Moderator: SC Moderators
Hi, all
The chancellor has decided, unilaterally, to build a "government building" on parcel C12 in Colonia Nova.
He neither asked the NG to consider this, nor did he consult with the other branches of government.
It is my conviction that the RA should be involved; we should have some right of refusal or approval of a "government building"
What do y'all think?
It was my understanding that public buildings in the CDS were to be at least approved by the RA, if not actually initiated by it. I also thought that the NG was supposed to be consulted about, and organize the actual building of public buildings, but of course the NG has been inactive, so that couldn't really happen. I do think that the RA should approve public buildings, and even approve the idea of creating new ones. This is what happened with the new Kirche - as you all will remember it had to be approved.
In real life a new public building would be set to Tender or an RFP. In the CDS this function would have been carried out by the now inactive NG, but a Tender or RFP could still be done.
Trebor posted his proposal here:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3694
The Constitution gives the Chancellor the power "(a) To determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put;" and this would seem to fall within that remit.
I don't think the Chancellor has to seek RA approval for public buildings though it would probably make sense to publicise such plans at RA meetings and seek input. The RA has a formal role in planning any specific public buildings and the ratio of public to private space on new SMS but CN is not a new sim.
A visitors centre on the CN Forum seems like a useful addition to me. It's not quite the same as replacing the Church in my view; the old Church was one of the oldest buildings in the CDS and, as the controversy showed, much-loved by citizens. I agreed with renovating it, our new Church is lovely. Now, if Trebor were to propose replacing the Ampitheatre with a new improved version I agree that would require some discussion.
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3694
The Constitution gives the Chancellor the power "(a) To determine the use to which any and all land in CDS shall be put;" and this would seem to fall within that remit.I don't think the Chancellor has to seek RA approval for public buildings though it would probably make sense to publicise such plans at RA meetings and seek input. The RA has a formal role in planning any specific public buildings and the ratio of public to private space on new SMS but CN is not a new sim.
Yes, I agree Pat that the above mentioned quote from the constitution does seem to give the Chancellor unilateral decision making over all the land of the CDS. This raises a lot of questions in my mind.
a) I don't see that the statement is referring to existing sims only, since it does not say this.
b) Why is replacing an outdated old build (beloved or not) any different than the creation of a new public building that could remain in place for years. This seems to me to be a matter of interpretation based on prevailing sentimentality rather than an actual decision making process.
BTW, I absolutely support the idea of a land acquisitions and information office for the CDS! My concern here is for the process to be clear, fair, and consistent.
I think the Chancellor can do this. I also think the RA can stop it by legislation -- which we should expect to be vetoed -- but which we can override.
That mechanism seems cumbersome, but sufficient to maintain proper balance of power.
Beathan
Beathan wrote:I think the Chancellor can do this. I also think the RA can stop it by legislation -- which we should expect to be vetoed -- but which we can override.
That mechanism seems cumbersome, but sufficient to maintain proper balance of power.
Beathan
It has come to my attention that this post is being misinterpreted as my advocating that the RA stop the Chancellor's build. That is not my position. My initial position is supportive of this use and this build -- but that is an initial position based on my cursory review of the posts and the build. However, if this matter were put to a vote today, I would vote in favor of the Chancellor and the build.
My post was concerned with process -- and the balance of power. In other words, with how the RA could act, not with how the RA should act.
I hope this clarifies things.
Beathan
Beathan,
I wasn't taking it that way --- it was clear to me. My concern is process as well.
Anna
Anna Toussaint wrote:Beathan,
I wasn't taking it that way --- it was clear to me. My concern is process as well.
Anna
Anna,
I took your post that way, too. I think the Chancellor would be better advised to act more in consultation with the RA and less unilaterally. That would reduce inter-branch conflicts. As a member of the RA, I am very interested in preserving the prerogatives of the RA, especially as a check on executive action and as the policy-making arm of government.
Beathan