Federal Land Within the Southeast Bill

[Colin]

I would like to propose two amendments.

Section two will be changed to:

2. All land currently owned by the federal government that is located within the Southeast Region of Atlasia shall have its ownership transferred to the Southeast Regional Government upon the passage of this bill, with the exception of land owned by the federal government that is used for military purposes, and land currently used by official agencies of the Atlasian federal government.

A section three will be added:

3. The Senate may, at any time, transfer control of these said federal lands from the regional government of the Southeast to the Atlasian federal government through a majority vote of the Senate with consent from the region.

[Colin]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. Why should the federal government just give over this land to the regions? I think it would be unfair to the federal government not to be monetarily compensated for any land taken back by regional authorities.

I proposed my amendments in order to try and soften this bill because in its current form it calls for a complete grab of all current federal property in the Southeast except military bases. We get no actual list of federal lands to be turned over to the Southeast from either Bono or Ebowed and neither do we have any sort of understanding of what constitutes a military installation.

Conceivably in its current state the Southeast could completely take over the operation of everything from Cape Canaveral to the Smoky Mountains National Park with no prior approval or notice of the federal government except in the form of this vague bill.

Another issue is whether this would stretched to offshore reserves as well. Would the intercostal waterway be effected? Would maintainance of the intercostal waterway then fall to regional authorities in the Southeast due to its being given back to the Southeast?

What this bill needs are three things:

1.) An exact list of all federal lands in the Southeast affected by this bill which must also be approved by the governor of the Southeast.
2.) Some monetary amount to be paid for all the lands that are to be sold back to the Southeast.
3.) A specific means of returning the land to regional authority and a clause stating the right of the federal government to resume control of these lands at any time.

Barring these proivisions this bill is essentially too vague or broad to be effectively applied and must be voted down.

[Colin]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

Can any of the supporters of this please explain why we were not told this as soon as the bill came to the floor? Thanks.

Well, if you want me to be completely candid...

I thought it was self-evident from the wording of the bill and it was only being asked to stir a hornet's nest; that's why I didn't answer them until I began to realize that some of the people asking that were sincere.

There was no dishonesty associated with the bill at all.  Hilariously enough this resolution passed without controversy in the Southeast, and only when a Senator or two takes action on it does everyone go crazy and the Progressive Conservative Party Action Alerts come out of the woodwork.  Naturally the typicals are all good and pissed off at the right people, and should the President sign this they would find it worthy of impeachment.  I didn't see any of these people complaining like this when the resolution was up for a vote in the Southeast.

I personally can't believe that people would be calling for impeaching the President over this issue. That seems very low and completely uncalled for. A President should only be impeached if he has been involved in so-called high crimes and misdemeanors of which signing a bill like this is neither.

[Colin]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. Why should the federal government just give over this land to the regions? I think it would be unfair to the federal government not to be monetarily compensated for any land taken back by regional authorities.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

Then why, pray tell, would the regions want this land anyway? What's in it for them except being able to control hunting rights in the Smokey Mountains or maintaining a few battlefields? What's wrong with the status quo?

[Colin]

The amendment was proposed before certain facts came to light... I'd like to know if Colin still wants a vote on it before we vote on it.

Bah, all this is confusing as hell...

No I don't want them brought up to a vote. Much more pressing amendments are needed concerning which lands will be turned over and to set monetary compensation for the federal government.