NE1: Northeast City Parks Grant Act 2015 (failed)

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Clyde1998
Mr. Representative, you have 36 hours to advocate for your bill.

[Clyde1998]

Basically this scheme enables cities to apply for funding from the Northeast to develop a city park.

I have decided to make it an application based process - to prevent having hundreds of cities applying at the same time for funding and our budget being stretched to breaking point.

For simplicity, I have put that the Governor should choose three cities that should receive funding in each term to avoid the Assembly having an exhaustive debate about which cities should receive the funding, wasting time that could be spent on more important matters.

Annually, this will lead to costs of around $450m - increasing with inflation. I am open to a reduction in the overall grant, should we feel that it wouldn't be cost effective to have $50m for each city.

[Blair]

$450 is outside what I'd be comfortable paying for public parks

[Clyde1998]

$450 is outside what I'd be comfortable paying for public parks

What sort of limit would you have?

[Blair]

$450 is outside what I'd be comfortable paying for public parks

What sort of limit would you have?

I'm not sure, we've got a new national park on the way in Maine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214534.0

The Senate bill only set out 300 millon per year for the creation of 10 national parks, so I think we're probably spending a bit too much. If we could get some sort of public-private scheme set up, that would be more preferable as long as they're still free

[Clyde1998]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've made an amendment based on the Federal figure of $300m for 10 parks ($30m per park). This equates to $270m for the year.

[DemPGH]

Just a RL observation:

A lot of northeastern towns closer to the rustbelt have issues with old, vacant, and dilapidated buildings as a result of the steel and plant and manufacturing industry drying up. Some of those buildings are absolute hazards; there are a few towns I know of dealing with what to do with them and how much it will cost - because they are strapped for money and this old, crumbling building just sits there in the middle of town. Parks (and even trails) are a good idea to develop, but also general renovation, which I don't think would take huge sums of money (because of very low market value). Or even provide incentives and assistance to local businesses who might want to renovate or develop crumbling areas. I could really support that, and would offer an amendment if anyone is interested.

[pikachu]

I generally think more parks are a good thing, as long as the government does a good job scrutinizing them and making sure they're useful. Just to use an irl example: the Queensway in New York City is something where an alternative use (reopening its right-of-way) might be more beneficial to the community than the park.

Just a RL observation:

A lot of northeastern towns closer to the rustbelt have issues with old, vacant, and dilapidated buildings as a result of the steel and plant and manufacturing industry drying up. Some of those buildings are absolute hazards; there are a few towns I know of dealing with what to do with them and how much it will cost - because they are strapped for money and this old, crumbling building just sits there in the middle of town. Parks (and even trails) are a good idea to develop, but also general renovation, which I don't think would take huge sums of money (because of very low market value). Or even provide incentives and assistance to local businesses who might want to renovate or develop crumbling areas. I could really support that, and would offer an amendment if anyone is interested.

This is also important to remember. Parks tend to work better a complement to helping a rundown neighborhood become revitalized and shouldn't be viewed as thesolution. I strongly urge the Assembly to adopt whatever amendment PGH puts up, as that could go a long way in helping with urban redevelopment.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

Representatives have 48 hours to vote

Aye.

[Clyde1998]

Aye

[Clark Kent]

Nay

It's not a terrible idea in theory, but that's a lot of money we could be using on other things.

[DemPGH]

Changing to No.

I misread earlier, and I think there's more to do here.

[Former Lincoln Assemblyman & Lt. Gov. RGN]

The bill has failed 2-2 with Rep. Evergreen not voting