Addition to CoL - National Park Rules.

[Eklektikos]

Proposed New Section:
Section J: National Park Rules

Parkland may not be terraformed. Exception: jungle tiles in the radius of a city may be cut down to prevent disease.

Roads may be constructed. Railroads may be constructed only directly between cities.

Cities that have park land in their radius may not construct new pollution causing improvements (factory, coal plant, nuclear plant, manufacturing plant, research laboratory, airport, Iron Works).

Pollution on park land will be cleared in preference to all other worker tasks.

A majority of citizen approval is required to override standing park rules.

Any citizen may propose a new park or change in territory for an existing park. Approval requires the support of the governor(s) whos province is involved and a majority of citizen approval.


Poll Particulars:
This poll will remain active for 48 hours or until a quorum of voters have responded, whichever comes last.
This topic was discussed in this thread.

 

[Cyc]

Is that Jimmy Stewart? Very cool.

 

[Eklektikos]

Yup, from Mr Smith Goes To Washington. Thought it fit my current job description quite well

 

[Eklektikos]

Back on topic... I voted against this proposal, since I believe that National Parks would be a pointless waste of resources that could be used to advance our nation.

 

[disorganizer]

I voted pro the proposal. It will add a special flavor to the game, and since all governors around the parks have to say yes, this is not overrunning their decission. We can really afford these parks. We dont need those few extra production points.

 

[Danke]

I am voting yes, despite the potential limits this may place on future development of Elephantine County.

I think this is exactly the type of counter-productive, anti-progress, pro-doe-eyed-critter endeavour that rich, self-absorbed countries *ought* to indulge in!

We're rich! We're powerful! And by god, let's protect some doe-eyed critters!

 

[Cyc]

Exactly, the NPS should only be implemented when the game is near the end and a win is assured. We don't necessarily have to be rich and powerful, just smart winners with a lot of real estate.

 

[disorganizer]

we need 13 more votes in here.... we wont pass the quorum rule :-((
im disappointed

 

[Justus II]

Would the spotted owl considered a luxury resource then?
I vote no, if we want fresh parkland lets just conquer another of our neighbors and use THEIR land! Of course, the AI usually overdevelops all their land anyway. Besides, who says parks have to be forested? Parking lots have their own kind of beauty, the smooth texture, the parallel yellow lines, the ocassional grease spot that shimmers with colors when wet.
I love the smell of asphalt in the summer, it smells like . . . progress!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
we need 13 more votes in here.... we wont pass the quorum rule :-((
im disappointed

Hmmm...

This brings up an interesting question. Would this measure need the quorum from Term 4 or the quorum from Term 5...

 

[Shaitan]

It needs to meet the current Quorum.

 

[Octavian X]

Isn't that 26?

 

[disorganizer]

Can be. I used the old quorum.
I already asked the question in the judical thread of term 5.
Imho, the quorum would have had to be stated in the 1st post. Otherwise, ppl will maybe not vote instead of vote abstain.
If done so, the quorum of the poll-creation must be used (no changing poll-rules during a poll-lifetime)

 

[Shaitan]

We've always used a "valid on passage" system. That is, as soon as a rule or condition is validated, it is in effect for all applicable purposes. I know that the higher quorum in Term 5 will make it more difficult for this poll to reach the magic number but there is no precedent for grandfathering it to use the old quorum level.

 

[disorganizer]

So we will still need another 7 votes... :-(
Did someone check wheter all votes in the election were valid? If we have the same non-citizen rate apo has then the quorum would be much lower.

 

[disorganizer]

btw:
shaitan:
even if 7 more ppl would vote no now, the poll would pass. wouldnt this also be a valid poll in some way?

 

[Shaitan]

Unfortunately not, dis. A 2/3 majority is required to pass a law. 4 more NO votes would guarantee this measure's defeat when it reaches quorum. Regardless, a poll is not valid unless it can get enough support to meet the quorum level.

 

[Civanator]

People vote! we need to save our land from pollutants. BTW, Eklektikos, I was gonna post this but you beat me to it

 

[disorganizer]

ONLY 2 MORE YES NEEDED! PLEASE!

 

[Shaitan]

1 more "YES" and 2 more of anything are needed (3 total).