4-40: Land Reclamation Act

[Brian Livingston]

Summary:

a) Whereas occassions may arise where actions that would suit the best interest of the City may conflict with existing land ownerships and

Whereas landowners may not always be agreeable to or available for sucessful negotiations for land swaps or buyouts

b) It is proposed that the Guild is granted the power of Eminent Domain, permitting the Guild Master to issue a request for the reclamation of a given land parcel, or portion thereof, to the Representative Assembly to be considered at the next meeting.

c) The request must include:
- The affected property's location, size, and ownership.
- The location and land area of the requested area for reclamation.
- Affirmation that efforts have been made to remedy the situation prior to the issuence of the request.
- The Total Compensation for the Proposed Area.

Only one property may be listed on a request. Additional requests must be prepared and filed for each additional property subject to proposed reclamation.

d) Compensation
Compensation will be made at current market value for comparable land in the same sim the reclaimed land is located, to be paid in $L.

e) Approval
The Request must be approved with a 2/3rds majority of the RA. Upon approval, compensation and reclamation shall be undertaken by the Sim Manager within 10 days, but not before 3 days. Compensation must be made before any reclamation commences.

f) Appeals
Land Owners must appeal within 3 days of the approval of the request to reclaim their land. Intents to appeal are to be made to the Scientific Council and are to be heard at the next meeting. In the event that an intent to appeal has been made, further action by the Sim Manager to reclaim the land is to be halted until the SC has ruled on the matter. In the event that the SC rules to sustain the approval, the Sim Manager has 7 days to make compensation and reclaim the land.

Philosophy:

As we rebuild, renovate, and expand, it is important that the government has a set framework in place to handle situations where land needs to be reclaimed for the good of the City. By developing and adhering to a set procedure to reclaim land, residents can be assured that there is a fair and equitable process in place to ensure that the land rights of all residents are preserved while maintaining the neccessary powers of the City.

[Claude Desmoulins]

This is actually 4-40.

[Brian Livingston]

Eeep, so noted and changed

[Flyingroc Chung]

Can the government do eminent domain for any reason at all? Shouldn't we have a set of criteria for the land to be eligible for eminent domain?

[Brian Livingston]

Y'know, I was thinking about adding a provision for acceptable uses of emminent domain, but soon realized that by doing so, it excludes the chance that an event may come up that might require this provision but was not forseen by myself or whomever edits the bill. As such, I made sure that no one branch has complete control over the process, with the Guild intitating the request and the RA approving or denying it witha 2/3rds majority. As such, 2/3rds of the RA will ahve to be convinced that reclaiming the land for the reasons given in the request are of sufficient enough grounds to approve it, which seems to be a pretty good safeguard against wanton land reclamation.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

[quote="Brian Livingston":2f3dj4i2]d) Compensation
Compensation will be made at current market value for comparable land in the same sim the reclaimed land is located, to be paid in $L.[/quote:2f3dj4i2]

I think this is an excellent proposal, which ensures a balancing of the interests of the individual citizen with those of the community at large involving the three branches of government in a healthy manner.

I have only one suggestion which would be to require with regard to compensation that in addition to the market value of the property the city should also be required to offer assistance or financial compensation to enabel third party assistance in the moving of any structures from the old land to the new land since this may not be something all citizens are able to or interested in doing by themselves.

My proposed amendment would thus read:
"d) Compensation
Compensation will be made at current market value for comparable land in the same sim the reclaimed land is located [b:2f3dj4i2]plus an amount to cover the assistance of a builder chosen at the discretion of the RA in moving structures and furnishing on the property[/b:2f3dj4i2], to be paid in $L."

[Brian Livingston]

[quote:c8fchnrh]My proposed amendment would thus read:
"d) Compensation
Compensation will be made at current market value for comparable land in the same sim the reclaimed land is located plus an amount to cover the assistance of a builder chosen at the discretion of the RA in moving structures and furnishing on the property, to be paid in $L."[/quote:c8fchnrh]

No problem with that amendment, I'll be submitting an amended version to Claude tonight.

Thanks!

[Brian Livingston]

I submitted this act prior to the elections, but have yet to see a vote made upon it. I still sincerely believe that it is vital for our future growth to ensure that a procedure for eminent domain is well-established. I am simply curious as to whether it will ever see the light of the Rathaus's meeting room. I can resubmit this proposal if needed, or if there is little chance of it being heard, I can simply keep it on the back burner for later discussion with a more hospitable RA.

Regards,

--BL

[Chicago Kipling]

If such a bill were considered, it would seem advisable that advance negotiation was attempted with the owner and was documented. This make some assumption of the matter, but no requirement of it.

Also, specifying a minimum time frame between said notice and the next RA meeting would be advisable. Perhaps we could consider seven days? Theoretically, I think this allows the guild to notify a person the day before or even day of the RA meeting and then have only three days to respond.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

The Chancellor already has the power to "determine the use to which any and all land in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators is put". What would this bill add to that?

[Claude Desmoulins]

I don't know that there was any formal precedent, but I was working from the presumption that everything "on the table" at the end of an RA term dies and needs to be resubmitted to the new RA. Otherwise you have an incoming RA trying to deal with a number of bills in various transitional states, of which the new mwmbers of the RA may not be aware.

[Brian Livingston]

Chicago: A good point. I assumed that given the relative hassle and expense of proceding through htihs process, all parties would prefer to resolve any eminent domain claims before they become a forced taking. Prior to resubmitting the bill, I will likely strengthen the requirement for prior negotiation.

Ashcroft: I am a bit uneasy at granting the office of the Chancellor that much unchecked power. Land ownership in Neufreistadt is citizenship in Neufreistadt and the ability to take someone's land should not lie solely in the hands of one person, but rather with a series of checks and balances. By having a clear policy on the matter, all citizens and government officials know their rights and responsibilities, as well as their recourse in the event that they do not agree with the outcome, which is something that the clause you referred to does not grant.

Claude: That does make sense and in retrospect I should've added that as a possibility in my inquiry. I was just curious as to the status of the bill and if it was still in the queue or if it expired at the end of the last term. Perhaps a RA procedural rule should be made to formalize this process (if one does not exist alrady)?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Brian Livingston":2kmga91h]Ashcroft: I am a bit uneasy at granting the office of the Chancellor that much unchecked power. Land ownership in Neufreistadt is citizenship in Neufreistadt and the ability to take someone's land should not lie solely in the hands of one person, but rather with a series of checks and balances. By having a clear policy on the matter, all citizens and government officials know their rights and responsibilities, as well as their recourse in the event that they do not agree with the outcome, which is something that the clause you referred to does not grant. [/quote:2kmga91h]

My point was that the Chancellor [i:2kmga91h]already[/i:2kmga91h] has this power. The checks and balances on that will come in when my [b:2kmga91h]Judiciary Bill[/b:2kmga91h] is passed, which will provide that land cannot be taken without adequate compensation.

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2v74w8jc][quote="Brian Livingston":2v74w8jc]Ashcroft: I am a bit uneasy at granting the office of the Chancellor that much unchecked power. Land ownership in Neufreistadt is citizenship in Neufreistadt and the ability to take someone's land should not lie solely in the hands of one person, but rather with a series of checks and balances. By having a clear policy on the matter, all citizens and government officials know their rights and responsibilities, as well as their recourse in the event that they do not agree with the outcome, which is something that the clause you referred to does not grant. [/quote:2v74w8jc]

My point was that the Chancellor [i:2v74w8jc]already[/i:2v74w8jc] has this power. The checks and balances on that will come in when my [b:2v74w8jc]Judiciary Bill[/b:2v74w8jc] is passed, which will provide that land cannot be taken without adequate compensation.[/quote:2v74w8jc]

This whole subject is very dangerous. If the chancellor can take peoples property for the advantage of the city or perhaps a more influential citizen it would make the "ownership" of land in Neufreistadt a complete joke, a sick and stupid joke. I have noticed a tendency lately to make our government much more complex than required. We are in any terms only a village and a rather small one at that. I think any attempt to take land from a citizen for the "benefit" of the community will set off the next crisis in government.
I see no reason for why the government should step in and take a citizens property at this time or ever.
First problem who decides what is “adequate compensationâ€

[Claude Desmoulins]

I would agree with Ranma, at least partly. Amendment 11 says the Chancellor has the power

[quote:3cx7z4e4]to determine the use to which any and all land in Neufriestadt
shall be put[/quote:3cx7z4e4]

I don't think this intrinsically allows him or her to unilaterally change the ownership of any parcel. This power is also subject to the laws -- including the existing CC&R and whatever changes to it the RA might make.

I'm working from memory here, but I think one of the reasons the bill died last session was a concern about the necessity of such a thing in the first place. The Gwynethstr. relocation was a good example of why we may not need this. In that instance, the affected parties were consulted, and the matter only went to RA after everyone whose house was going to move was on board.