Urban Regeneration Bill

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Urban Regeneration Bill

1. Indicators of Distress:

a) Negative population growth from 1970 until the most recent census
b) A poverty rate above the National average
c) An unemployment rate above the National average for at least three of the previous five years

2. Cities meeting the above criteria, are eligable for federal grants and localised tax breaks, the level of which to be determined on a case by case basis by an Urban Regeneration Commision (an independent body administered by the Federal Government)

3. Wherever possible incentives should be given to encourage the return of industries of historic importance to the city in question.

[12th Doctor]

This looks to be in the spirit of my original proposal.  I fully support this bill.  Good job, Al.

[Sam Spade]

Urban Regeneration Bill
3. Wherever possible incentives should be given to encourage the return of industries of historic importance to the city in question.

Please define what this means and please give an example of a "industry of historic importance to a city"?

As presently residing in a city that would fall under your plan here, I am leery of throwing federal money where federal money is already being thrown.

Do you have any original estimates at how much something like this might cost?

[Nym90]

I strongly support this, though SamSpade's concern about clarification of terms is definitely important and needs to be addressed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just to clarify: s.3 is intended more as a *direction* to the proposed Urban Regeneration Commision than anything else

[Sam Spade]

Just to clarify: s.3 is intended more as a *direction* to the proposed Urban Regeneration Commision than anything else

Ok, now I really oppose this bill.

Why do we need another federal bureaucratic wing to tell people that it only supports giving money to help certain sectors in certain places, but to tell others to go away because they don't fit a "industry of historic importance"?

Too much federal government involvement for me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why do we need another federal bureaucratic wing to tell people that it only supports giving money to help certain sectors in certain places, but to tell others to go away because they don't fit a "industry of historic importance"?

I didn't say that

[Sam Spade]

Why do we need another federal bureaucratic wing to tell people that it only supports giving money to help certain sectors in certain places, but to tell others to go away because they don't fit a "industry of historic importance"?

I didn't say that

That's the implication of the combination of these two clauses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This new bureaucratic commission, whom I assume will be appointed by the President (or the Senate, that's not exactly clear) has the authority on a case-by-case basis to determine where these tax breaks and grants will go to.  (whose scope and cost to the taxpayer is still unclear)

The third clause is vague enough as to give this commission great power and scope in "interpreting" what "industries of historic importance" are in a particular city to justify their decisions.

I will never support any bill that has government bureaucrats deciding that some private enterprise is more important to a region than another.  That reeks of fascism to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(whose scope and cost to the taxpayer is still unclear)

The people who will be helped are taxpayers too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what your talking about here... what the 3rd clause is directing the commision to do is wherever possible[/s] bringing back to the city in question, old industries that were important to the city (eg: steel in Pittsburgh, Tires in Akron etc. etc.) with the intention of creating greater community spirit and confidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do people matter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not advocating building concentration camps, killing my political opponants or being generally racist and dictatorial.
Misuse of "fascism" as a generic term of abuse for something you don't like devalues the word and is very irresponsible.

[Sam Spade]

I am not advocating building concentration camps, killing my political opponants or being generally racist and dictatorial.
Misuse of "fascism" as a generic term of abuse for something you don't like devalues the word and is very irresponsible.

That's not what fascism is.  You're confusing a rather unique "German" interpretation called Nazism with fascism.  Read up on how Mussolini described it in "What is Fascism" in 1932.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

Fascism is a political and economic system where power is controlled in the hands of a dictator who embodies the conception of the State.  This state organizes the nation under its one will, embodied by the dictator combines business, religion, and social planning and all other affairs of this life under the wills and auspices of the state, its leader and its bureaucracy.

As you can see, these are the reasons why I'm concerned about giving a bureaucratic institution so much power in telling private enterprise what to do and where. 

Why should tire production be given taxpayer money in Akron, as opposed to Memphis or Denver or wherever else?  Is it going to be more profitable there than anywhere else? 

Community spirit and confidence is not created around a single plant or materialistic enterprise, but is promoted through well-being, religious faith and loyalty to country.

I will oppose this bill and urge my Senators to oppose it as it will hurt all industries in places where the government bureaucracy deems it not "important enough to the community".

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Your being intellectually dishonest to a shocking degree here.
Has anyone without an ideological axe to grind got any comments on the bill?

[Gabu]

I'm currently on the fence regarding this one... while I agree that this certainly could be helpful to cities that need something like this, I also agree with SamSpade that I don't really like the idea of leaving the choice to the subjective decision of an independent government body regarding which cities get aid.  If Section 2 had more rigid guidelines that reduced or even eliminated the need for a bureaucratic organization to administer it, I would be much more in favor of it.

As for Section 3, maybe it's just my lack of nostalgia-holding, but I don't immediately see a clear benefit to this section.  Shouldn't we be encouraging the growth of industries that would work well in the cities, rather than arbitrarily deeming that industries with historical importance should be given priority?  Granted, those industries may very well be the same, but if they're not, I don't think it will help a city with high unemployment and poverty to require that city to accomodate an industry that doesn't work in it anymore.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm currently on the fence regarding this one... while I agree that this certainly could be helpful to cities that need something like this, I also agree with SamSpade that I don't really like the idea of leaving the choice to the subjective decision of an independent government body regarding which cities get aid.  If Section 2 had more rigid guidelines that reduced or even eliminated the need for a bureaucratic organization to administer it, I would be much more in favor of it.

No, no, no... ALL cities fitting the requriments in S.1 get aid/incentives. The point of an independent body is to determine the level of aid/incentives given. It's either that, or a centralised quota based system that wouldn't be as effective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the fact that S.3 is more of a guideline than anything else. Also note the use of "wherever possible".
The point of S.3 is to bring back a little bit of confidence and pride to the distressed cities, which will have the effect of helping other businesses (especially smaller shops) to thrive.

[Sam Spade]

Your being intellectually dishonest to a shocking degree here.
Has anyone without an ideological axe to grind got any comments on the bill?

I am not being intellectually dishonest at all and I have no ideological axe to grind here either.

I just refuse to see how this helps anyone in Atlasia one bit, except by giving more jobs to Nyman bureaucrats.

If we want to promote economic incentive and growth, why don't we introduce tax incentives to spur growth of the industries of the 21st century, not by throwing at money at trying to revive the dead industries of the 19th and 20th century.

[Jake]

I oppose this because it makes no sense to spend my tax money to drag an industry back to a city it left because it was unprofitable.  Al, the industry didn't leave for no reason.  It left because it could do business better else where.  No need to spend money to drag it back.

[John Dibble]

I oppose this because it makes no sense to spend my tax money to drag an industry back to a city it left because it was unprofitable.  Al, the industry didn't leave for no reason.  It left because it could do business better else where.  No need to spend money to drag it back.

Indeed. And if you pull the industry back from where it is now, the people from that area end up suffering. The company isn't going to maintain more factories or whatever when it is not cost effective to do so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am not being intellectually dishonest at all and I have no ideological axe to grind here either.

You claimed that this bill "reeks of fascism". You were being intellectually dishonest to claim that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice stock response there. Innacurate and with no substance, but giving you the oppertunity to fit in a nice soundbite for your election campaign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you actually read the bill? Nowhere does it say new industries will not be encouraged to move to distressed cities.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I oppose this because it makes no sense to spend my tax money to drag an industry back to a city it left because it was unprofitable.  Al, the industry didn't leave for no reason.  It left because it could do business better else where.  No need to spend money to drag it back.

Indeed. And if you pull the industry back from where it is now, the people from that area end up suffering. The company isn't going to maintain more factories or whatever when it is not cost effective to do so.

Please read the damned thing before resorting to knee jerk responces. Thank you.

[Jake]

Urban Regeneration Bill

1. Indicators of Distress:

a) Negative population growth from 1970 until the most recent census
b) A poverty rate above the National average
c) An unemployment rate above the National average for at least three of the previous five years

2. Cities meeting the above criteria, are eligable for federal grants and localised tax breaks, the level of which to be determined on a case by case basis by an Urban Regeneration Commision (an independent body administered by the Federal Government)

3. Wherever possible incentives should be given to encourage the return of industries of historic importance to the city in question.

Okay, clause 3.  Incentives, meaning my money, will be given to companies to return to cities they already left.  They doidn't leave for fun Al. Why did they leave.  Because business was unprofitable.

Also, clause 2 opens up major doors for corruption.  "You approve this city, over this one, and I'll treat you nice."

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you actually read the bill? Nowhere does it say new industries will not be encouraged to move to distressed cities.

And nowhere does it say that new industries will be encouraged to move to distressed cities. Only industries of 'historic importance' are mentioned. If the bill doesn't mention new industries, how does it give authority to the beauracracy that will administer it to bring in new industries?

Oh, and I did read the damn thing. If you didn't want people to criticize it, you shouldn't have posted it.

[Gabu]

I'm currently on the fence regarding this one... while I agree that this certainly could be helpful to cities that need something like this, I also agree with SamSpade that I don't really like the idea of leaving the choice to the subjective decision of an independent government body regarding which cities get aid.  If Section 2 had more rigid guidelines that reduced or even eliminated the need for a bureaucratic organization to administer it, I would be much more in favor of it.

No, no, no... ALL cities fitting the requriments in S.1 get aid/incentives. The point of an independent body is to determine the level of aid/incentives given. It's either that, or a centralised quota based system that wouldn't be as effective.

Oh, whoops.  I misundestood what the organization was for.

I still am not convinced that an independent organization would be more effective, though.  As others have noted, wouldn't this leave it open to subjectiveness, which would inevitably lead to the possibility of corruption?  If you can show how the independent organization method of doing it is better than a more rigid, objective method, my mind is certainly changeable here, but at the moment I'm not sure.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the fact that S.3 is more of a guideline than anything else. Also note the use of "wherever possible".
The point of S.3 is to bring back a little bit of confidence and pride to the distressed cities, which will have the effect of helping other businesses (especially smaller shops) to thrive.

Okay, so Section 3 is just a guideline, but I still don't see its purpose.  Why should industries with historical importance be given priority?  Citizens care more about whether or not they have a job, period, not whether or not their job is in an industry with historical importance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I still am not convinced that an independent organization would be more effective, though.  As others have noted, wouldn't this leave it open to subjectiveness, which would inevitably lead to the possibility of corruption? If you can show how the independent organization method of doing it is better than a more rigid, objective method, my mind is certainly changeable here, but at the moment I'm not sure.

As far as corruption goes, you'll get more corruption in a city that's falling apart than a city that isn't.
The commision would basically be a small group of impartial and apolitical civil servants not some juggernaught employing thousands.
The reason why a case by case approach is needed is very simple: different cities have different problems and are more suitable for certain industries than others. If you use a quota method (based on... say population, poverty rate, unemployment rate and % population difference) to determined incentives... it's just not going to work. Now, the commision will probably use quotas for determining grants etc., but I feel that it would be inappropriate for the Senate to micro-manage that kind of thing. Local solutions for local problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not proposing that they should be given priority over everything else, I just think that it's a good idea to try to encourage bringing the industries that helped make the city.
It's a small part of the overall bill and I'll strike it if nessessary (although I'd prefer not to).

[DanielX]

I oppose this because it makes no sense to spend my tax money to drag an industry back to a city it left because it was unprofitable.  Al, the industry didn't leave for no reason.  It left because it could do business better else where.  No need to spend money to drag it back.

I agree with Jake. I urge my Senators (Bono and Siege) not to support this bill.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

bump... can we get a vote on this now?

[Gabu]

bump... can we get a vote on this now?

Unfortunately, this bill is pretty far down the list of bills in the queue.  This hasn't even been given debate time yet, although I'd imagine that you could find enough senators to halt debate, given that tons has been said about it already.