Talk:The Vacant Land Exploitation Act (644)

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 16:27 @Assembly Member Tabled by Gustave Bernier, MGA as an independent members' bill for consideration of the assembly The Vacant Land Exploitation Act , 644 A resolution to improve conditions of life of farmers and regular citizens in periods of crisis. Proposed by Gustave Bernier, MGA, KWP. Voting is presently set for 11 Dec 2022 Patrick Barber


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 27/11/2022 16:30

Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:30 If any clarifications and/or additional information is required I'm here to answer your questions. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 19:35 First of all, this whole thing is a joke. You want to show people, who often buy land for their lifetime earnings, what they can do on it and how much to sell it for. That is, we have interference in the free market. Secondly - if someone wants to build a skyscraper on free land, do you forbid him to do so? We need private factories, offices, farms. Want to take Kodiak back to pre-industrial times?! Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:39 Yeah, you'll need clarifications.

Vacant land is the land that is not owned by a private individual, a corporation (private or state owned) that is not protected by the state/region/city According to article 2.3, the government has the right to expell anyone from these land without any justification. If the land is bought to build a private factory the peasant occupying it will be asked to leave. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 19:42 Authoritarianism is coming... Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:43 And for the "you want to show people, who often buy land for their lifetime earnings", the point is that these parts of land have not been sold to the peasant. They are of free access and enables people in a state of misery to farm and create capital without spending money. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 19:48 wait, you want to convince people to work with free land, and you will sell crops at a fixed price, a large part of which goes to the state coffers through taxes. The poor have to buy tools, seeds and stuff themselves, and you want to discourage the poor from getting out of poverty by a fixed amount, because if someone has to sell products at a fixed price, then we have interference with the free market. and besides, what if someone comes and destroys someone else's crops? after all, these are "free lands" and we can't do anything about it Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:50 By the way, I'm sorry for all these errors in text @Patrick Barber, here's a quick correction of this law.

Correction: 1.1 - Vacant land; any land owned/protected nor by an individual, nor by a private corporation, nor by a state-owned agency.

2.3 - Governmental agencies from the Kodiak Republic as well as local governments have the right to expell a worker from occupied vacant land without any justification needed.

2.5 - The prices of products produced on these parcels of vacant land are set by the Ministry of Agriculture and indexed on inflation. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:52 It works the same way as with private property, if you exploit a parcel of land, you are the "owner" of the parcel. Therefore if someone decides to destroy people's crop it would be considered a crime Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 19:53 Edited as requested Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 19:53 and if two or more people will exploit the plot? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:54 That's their right to do it, no article has been added into the proposition to limit the exploitation to a single person Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 19:56 and in that case, what if one person using the plot destroys the crops of the other person using the plot? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:57 "discourage the poor from getting out of poverty by a fixed amount" : that's just bullshit. 1. The poor (or normal people) are given access to land that they can cultivate without having to pay any property tax or rent, this act will help them produce capital with the guarantee of making profit. 2. It is up to the Ministry of Agriculture to decide the prices of goods produced, no one said the prices would be very low. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 19:59 Insurance would cover, if not there is nothing to do. They are not forced to work in teams, we are not at the stage of collectivization yet 😉, exploiters of land need to work with people they trust on their common land parcel It basically works the same way as a normal farming field- Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 20:01 if they are not low, maybe people will prefer to buy cheaper, corporate crops. why the hell don't we lower the income tax? then the small business poor will be able to keep more money. soon I will prepare a proposal for an act on the protection of micro-enterprises by certain activities releasing micro-enterprises from certain obligations Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 20:03 you want to waste resources checking who appropriated a free plot and who bought it? I mean, how do you check who pays taxes? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 20:05 A free plot is as the name suggests: free, it can be exploited without the farmer possessing the land Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 20:06 The same way we normally do- I don't understand this point Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 20:06 This act gives the freedom to the ministry of Agriculture to regulate prices, it will be up to this ministry to decide what the prices are. Retail prices can be higher or lower or equal to the market price, it depends on them Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 20:09 prices of all manufacturers?! Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 20:14 No- Prices of productions from occupied vacant lands Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 20:30 it's still bad, but better than I thought Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 27/11/2022 21:22 Capitalists when we try to give opportunities to people who have financial issues : Patrick Barber — 27/11/2022 21:24 Lets please keep the debate regarding the merits (or mistakes) of the bill. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 27/11/2022 23:41 I think this whole law is a joke. The government can provide income in other ways, such as investment in jobs, which can then be sold at a profit to the state. Many services are short of workers, and we are to become free land? What does vacant mean? If no one owns such land, it belongs to the state. It was possible to create state-owned agricultural enterprises that would be able to compete with corporations. I will vote no Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 00:53 Quite frankly I’m not entirely opposed to repurposing state-owned land into agricultural sectors. But I think it being free is too much of a bureaucratic mess to determine who purposes one parcel and who owns what crops. Besides this feels like undermining already established farms who did pay and own their plots. Also this limits this to just agriculture which I just don’t understand. Why limit their opportunities to just agriculture? The industrial revolution already happened. I would support a revised version of this bill with no restrictions on the type of development and a land tax. It’s a fixed rate you pay for each parcel of land. This will 1. Not entirely undermine established private agriculture 2. Provides an extra incentive to not let claimed but undeveloped land go to waste 3. It is more clearly defined who “owns the land”. 4. Does not limit the system to just agriculture. They can develop it however they want as long as they can sustain themselves. 5. A tiny bit of revenue for the state. Since we are helping the common workers here I would compromise with Gustav Bernier I’m not allowing large corporations to claim this land. Klaus Mikaelson — 28/11/2022 00:56 Is 2.2 supposed to say "useless"? and I'm not sure we want to use the term exploitation. It only comes with a negative connotation and I don't think that's how it's meant to be used in this bill, unless I'm reading it wrong. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 01:24 I think instead of giving the land away for free, we should lower the price to the proverbial florin (or a hundred), so we would have a guarantee that the person buying the land can afford tools, seeds, water, etc. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 01:28 I agree with the idea that the land shouldn’t be completely free; but I proposed a land tax idea instead of an outright payment. You can see it above. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:22 it can be, just let farmers set their own prices and with these two amendments I will vote in favour Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:23 Also is it entirely necessary to limit the land to purely agricultural use? Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:25 well, yes, in addition, the land could only be taken away as a result of a lawsuit Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:30 As in it can only be used for farming and nothing else? Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:31 well no Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:32 So you don’t want to just use the land for farms? Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:33 Yes, I don't Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:34 I agree with you on that part Mr. Bernier effectively wants to create communal farms. If his plans go through it’ll be disastrous for our economy. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:35 factories providing jobs in construction and then in production will reduce unemployment Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:35 maybe you would like to join TFF? we are libertarian capitalists Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:36 Actually I’m a Social Democrat While I don’t agree with pure communism, I don’t believe in a heavily unregulated market economy. I still believe in a market economy but I support far more regulations. Also I’m a member of NUETK Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:40 which is more communist than KWP Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 02:41 Yea honestly I might just go independent Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:42 if there is a vacancy for an act not coming from the government, I will submit my proposal for an act on assistance to micro-enterprises John Edwards [KWP] — 28/11/2022 02:46 You can always submit proposals at any time. It will go in the queue and be submitted once a spot opens up. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 28/11/2022 02:47 oh, i didn't know that John Edwards [KWP] — 28/11/2022 02:48 We had quite the backlog at one stage as so many bills were being submitted in short order. John Edwards [KWP] — 28/11/2022 02:49 I prefer to think we are far less extreme than NUETK Back to the bill at hand, the purpose of this regulation is designed to increase agriculture, without purchasing the land, and can be reclaimed at any time. Am I correct in thinking this is to offset the lost agriculture in the disputed region? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:35 Contrary to what has been said, the goal of this bill is not to advance toward socialism or any type of communism.

The idea of the bill that I present to you today is to help people in need to develop a profitable occupation while being beneficiary to our economy that greatly suffered from the territories that have been evacuated during the war. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:39 This is not the case. As long as the parcel of land is not either sold by the government to a private individual and/or corporation the land is vacant, when it is sold, farmers using the parcel will be required to leave.

The goal is not to reform the entire agricultural economy, it is to enable people in difficult financial situations to bounce back and gain capital before establishing themselves in their own field or in another industry. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 03:41 So you're open to the idea of selling state land to private entities? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:41 As long as the state allows the land to be sold I have no issues with this idea. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 03:45 So the main appeal of your bill is that it is a temporary solution and has no permanent impact on the structure of the agricultural sector. How would you explain this to privately owned farms? They would think that this bill undermines their business. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:48 The main appeal of this bill is to enable unemployed citizens to create capital when needed, and then transition to a job that suits them better. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 03:48 Yes a temporary solution to help transition them to a more financially stable state. I'm not adverse to that idea. It seems the most viable type of development is agriculture since it has to be temporary. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:52 To answer your claim that this would undermine the private business, prices of goods coming from these parcels of land are set by the ministry of Agriculture, with the goal of promoting the agricultural sector, if all private farms went bankrupt we would face famine and economic recession, it never will be in their interest to make the goods from these parcels more competitive than from private owned farms I hope this message was clear enough 😅 Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:53 It does yes, even if the word useless is probably not the most adequate one. I will have to think about rewriting this article- Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 03:53 Ah ok so the ministry of Agriculture will price them so they are uncompetitive but still reasonably priced, correct? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 03:54 That is up to the ministry of Agriculture to decide, I have not set any regulation on this, except that it has to be indexed on inflation Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 03:56 Would you be willing to amend the bill to state price restrictions? For example: the price must not be lower than msrp. How the price is regulated can be up for debate but I want assurances in the bill that the private sector won't be hurt. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 04:29 I recommend that you write an article for the bill so that we can later discuss about it and potentially incorporate it into the bill Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 28/11/2022 05:02 Not all land is suitable for farming though, the war we had most likely destroyed the soil that allows some plants to grow, so I dont see how well this plan would come in effect, I would like to know how do you plan on this happening if it passes the assembly? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 05:08 We're purposing nationally owned land that isn't used for anything. So the quality of the soil hasn't been affect too much by the war in this regard. Also I proposed some revisions of the bill here: Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 28/11/2022 05:09 But the bill says vacant land, not nationally owned land? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 05:10 1.1 - Vacant land; any land owned/protected nor by an individual, nor by a private corporation, nor by a state-owned agency. That's the definition of vacant land in the bill. Basically land no one claims and is under the jurisdiction of the national government. You can ask @Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) for clarification, he proposed the original bill. Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 28/11/2022 05:15 I see, The bill is a good idea, if it does pass we should not do it quickly and instead try to do quality over quantity in my opinion. I would rather see less farms with less competition who can thrive than having more farms with a lot of competition who cant thrive. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 05:19 There is no competition, it is not a race. The price of the crops are regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture. Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 28/11/2022 05:20 How though? Someone has to buy those croops for the farmers to achieve profit, the buyer surely wont go to each farm to buy a different product, they will go to one they most feel is the best, and wont go to the others, meaning no profit to them, meaning they stay in the same situation as from the start, maybe worse, no? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 05:21 Ah so your concern is the distribution and selling of the crops. We can discuss this with amendments to my personal revision. Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 28/11/2022 05:22 Exactly that, thanks for understanding, glad to hear your ideas. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 28/11/2022 06:29 Joshua Lopez and I have drafted a revision of the vacant land bill. This revision hopes to more clearly define the pricing regulations, finances, and distribution of the crops. Any and all ideas are welcome. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 28/11/2022 06:54 Article 1 - Definition 1.1 - Vacant land; any land owned/protected nor by an individual, nor by a private corporation, nor by a state-owned agency.

Article 2 - Exploitation 2.1 - All vacant land can be used freely as long as the following regulations is respected. 2.2 - Infrastructure that is not made for farming purposes can not be added on these parcels of land. 2.3 - Governmental agencies from the Kodiak Republic as well as local governments have the right to expel a worker from occupied vacant land without any justification needed. 2.4 - Farmlands are the only authorized type of exploitation allowed on vacant lands. 2.5 - The prices of products produced on these parcels of vacant land is set by the Ministry of Agriculture and indexed on inflation. 2.6 - Individuals who do not have equipment to farm can apply for a loan from the government to pay for equipment. This loan shall be paid back in full with no interest. Failure to pay back the loan will result in the repo of the farming equipment.

Article 3 - Regulations & Finance 3.1 - The Ministry of Agriculture shall set the price at MSRP and then let the free market adjust the price due to inflation and other factors. 3.2 - Loans issued for farming equipment shall be paid on a minimum basis of 5% the total value of the loan each month. 3.3 - The Ministry of Agriculture will handle the buying, selling, and distributing of all goods produced in these parcels of land. They shall be bought from the farmers at 98% of the retail price and sold to consumers with a 2% profit margin that will be allocated to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture. Here is the revision proposed by @Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] and @Joshua Lopez - Slatium, if Mr the @Assembly President could publish these changes online it would be great. Thanks! Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 28/11/2022 10:48 The revision seems solid for the purposes of this bill.

Something that may need to be thought about - is there a limit to the size of vacant land to be used by an individual? Following that train of thought, is the size of land use based on actual use until such a time it is reclaimed by the Government for whatever reason, or should there be a predetermined maximum amount allowed for an individual?

My thinking here is that in the case of fairness, and to get ahead of land disputes that are needless administration, some record of land used for this purpose and 'sizing' wouldn't go amiss. As well as individuals potentially claiming land as free use to the disadvantage of others. The additional advantage here is that the Ministry has a record of vacant lands currently being used in this way, and can use this information for planning purposes should land need to be reclaimed for sale and other purposes. Patrick Barber — 28/11/2022 10:50 amended as requested Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:00 A question I have, is, given modern land usage - how is there any land owned by no one? Surely any land not owned by a private entity is already automatically owned by the state. A second question is, what is meant by land "protected" in 1.1? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 30/11/2022 08:03 protected as in part of a national reserve or just a parcel of land that the state/local gov has decided to keep intact Land owned by no one is the land owned by the state that is not "protected" hope that answers your question. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:05 Wouldn't allowing free use of state controlled land be dangerous for the environment? Farming uses chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and clears forest Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 30/11/2022 08:06 land that needs to be preserved for the environment would need to be protected by the gvt and therefore unexploitable. I hope I'm clear. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:08 I'm also concerned about 2.3. If someone is using the land to augment their livelihood, wouldn't no-warning eviction be a dangerous and unethical action? Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 30/11/2022 08:12 It would be an issue indeed, I'll make the changes tomorrow it's late over here. thanks for the feedback. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:12 Easy, I look forward to seeing them tomorrow Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 08:14 Well that part is there because this is only a temporary solution to help them become slightly more financially stable. Maybe it could be augmented to give a 3 week warning? I think the state should still retain the right to reclaim the land. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:15 I think that at minimum, a no-cause eviction should attract a 4 month notice. Six months would be more fair Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 08:17 I think that's fair. A six month notice of eviction should be required. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 08:18 The important part is the 'no cause' part. because it takes time to set up and tear down an operation, as well as find alternative arrangements. We can't allow someone onto the land just to mess with them. There needs to be procedural fairness Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 08:21 Well I think the 'no cause' part is important for preventing permanent establishments so the population can move on from it once the program is finished. Half a year's notice seems to be a fair compromise between fairness and a 'no cause eviction'. John Edwards [KWP] — 30/11/2022 12:19 Is there a type of farming in mind? Crop growing can take up to 120 days. Farming equipment is expensive to maintain and use. Without a timeframe to at least harvest a final crop, they may not consider the input worth the return. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 12:50 I was thinking fast-growing food crops (spinach, beets, turnips, cucumbers, zucchini’s, etc.). It isn’t too expensive to get such an operation up and running and after initially setting up operations you basically have crops that grow monthly-bimonthly. Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 30/11/2022 12:55 Well, I don’t see people mass producing turnips and cucumbers on government sponsored state land… corn, tobacco, soy beans, cotton, wheat, potato’s would likely take the cake Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 12:57 I’d rather shy away from cash crops since I’d rather have better self sufficiency for food. But yea those too but they don’t grow as fast as the crops I’ve mentioned. Patrick Barber — 30/11/2022 12:58 I am sceptical that state encouragement of subsistence farming is a sound economic practice Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 30/11/2022 12:59 Of course we’re not gonna force them to grow such crops. They’ll have to make that decision on their own Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 01/12/2022 07:39 I won't have time to make any modifications today. I will be doing it tomorrow, I'm really sorry 😬 Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 07:41 No worries we all have irl things to take care of John Edwards [KWP] — 01/12/2022 14:53 Will this bill still be necessary once the resettlement of the Darrent begins? Patrick Barber — 01/12/2022 14:57 as far as I'm aware, this is for the whole nation generally for any unoccupied, state controlled land Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/12/2022 23:32 I believe this bill is still necessary. Simply because the Darrent is under our control again doesn’t mean it’s former inhabitants have enough capital to restart their life. This bill will provide a temporary source of revenue so they can reestablish themselves with some sort of stability. And yes the bill applies to any unoccupied, state controlled land in the whole nation. Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 02/12/2022 02:47 2.3 - National and/or local governments must issue an eviction notice two months before allowing anyone to take possession of the previously occupied parcel of land. @Patrick Barber lmk if you still have requests for this bill. Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 03/12/2022 06:41 I support this bill. Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 07:13 Doesn't this endanger forests and other non forest ecosystems which aren't owned by anyone including the state, so technically it becomes a vacant land, meaning you'll destroy it for agriculture which isn't so nice to do.

Moreover it's uncivilized to forcefully move people from lands they have settled on without proper compensation, all displaced should get compensated and granted a proper housing facility to move into

Expanding Government bureaucracy into core functions of market i.e price determining is very fatalistic of you.

Why limit to agriculture, why not build more public services and advance skills of farmers to further the industries and technological advancement, if the objective is to better conditions in long term this condition is counter productive

Why have all the produce go through the government, why not let the market participation of farmers rise, if the objective is to uplift farmers then ownership should be given to them I firmly oppose this haphazard and faulty bill Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 07:32 1. Nobody is going to farm in a dense forest. A change in the environment is inevitable when concerning large-scale agriculture. The definition of vacant land is land owned by the state that isn't developed for anything. 2. Nobody is being displaced. This is vacant land nobody is using and people sign up for the program out of their free will. 3. The government isn't determining the price actually. It initially sets the price at MSRP and then lets the free market adjust according to factors such as inflation. 4. It is limited to agriculture because this is a temporary solution to help the unemployed and poor make money to be in a more financially stable state to pursue better career paths. The government wants to eventually repossess the land to force people to move on from this program. 5. The produce is going through the government to ensure all farmers are being bought from. This is to prevent some farmers from being neglected because all the traffic is going towards the closer or larger farm. This isn't to uplift farmers, this is to provide a reliable stream of income so people can move on from doing such work.

I think a lot of the issues you have with this bill is rooted in a firm misunderstanding of its purpose and methods. Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 07:41 1) There are non forested ecosystems aswell which are equally important, to destroy them would be a grave error, development alongside nature is better than against it, there exist grasslands ecosystems too YK. 2) It says the government shall expel any worker from vacant land, that is displacement. No where is the term voluntary mentioned so let's not get ahead of ourselves. 3) The MSRP shouldn't be decided by the government at all, we have examples of this not being an effective method of helping farmers, India being an example of this IRL. 4) Another better solution would be to invest in industrial revolution which creates more value and better paying jobs, now-a-days nations take barely over a decade to go through the intense industrialisation that Industrial Europe went through in nearly two centuries. 5) Again this is wasteful, example of similar policies exist in India IRL which so far have not been so fruitful. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 07:48 1. You support preserving the land yet you propose an industrial revolution three points down? Developing land for economic purposes will have an inevitable effect on the environment. I am in support of excessive exploitation but to not develop any land will be inhibiting our economy. 2. You misunderstand this part. We are not expelling existing occupants, we are expelling workers who are part of this program. Also you refer to an outdated bill, we're updating it to a 2 month notice at the minimum before vacancy is required. Workers have to sign up for the program, so they are signing on to this clause too = voluntary. 3. Again, we are not setting it at MSRP. We are initially setting it at MSRP and then letting it adjust according to the market. It is like letting a ball go from a certain height; the ball isn't going to stay at the height we dropped it from. 4. This is a temporary solution because we are about to reclaim the land that these refugees fled from. We will set up permanent jobs in the Darrent. 5. The whole point is that if you produce a crops, it is going to be bought. You are guaranteed a revenue stream, that's the whole point of the program. Any excess not sold can be used by the government for humanitarian aid or stored in food banks. Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 07:57 1) More value is generated per Unit area in industrial sectors than agriculture. To develop by running over nature isn't a nice strategy either, it only creates more problems and adds costs, case in point Punjab region of South Asia. 2) okay 3) That's even more risky since then the value can simply drop below MSRP and if it does it'll incur losses technically and fuzzy the market signals. Why even add this whole MSRP thing into the mix. 4) Okay but we should preferably consider long term solutions into the mix too. 5) This same guarantee of purchase did end up messing up with the whole system in India's Agriculture btw, it led to overproduction, loss of efficiency, depletion of groundwater and added to the miseries of Punjab which arose as a consequence. Better learn from failed experiments than to try them again. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 08:01 1) We're not running over nature, the government can easily regulate this due to clause 2.3. 3) If the value drops below MSRP then that's just the market 🤷. It's to prevent private farms from thinking they can heavily undercut these workers. 4) We are once we regain the Darrent. 5) This is a genuine concern which is why we retain the ability to evict people and close the program. See how this works out? Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 08:07 Okay then Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 08:07 have I successfully cleared any misconceptions you have about this bill? Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 08:08 It appears to be so Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 08:08 then I would like to hear your current opinion on this bill Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 08:10 It's okay as a temporary fix as it's supposed to be and will have to change to accommodate more long term solutions But so far it's fine Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 08:12 So can I be assured of your support for this bill when voting starts? Geo (Piehu) — 03/12/2022 08:13 Ya Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 08:14 alr good :) Gustave Bernier (Generation.e) — 03/12/2022 09:32 That's great! Thanks for taking your time to explain the bill Erich
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/12/2022 09:39
no problem
Patrick Barber — 03/12/2022 15:15
I'm not entirely sure what effect the re-acquisition of the Darrent has on this bill - surely there isn't an assumption that the government is going to requisition all the property from all the original owners 4 years ago? The land isn't 'vacant' in the legal sense. It would still be owned and controlled by the original kodiaker citizens who lived there
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 03/12/2022 16:42
Maybe we should conduct a census of the Darrent region and the rest of Kodiak as well as sift through immigration records to find out how many citizens of the Darrent were killed and will not be able to come back to their property, how many immigrated to TGN and are not able to come back, and how many people are able and willing to come back to their property. Properties that are verified as completely vacated/abandoned could be requisitioned.
Patrick Barber — 03/12/2022 16:52
Individuals who have passed on due to the war will surely already have legally relevant next-of-kin
Patrick Barber — 07/12/2022 10:18
If there are no more comments I shall put this to vote in 24 hours

— 08/12/2022 13:11

Do you approve of the Vacant Land Exploitation Act , 644?

🇦 Aye
🇧 Nay
🇨 Abstain

Final Result
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [10 • 56%]
🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 11%]
🇨 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [6 • 33%]
18 users voted


alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)
spy: Anonymous Poll
one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member
Poll ID: KC8wxYbekk
Patrick Barber — 08/12/2022 13:11
@Assembly Member
Voting has begun on the Vacant Land Exploitation Act , 644. Debate is now ended. 72 hours are allotted for the poll.
Patrick Barber — 10/12/2022 17:26
@Assembly Member
This vote will end in approx 20 hours. Be sure to make your selection before that time.
Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 15:35
This bill has been passed. it will be archived in 24 hours.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.