MA: Fluoridation of Water Act (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 08:33:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MA: Fluoridation of Water Act (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: MA: Fluoridation of Water Act (Passed)  (Read 1310 times)
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2014, 11:57:21 AM »

Good idea. Amendment to be introduced:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2014, 01:49:35 AM »

Uniform standards is a good reason to support the bill.  We may want to include annual inspections just to be sure.

If we're talking about uniform standards, why limit it to cities with populations above 150,000?  From my calculations, that accounts for 17.6% of the region's population.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2014, 01:50:46 AM »

And here are the cities (data is from 2005, but I didn't see any other cities that should've made the list now in 2014).  Do we even know if any of these cities don't fluoridate?

DC   Washington   550,521
IL   Aurora   168,181
IL   Chicago   2,842,518
IL   Rockford   152,916
IN   Fort Wayne   223,341
IN   Indianapolis   784,118
KY   Lexington-Fayette   268,080
KY   Louisville-Jefferson County   556,429
MD   Baltimore   635,815
MI   Detroit   886,671
MI   Grand Rapids   193,780
MO   Kansas City   444,965
MO   Springfield   150,298
MO   St. Louis   344,362
OH   Akron   210,795
OH   Cincinnati   308,728
OH   Cleveland   452,208
OH   Columbus   730,657
OH   Dayton   158,873
OH   Toledo   301,285
VA   Arlington CDP   195,965
VA   Chesapeake   218,968
VA   Newport News   179,899
VA   Norfolk   231,954
VA   Richmond   193,777
VA   Virginia Beach   438,415
WI   Madison   221,551
WI   Milwaukee   578,887
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2014, 09:27:15 AM »

Uniform standards is a good reason to support the bill.  We may want to include annual inspections just to be sure.

If we're talking about uniform standards, why limit it to cities with populations above 150,000?  From my calculations, that accounts for 17.6% of the region's population.

Funding considerations but now that we've established that the cities will fund the facilities I can amend the bill again as follows;
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we need to take a vote on this amendment?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2014, 02:19:53 PM »

No, it's your bill, so the amendment is accepted as friendly.  But I don't think I'll be supporting this if we don't require the cities to pay for the fluoride; I see no reason to have the region pay for the chemical.

I suggest this amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2014, 03:47:19 PM »

No, it's your bill, so the amendment is accepted as friendly.  But I don't think I'll be supporting this if we don't require the cities to pay for the fluoride; I see no reason to have the region pay for the chemical.

I suggest this amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment is accepted as friendly.
Of course, we can make cities pay for the fluoride. The inspections now introduced will make sure they do the right thing anyway. Let the Game Mod know.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2014, 11:17:23 AM »

May I request that we take a final vote on this?
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2014, 06:06:03 PM »

We don't have a cost estimate yet.  We can take it to a final vote without one if you'd like, but in that case, I'll be voting against it, as we have no clue if we could even afford this.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2014, 12:51:20 PM »

We don't have a cost estimate yet.  We can take it to a final vote without one if you'd like, but in that case, I'll be voting against it, as we have no clue if we could even afford this.

If we've heard nothing back from the Game Mod by next Friday/Saturday, we'll take this to a final vote. I'd like to get this done while Zuwo is still Governor.

Regarding the cost of the inspections, I can tell you that they will be very minimal. The main cost of inspections will probably be taking water samples to labs for analysis. This will really have minimal impact on our budget. I thus encourage you to please support this bill.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,691
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2014, 01:21:01 PM »

If you are going to do this, you might want to put in a target range instead of just 0.7 mg.  Keep in mind some localities either do not add or actually remove fluoride from their water because it already exists in their waters source in significant quantities.

At the same time, I hope the assembly does not mandate this.  Localities can decide for themselves if they want to fluoridate their water.  If places that want to need funds to do it, that's someplace the region could step in, but since water treatment is a local responsibility it should be decided at the level closest to the people affected.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2014, 03:27:36 PM »

We don't have a cost estimate yet.  We can take it to a final vote without one if you'd like, but in that case, I'll be voting against it, as we have no clue if we could even afford this.

If we've heard nothing back from the Game Mod by next Friday/Saturday, we'll take this to a final vote. I'd like to get this done while Zuwo is still Governor.

Regarding the cost of the inspections, I can tell you that they will be very minimal. The main cost of inspections will probably be taking water samples to labs for analysis. This will really have minimal impact on our budget. I thus encourage you to please support this bill.

Well taking a vote that late doesn't guarantee that he'll have signed it or vetoed it during his term.  In order to do that, we'd have to start the vote Wednesday morning (or Tuesday night would be easier).
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2014, 12:27:47 PM »

I have now heard back from the Game Mod that this program will cost the region only $8.7 million per year. The cities will pay for the remaining cost of the program.
I ask the Speaker to please start the vote.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2014, 12:47:13 PM »

The GM has returned analysis on the bill.  I just have one quick housekeeping amendment.  Clause 5 should be removed, as it is unnecessary and if filled in with a number, would cap how much could be spent on enforcement.  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 14, 2014, 12:50:56 PM »

The GM has returned analysis on the bill.  I just have one quick housekeeping amendment.  Clause 5 should be removed, as it is unnecessary and if filled in with a number, would cap how much could be spent on enforcement.  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine by me.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 14, 2014, 12:56:38 PM »

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2014, 12:57:58 PM »

We will now take this to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Hifly
hifly15
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,937


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2014, 01:00:59 PM »

We will now take this to a final vote.  Members will vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.  This will be a 48-hour vote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

AYE
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2014, 04:58:39 PM »

Aye
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 14, 2014, 05:17:06 PM »

AYE
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,011
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 15, 2014, 03:10:35 PM »

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0, with 1 not voting.  The AYEs have it, and the bill has passed.  The bill is now passed onto the Governor for his signature or veto.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.