NE1: Capital Relocation Amendment [Tabled]

[Simfan34]

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

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Cincinnatus]

Obviously, I will encourage us all to support Buffalo..

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.

[Governor Scott]

This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.

I second this proposal!

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I really don't care what the capital is. I'd say Rochester, but that's just because I'm not able to drive.

[mondale84]

This is a fair amendment.

I would suggest New Haven, CT.

I second this proposal!

Count me in support.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Simfan34]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

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.

[Simfan34]

If we put it in New Haven it will have to be neo-gothic. In retrospect Rep. Winfield's proposal sounds good.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

(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.

[Simfan34]

I propose an 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 New Haven, Connecticut.

[Governor Scott]

Do I declare this friendly, or does the Assembly vote on it?

[Simfan34]

You can declare it friendly.

[Governor Scott]

Friendly.

[Simfan34]

Very good.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

I am glad to see the Assembly making progress with this bill. I do ask that, wherever you decide to locate the capital, you explain why the proposed location would be best.

I am concerned that locating the capital in New Haven will not solve the problems that this move purports to address. While the City of New Haven has lost about 20% of its population since 1950, it is within the Greater NYC metropolitan area, which has seen a great deal of growth in recent decades. Development between New Haven and adjacent cities has consumed most of the usable land. Additionally, New Haven's population has stabilized in recent years, and over the last decade the city's population grew by over 5%. If we move the capital to New Haven, we will be competing with (and crowding out) other sources of vitality that are already at work, a true disruption to the urban fabric.

This is why I had previously joined Cincinnatus in recommending Buffalo, a city that has lost over half of its population since 1950 and continues to lose population. And it's not just the city proper that is in the decline - population loss in the city is so bad the population of the Buffalo metropolitan area has been decreasing since 1970. It has plenty of vacant land and underutilized (although aging) infrastructure. It's also a city where civic pride mixes with a genuine desire to rectify some of the mistakes that have been made in the past (like this). This is a city that needs reinvestment and the engine of urban vitality that the construction of a new capital would provide. Furthermore, the cost of living in Buffalo is low, and we could easily acquire land for development.

I don't mean to push too hard for my own pet choice - I haven't considered what most other cities in our region wouldoffer us. But I'd like to see more justification for whatever city the Assembly settles on - preferably justification that makes a stronger case than the one that I just made for Buffalo.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Representative Simfan, you are the main proponent of a new capital.  Would you rather Buffalo than New Haven?

[Simfan34]

I'd rather New Haven, it is more central.

Debate extended 48 hours.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Locating the capital in New Haven will lead to all of the problems that you expressed concerned about earlier, Simfan, because it is already a thriving city. I will not support this amendment if it designates New Haven the capital - at least, not without further justification. Centrality should not be our primary concern; we have high-speed rail, and any Northeastern city is within a few hours travel of any other Northeastern city. Besides, Buffalo isn't really in a remote corner of the region. It's on the central part of our (less densely populated) west border, while New Haven is on the central part of our (more densely populated) east border.

[Cincinnatus]

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.