have taken on board some of my criticisms of your bill. It's not intended as an insult to say it is poorly drafted, it's just an observation based on:

• * mixing up the roles of the Government and requiring people to report to people they appoint!
  * use of non-English terms such as 'fundamented' (by the way, look up the English definition of 'fundament' sometime and see why I always giggle when I see this!)
  * lack of clarity - 'immediately' v. 'within 72 hours'

This smacks of something cobbled together in haste in the final weeks of the current RA. This is *exactly* the kind of legislation which later turns out to bite us in the bottom. A future RA scratches its head and thinks 'what were they thinking?'

But what I really object to is that, buried within this Bill and nowhere highlighted by you as an issue, is the proposal to pay back every penny of tier every paid when the CDS *has* to move someone - even if it's to an equivalent plot next door! This kills the idea of 'eminent domain' stone dead but the only reason we are now discussing it is because I noticed it and raised it here.

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Right I think I've addressed all the above, and shifted the eminent domain issue to another bill, where it makes more sense!

Also, the title of this thread is 'bill to be discussed' and not 'announcement of something that will be voted upon next Saturday' Quite a difference!

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Several weeks have passed, we have a new Chancellor, and the powers of the Chancellor regarding land are once more being questioned.

Can we try to discuss this bill publicly again, please? With no drama? Maybe now some people understand better that the only thing I wish to accomplish is a clarification of the land powers of the Chancellor, and not 'attack' any Chancellor currently or formerly in power?