Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Regional Governments => Topic started by: Simfan34 on July 19, 2012, 01:38:05 PM



Title: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Tabled]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 19, 2012, 01:38:05 PM


AN AMENDMENT

To move the location of the Northeastern capital.

Be it enacted by 2/3 of the Assembly of the Northeast Region assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This act may be cited as the 'Capital Relocation Amendment.’

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT

Article I, paragraph II of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be [currently existing city].

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVENESS

This amendment shall go into effect upon the finalization of the capital city as designated by the appropriate legislation.

Sponsor: Sen. Scott
Debate time: 72 hours
Debate ends: 3pm, Sunday 22 July


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 19, 2012, 01:44:34 PM
Basically, this amendment establishes the cornerstone for the capital redevelopment project.  I encourage the Assembly to determine a city for which to expand and build the capital in (not build a completely new city, as the last legislation would have done), and then write it into the amendment.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 19, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
Obviously, I will encourage us all to support Buffalo.. :)


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 19, 2012, 07:50:49 PM
This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 19, 2012, 07:54:10 PM
This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.

I second this proposal!


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 20, 2012, 09:40:16 AM
I really don't care what the capital is. I'd say Rochester, but that's just because I'm not able to drive.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: mondale84 on July 20, 2012, 01:07:54 PM
This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.

I second this proposal!

Count me in support.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 20, 2012, 06:08:51 PM
I would only support the construction of an entirely new capital. New Haven, Buffalo, or any other city does deserve to be burdened with the task of capital, especially long-suffering cities like these. Especially with the surely half-baked construction that shall follow and sure-to-fail modern urban renewal strategies, all that shall occur is the destruction of the preexisting urban fabric. Greenfield construction is the only option.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 20, 2012, 06:16:56 PM
I would only support the construction of an entirely new capital. New Haven, Buffalo, or any other city does deserve to be burdened with the task of capital, especially long-suffering cities like these. Especially with the surely half-baked construction that shall follow and sure-to-fail modern urban renewal strategies, all that shall occur is the destruction of the preexisting urban fabric. Greenfield construction is the only option.

I also supported the construction of a new city for the capital, but that didn't get through the Assembly last time.  We have to compromise.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 20, 2012, 06:19:03 PM
I would only support the construction of an entirely new capital. New Haven, Buffalo, or any other city does deserve to be burdened with the task of capital, especially long-suffering cities like these. Especially with the surely half-baked construction that shall follow and sure-to-fail modern urban renewal strategies, all that shall occur is the destruction of the preexisting urban fabric. Greenfield construction is the only option.

I also supported the construction of a new city for the capital, but that didn't get through the Assembly last time.  We have to compromise.

This attitude is emblematic of a major problem facing our society, which is a fear of commitment. Rep. Winfield and Mr. Cincinattus fears what might happen if we stop running surpluses. We issue bonds, and so what if we run a bit over budget? We need something done, and we are going to get it done. There is a predilection for half-baked patch ups and repairs as opposed to comprehensive replacements and solutions. This extends beyond mere infranstructuture (but it certainly is what turned ours into the embarrassingly backwards systems they are today), into our business and personal lives.

Shall we go to another city in this region, undoubtedly based upon outdated and autosarcogaphic suburban and "urban renewal" models of planning. Shall we jam that unfortunate locale's highways or cul de sacs? Or shall we invest in a city designed for the project of governance, meant for official business? One that will show others the way forward in urban planning? I say we should, and escape this debilitating epidemic of small-mindedness, as I said before.

Compromises lead to disappointments that please no-one.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 20, 2012, 06:25:01 PM
I would only support the construction of an entirely new capital. New Haven, Buffalo, or any other city does deserve to be burdened with the task of capital, especially long-suffering cities like these. Especially with the surely half-baked construction that shall follow and sure-to-fail modern urban renewal strategies, all that shall occur is the destruction of the preexisting urban fabric. Greenfield construction is the only option.

I also supported the construction of a new city for the capital, but that didn't get through the Assembly last time.  We have to compromise.

This attitude is emblematic of a major problem facing our society, which is a fear of commitment. Rep. Winfield and Mr. Cincinattus fears what might happen if we stop running surpluses. We issue bonds, and so what if we run a bit over budget? We need something done, and we are going to get it done. There is a predilection for half-baked patch ups and repairs as opposed to comprehensive replacements and solutions. This extends beyond mere infranstructuture (but it certainly is what turned ours into the embarrassingly backwards systems they are today), into our business and personal lives.

Shall we go to another city in this region, undoubtedly based upon outdated and autosarcogaphic suburban and "urban renewal" models of planning. Shall we jam that unfortunate locale's highways or cul de sacs? Or shall we invest in a city designed for the project of governance, meant for official business? One that will show others the way forward in urban planning? I say we should, and escape this debilitating epidemic of small-mindedness, as I said before.

Compromises lead to disappointments that please no-one.

Perhaps, then, we can get the consent of the people who live in the city or the mayor before we build our capital within their border.  If the city agrees with the proposal and isn't concerned about any problems arising from urban renewal, then we can build from that location.  But if we are unable to come up with a bipartisan method of establishing the new capital, then we might as well abandon the project completely.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 20, 2012, 08:28:45 PM
Further to the remarks from Senator Scott, I do believe that compromise is the only answer to the issue of a new capital.

I would further propose that New Haven be named as the new capital, following discussions with the city, of course.

My suggestion of New Haven appears to be gaining support as the new capital location.  New Haven is a beautiful city and is conveniently loated for a capital.

We should find a suitable location in the vicinity of New Haven and build a new capital area from scratch, with all the builings and amenities necessary for a modern, efficient, and attractive capital area, befitting the Northeast Region.

We need a mechanism in place, however, to control cost overruns, so I would like to see The Winfield Doctrine become law before proceeding with any new capital construction.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 20, 2012, 08:45:45 PM
If we put it in New Haven it will have to be neo-gothic. In retrospect Rep. Winfield's proposal sounds good.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 21, 2012, 11:16:48 AM
(Sent via email, as I am at this time in the air enroute to Liechtenstein.  I wish to express my thanks to Vice President/Secretary of External Affairs Kalwejt for making available to me one of the departments private jets for the trip to and from Liechtenstein.)

A neo-gothic designed capital area would be most impressive, Mr. Simfan.

I would fully support your recommendation for this design.  It would fit in beautifully with the architecture of New Haven.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 21, 2012, 08:54:44 PM
I propose an amendment:

Quote
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT

Article I, paragraph II of the Northeast Constitution is hereby amended to read:

The administrative center for the government of the Northeast Region established in this Constitution shall be New Haven, Connecticut.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 21, 2012, 08:57:46 PM
Do I declare this friendly, or does the Assembly vote on it?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 21, 2012, 09:15:02 PM
You can declare it friendly.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 21, 2012, 09:17:01 PM
Friendly.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 21, 2012, 09:18:37 PM
Very good.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 22, 2012, 04:20:51 PM
I don't have a particularly strong preference for the location of the capital.  If the capital would benefit more people by being located in Buffalo, or anywhere else, then I'm okay with this.

More opinions on this would be appreciated.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 22, 2012, 04:22:59 PM
Representative Simfan, you are the main proponent of a new capital.  Would you rather Buffalo than New Haven?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 23, 2012, 06:25:33 AM
I'd rather New Haven, it is more central.

Debate extended 48 hours.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Cincinnatus on July 23, 2012, 10:22:15 AM
I completely agree with Nix.  Buffalo's continued decline over recent decades has significantly impacted this entire region.  There is a strong desire, and hope, that major development will once again become viable in not only the city of Buffalo, but surrounding areas, including Niagara Falls.  While I admit, Buffalo isn't a hub like New York City, we are known for our architecture, our history, and for the potential that exists within this region.  If you all believe in truly revitalizing not only a city, but an entire region, than Buffalo far exceeds most cities in such potential. 


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Pyro on July 23, 2012, 12:35:09 PM
Moving the capital to Buffalo sounds great, as our assembly is looking formost for revitalizing declining culture. I'm in favor of Nix's idea.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 23, 2012, 02:28:08 PM
(via email from Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

We should strike a commission to see if a suitable location exists for a new capitl area in the greater New Haven area before we run head over heels to Buffalo.

New Haven is ideally situated for a Northeast capital area, whereas Buffalo is too remote, take that as you will.

I am confident we can locate the suitable square mileage required for a new capital somewhere in the greater New Haven area.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 23, 2012, 05:19:32 PM
Personally, I'm convinced by the Governor's arguments.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 23, 2012, 05:35:57 PM
I fail to be. As a compromise, let us select Walden, NY as our capital.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 23, 2012, 06:43:42 PM
I fail to be. As a compromise, let us select Walden, NY as our capital.

(Via email from Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

Simfan, Walden is certainly a picturesque village, and is well situated conveniently for the Northeast.  Besides this, can you explain your reasoning for Walden as a possible location please?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 23, 2012, 07:04:11 PM
It is in a good location centered between the centers of Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Middletown, NY.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2012, 12:07:20 AM
(Via email from Vaduz, Liechtenstein)

I do not agree that because Walden is a small center that it is not suitable to become a capital area.  The Governor is exaggerating that locating the capital in this area will disrupt everyone's lives who live in the area.  Locating the capital in the Walden area will put this part of the state on the map, and will bring business and jobs to the area.

The way we have plans to build the capital area, wherever it is, a considerable amount of infrastructure will have to be constructed anyway.  The capital is being constructed from the ground up.  We will not be using existing buildings.  The village will not be demolished, it will be expanded, and the people who now live in the area will appreciate the boost to the local economy. 

The capital will not be in Walden itself, rather in the Walden area.  The Walden area is suitably situated to be an ideal location for the entire Northeast.   


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 08:36:24 AM
Demolishing Walden is not an issue right now. The capital need not be Walden per se, simply in that triangle of Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Middletown, NY. Putting it in a dense urban center like New Haven, as you said Governor, would have adverse effects... but it would in Buffalo, or any other city. Putting it an area near cities would minimize those while the enforcement of New Urbanist development principles will take care of the rest.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2012, 10:28:16 AM
Demolishing Walden is not an issue right now. The capital need not be Walden per se, simply in that triangle of Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, and Middletown, NY. Putting it in a dense urban center like New Haven, as you said Governor, would have adverse effects... but it would in Buffalo, or any other city. Putting it an area near cities would minimize those while the enforcement of New Urbanist development principles will take care of the rest.

(Via email from Liechtenstein)

The Governor implied that I had said we are building a new city.  This is a false assumption.  Because we would be building in the Walden area, or whatever area, does not mean we will be building a new city.  It means we willl be building a capital area in the area of an existing community.  We will most definitely not be building a new city. 

The above statement from Representative Simfan summarizes my meaning very well. 


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
(Via email from Liechtenstein)

That is absolute nonsense.  A capital area is the buildings and insrastructure for a modern, efficient capital.  It does not include the myriads of other buildings and infrastructure that an entire city has.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 24, 2012, 12:59:03 PM
I assume he means that we'll only have to build government buildings and roads and stuff.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 24, 2012, 01:09:51 PM
I assume he means that we'll only have to build government buildings and roads and stuff.

(Via email from Liechtenstein)

Pretty much this.  Thank you Representative Jones.

I still believe that Representative Simfan's suggestion for the Walden area is an excellent idea.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 01:14:09 PM
The remainder should be left to the private sector, though I think suitable housing for the employees should be assured if requested.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 24, 2012, 03:53:33 PM
You keep on making reference to our high speed rail network, which if it could reasonably connect Buffalo to the rest of the region could connect Walden or one of the nearby cities to it.

Stewart International Airport is already very close. In any case, almost all of those concerns would apply to a new sector in another city s well. Hospital, internet, again, the private sector.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 25, 2012, 08:55:11 AM
I am extending debate by another 24 hours.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 27, 2012, 03:28:55 PM
I intended to say 48. Members of the Assembly, which location do you prefer?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 27, 2012, 05:01:44 PM
Buffalo.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 27, 2012, 05:09:13 PM
We have reached an impasse, I fear. (No, I'm not jumping to conclusions) We might have to send this to the People.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on July 29, 2012, 10:32:49 PM
If we pass the bill right now, wouldn't that make New Haven the capital?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 29, 2012, 11:13:15 PM
I urge Sen. Scott to table the bill.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 29, 2012, 11:31:16 PM
So we're scrapping the entire idea, then?


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 30, 2012, 12:15:07 AM
No, but the lack of consensus on where to place the capital makes any vote on this bill at present doomed to failure.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 30, 2012, 12:46:07 AM
I will reluctantly table this.  That said, I assure the Assembly that this issue will NOT be going away due to its failure to reach a compromise.  I'm not going to point fingers at anyone in particular, but it does an extreme disservice to our region for Washington-style gridlock to infest itself in our politics, and the voters will keep this fresh in mind when they head to the polls next month.

I urge the Speaker to not introduce the Capital Act of 2012 until an agreement on this amendment can be reached.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: Simfan34 on July 30, 2012, 01:03:56 AM
What harm has occured in Washington State? I do want a final proposal reached, perhaps more than you do, but I do not want to waste the Assembly's time in proposing legislation bound to fail. I can assure you I will to my best to keep the capital debate at the forefront of the Assembly's concerns.


Title: Re: NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Debating]
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 30, 2012, 01:10:33 AM
What harm has occured in Washington State? I do want a final proposal reached, perhaps more than you do, but I do not want to waste the Assembly's time in proposing legislation bound to fail. I can assure you I will to my best to keep the capital debate at the forefront of the Assembly's concerns.

I understand that, and I think it's necessary for this discussion to persist outside the walls of this capitol.  I have created a thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156668.msg3368018#new) to fulfill that purpose.  At some point, either side has to nudge.