Talk:Kodiak National Turnpike Act (665)

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/11/2024 8:57 AM

Tabled by Joe Fala, MGA, as an independent member's bill. A bill to create a turnpike authority under the Ministry of Transportation that creates turnpikes across the country without using taxpayer money and is self funded. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Kodiak_National_Turnpike_Act_(665) Voting is set for 19 January. The Kodiak Republic Wiki Kodiak National Turnpike Act (665) ACTION by the General Assembly on ## MONTH ###. ## AYE, ## NAY, ## ABSTAIN. A bill to create a turnpike authority under the Ministry of Transportation that creates turnpikes across the country without using taxpayer money and is self funded. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/11/2024 8:57 AM

@Assembly Member, debate has begun on this bill. Avakael — 01/11/2024 9:01 AM Toll roads are obnoxious. If these roads are worth the investment, they'll pay for themselves indirectly via increased productivity and thus increased tax revenue. Rule 3.2.1 is also ridiculous and should be struck out entirely, with 3.2 to follow as unnecessary unless you want to ensure the bridge is tall enough to ensure it doesn't block river traffic. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 9:01 AM Good Morning Members, Mr. President, My friends,

I present my first bill to the legislature. I would like to address the purpose. I would like to note that a few years ago, this very assembly has cut funding to the Ministry of Transportation making it harder for that department to maintain our roads.

Around Duckburg, the major routes in have been starting to deteriorate and we also need better roads connecting into our city.

This law is an attempt to build a national highway system with fast and reliable transportation and having it be self funded so the Ministry of Transportation can keep its abligations to maintain local roads. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 9:02 AM The idea is that we can't toll a bridge that is too short. And I was attempting to try and write a provision that makes sure that it couldn't happen Its also a provision that doesn't allow an existing road to be tolled if it goes through a populated area. Its to build limited access highways Bill Simmons [NUP] — 01/11/2024 9:17 AM My main question for Mr Fala is regarding Article 4. Why must each registered political party appoint members of the Turnpike Commission? Surely the Ministry of Transportation should be responsible for appointing all members.

A couple of other nit-picky points; Firstly, Kodiak uses the metric system, so the imperial units used should be converted. Secondly, in 5.2 there is a mention of a '401K'. I am unaware of what this is. I have found no mention of this in the Law Code ((OOC: I do know what a 401K is, but Kodiak, at least to my knowledge doesn't have anything like it))

I shall end on this; whilst I am for road tolls, the average motorist is most certainly not. They already have to deal with high gas prices, and they would not like, what is essentially, another tax. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 9:41 AM Thank you for your question Mr. Simmons, I was trying to ballance the commission with the people. Which is why there is a political ballance there. I'm willing to revise that provision.

I will amend the bill for metric units

A 401k is sort of a pension plan that allows people to invest in the stock market without having that money being taxed by the government. Then when they retire, they can withdraw the money to live comfortably. I understand the concern but there is a need for tolls in Kodiak especially in growing cities Bill Simmons [NUP] — 01/11/2024 9:54 AM Thank you Mr Fala, that answers my concerns.

((About the 401K: I understand that but, a 401K is a term and concept used in the 'real world' by the United States Government. The Kodiak Republic has nothing like it.)) ((Any other concerns I shall answer tomorrow, as it is currently 1am for me)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 10:17 AM @Braughn F. G. Kryos Mr. President, I would like to make a friendly amendment.

On 3.1. Remove "60 mph or" and replace 40 ft with 12 meters

On 3.2.1, replace 500 ft with 150 meters and 50 ft with 15 meters

On 4.1. Change the language to say "The KNTA will be governed by the Turnpike Commission which is made up of 5 members of the General Assembly appointed by the Ministry of Transportation.

On 4.1. Remove "or 401k plans" Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/11/2024 10:18 AM

As it is your bill, there is no need for you to submit friendly amendments to me. You may amend the bill yourself, though I encourage you to make the Assembly aware of any such amendments. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 10:19 AM (OOC: I'm at work and unable to make major amendments like that but thanks) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/11/2024 11:30 AM The law has been revised Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/12/2024 1:49 PM If there are no more questions on this bill, I will bring it to a vote Josef Kovac — 01/12/2024 1:51 PM I'm going to object because the bill has only been up for a day. I've been busy but I will get around to this. Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/12/2024 1:52 PM Thank you Mr. Kovac, do you have any questions for me? Josef Kovac — 01/12/2024 1:55 PM ((I have finals this week, so my responses may be delayed. I'll get to this when I have time.)) Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/12/2024 2:09 PM

I second Mr. Kovac's objection. I believe we need more time to respond (as I will do shortly). Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/12/2024 2:20 PM

While I commend the author's intent in 1.3, but I have serious concerns with allowing only bonds to be used. Not only is the sale of bonds contingent on the ability of the citizenry (and those permitted to purchase Kodiaker bonds) to purchase bonds, but the cost of building these mass-transit turnpikes is prohibitively expensive for such a funding method. According to my research ((which the Public Service may contradict)), a mile of mass-transit turnpike costs between 87 million florins and 92 million florins. This is an intense cost to be placing solely on the backs of Kodiaker bonds.

2.4 What does "high-class" mean in this case? Perhaps a definition or expansion of that phrase would be best.

3.2.1 Perhaps "may not operate or construct" would be a better phrasing

Article 4 is unnecessary, I believe. The KNTA should be governed as the Ministry of Transportation sees fit, to reduce bureaucratic load.

There is also the notable lack of funding for the operational costs of the KNTA, especially given that the funding is intended to come solely through bonds. While I applaud the author's intent to keep costs low, failing to provide any start-up funding for a brand-new department while specifically prohibiting the parent organization providing any of the necessary funds is short sighted at best and cynical at worst. Aaron S. Barcka (UKN) — 01/13/2024 1:56 PM I agree with Braughn on this, The KNTA should be governed as the MOT. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 01/13/2024 8:14 PM While I am generally in favour of entities needing to pay for services they utilise, we need to also look at a higher level of concern. It is attractive to think that forcing road users to pay for roads can be used to equalise demand with cost but that isn't the only mathematical formula being considered here.

What is being proposed is that the cost of all non-local business be increased across the board. Note, it doesn't say "priority projects" or "temporary bonds". These are to be ongoing taxes on the concept of commercial activity. And it is specifically targeted at the lowest-cost travel corridors.

Note that the act expressly forbids use of public cash on these projects - meaning they exist entirely outside of the public-government relationship. With our existing public companies, our state can choose to subsidise (and to what extent) as the public systems require. This does not permit this. Very easily we could saddle citizen investors with massive highway projects which sit derelict if under utilised or otherwise monopolise essential travel corridors.

Overall, I don't believe that an overcomplicated and divorced system of road maintenance and construction will aid transport or economic throughput. If we want money for roads, we should raise taxes, if we want to construct more roads we should increase expenditures. I don't think we need to hire, staff, and empower an entirely additional department just to do that. Braughn F. G. Kryos

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 01/13/2024 10:18 PM

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/15/2024 11:07 AM

Will the author respond to the points above, @Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK)? Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/15/2024 11:09 AM I will lightly alter the language of the bill ((OOC: Can't do it now, I'm at work)) Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/17/2024 8:55 AM Updates:

1.3. I'm adding start up funds for the KNTA to operate. I think 50 Million Florins sounds reasonable.

2.4. I'm going to define High Class

3.2.1. I think that's the correct phrasing because "The KNTA may not construct existing bridges" Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I updated Article 4 Faralana (Joe Fala, DPPK) — 01/18/2024 1:40 PM Anything else before this goes to a vote tomorrow? EasyPoll BOT

— 01/19/2024 6:01 PM

Question Does the General Assembly approve the Kodiak National Turnpike Act (665)?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [9 • 41%] 🇧 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [10 • 45%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [3 • 14%] 22 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (4 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 627d437e Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 01/19/2024 6:02 PM

@Assembly Member, voting for this proposal has begun and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Yesterday at 8:35 PM

@Assembly Member, only one day left to vote on this proposal. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 10:06 PM

With 9 ayes, 10 nays, and 3 abstains, the Kodiak National Turnpike Act (665) is rejected by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly.