S15: Revenue Enhancement Study Act (Statute)

[IceAgeComing]

A letter sent to all delegates

Dear Delegate,

I would like to thank you for all of your work in representing the South.  However, I was significant concerns with the "Revenue Enhancement Study Act" which has received very little debate, and is currently being rushed along to a vote with very little thought.

Large amounts of this legislation is perfectly fair: its "studying" and "investigating" methods to increase regional revenues without raising taxation which is fair enough.  However several things have to be considered - who is carrying out this study is not mentioned: how much funding will be provided to carry out the study is not mentioned (which would be needed if its a new agency doing the work); at what time the study is expected to report is not mentioned and neither is who makes the decision on acting on the study itself - is it the Chamber of Delegates?  Or the Governor?  Without these assurances there's a risk that this study could either last an incredibly long time and waste a significant amount of regional money, or that the study could be incredibly poor quality due to a lack of resources.

Personally; I have no objection to an increase in the amount of advertising on road side - provided that it is found to not be a distraction to drivers naturally - or indeed the consideration of a regional lottery provided that funding goes to good causes and other charity work, rather than augmenting the regional treasury and meaning that the funding sources for important government services is weakened significantly.  However the other measures contained in this legislation are incredibly concerning.

Firstly, let me deal with the obvious solution.  Why are we appropriating such an insultingly low amount of money for an incredibly key cause.  I see that Delegate Reactionary has mentioned the good work that this organisation does in taking in animals, in recent times especially those displaced by the recent disasters; however does that not mean that we should appropriate a sum that could significantly benefit them?  I would suggest that the person that suggested such a sum does not know the significant amounts of money that are required to run a wildlife centre; and that $800 would be barely enough to cover a few days worth of staffing and maintenance costs.  After all we have a large regional surplus, its not like we couldn't afford to spend more money!

But the main issue is with the other two options; namely the consideration of taking in rubbish from other parts of the country and also uranium mining.  My primary concerns with both can be summed up with one aspect: the report is tasked only to consider the economic benefits to the region of such schemes, and not to investigate the environmental impacts that such operations are bound to cause.  Those environmental impacts are likely to be significant in nature; especially if we start the large-scale uranium mining that the report seems to suggest.  I would personally wish to change the legislation to broaden the nature of any report: to include both wider economic affects on both the local communities near the sites as well as to the regional as a whole: alongst with consideration of the environmental benefits.  My second concern is also linked: shouldn't we also be consulting local residents before deciding to big up the land near them or dump rubbish on their doorsteps?  After all, they will be the people that would benefit most from any perceived economic benefits and hurt most from any environmental impact that these schemes have; so before we consider whether or not to proceed with these schemes, we ought to also consult local residents in the affected areas.

I hope that you read this letter and take my concerns into account when you decide how to vote on this legislation.

Regards,

Isaac Cummings
Senior Reporter and Chief Political Analyst, Nyman Questioner

(OOC: Do you really need a bill to ask the GMs to tell you how much something costs: couldn't you just ask them and wait for a reply?)