NationStates

Trouble in Deed

Validity: Must have market economy.

Description
During a photo op in a fairly upscale neighborhood of @@CAPITAL@@, you notice a surprising number of abandoned houses dotting nearly every street. According to the painfully grinning woman whose baby you're kissing, the properties are still owned by Bigtopians who emigrated back to their home country over fifty years ago.

Option 1
"Those decrepit buildings are really a blight on the place, m'kay?" asks the ever-smiling woman, who happens to be a City Councilor, wrestling your Minister of Public Relations over the baby. "It's not just here, either. My colleagues tell me that cities across @@NAME@@ are dealing with this plague, and it's getting in the way of my new megamall, m'kay? Local governments need broad authority to step in and seize land that isn't being used, to be either put up for auction or directly built on, m'kay? I'd like my baby back now, m'kay?"

Effect: long bank appointments are a great way to lose your house

Option 2
"You can't do that!" screeches your rarely-seen Minister of Sanity, crawling out of the woodwork of a nearby house. "Imagine what would happen if we let some mayor seize property just because it isn't being used, especially if that property is owned by foreigners! Do you want an international incident on our hands?! The government needs to do things by the book, and not stir up any trouble. How about you personally call up every foreigner that owns unused property here, and ask if they'd be willing to sell?"

Effect: the government's calls to citizens on vacation are often mistaken for telephone scams

Option 3a
Validity: Must have cars

"What happens in @@NAME@@ stays in @@NAME@@!" declares vagrant @@RANDOMNAME@@, loading some expensive-looking furniture into the back of an unmarked van. "As far as anyone's concerned, the people owning these properties have ceased to exist. Us simple folk could really use them houses for living, social gatherings, and steali- borrowing anything not nailed down. If the owners come back, you can just give the land back to them. What've you got to lose?"

Effect: citizens return home to find strange men sleeping in their beds

Option 3b
Validity: Cannot have cars.

"What happens in @@NAME@@ stays in @@NAME@@!" declares vagrant @@RANDOMNAME@@, shoving some expensive-looking jewelry down his pocket. "As far as anyone's concerned, the people owning these properties have ceased to exist. Us simple folk could really use them houses for living, social gatherings, and steali- borrowing anything not nailed down. If the owners come back, you can just give the land back to them. What've you got to lose?"

Effect: citizens return home to find strange men sleeping in their beds

Honeydewistania wrote:I don't really see an incentive to choose option 4 though. The government loses out, but you become friendlier with Bigtopia, which is what option 2 does anyway.

Cretox State wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:I don't really see an incentive to choose option 4 though. The government loses out, but you become friendlier with Bigtopia, which is what option 2 does anyway.

The difference I was going for is that option 2 leads to negotiations with Bigtopians over buying the houses, while option 4 leads to the government taking responsibility for maintaining all residential properties, abandoned or not (and not getting the land at all).

Honeydewistania wrote:Still, no one would choose option 4, its wasting money

• Increase corruption
• Increase government size
• Increase taxation
• Increase tourism
• Increase niceness
• Increase inclusiveness
• Decrease crime

Cretox State wrote:

Honeydewistania wrote:Still, no one would choose option 4, its wasting money

It's not wasting money, it's creatively spending to:

• Increase corruption
• Increase government size
• Increase taxation
• Increase tourism
• Increase niceness
• Increase inclusiveness
• Decrease crime

In all seriousness though, I'll remove option 4 if for no other reason than to slim the issue down. You make a good point; it is quite similar to option 2.

Australian rePublic wrote:In some countries, squatters legally own the land they squat on, under certain circumstances

Option 3 wrote:"What happens in @@NAME@@ stays in @@NAME!"

Pythaga wrote:

Option 3 wrote:"What happens in @@NAME@@ stays in @@NAME!"

You're missing the closing @@ on the second macro.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I would also macro-ize the speaker of option 3 - "doing @@HIS@@ business", rather than "doing his business".

Cretox State wrote:"You can't do that!" screeches your rarely-seen Minister of Sanity, crawling out of the woodwork of a nearby house.

Cretox State wrote:doing @@HIS@@ business in the front yard of one of the houses, then covering the evidence with some leaves.

Drasnia wrote:Is there any way to condense Option 1 a bit? It seems a bit too long for my taste.

Cretox State wrote:"You can't do that!" screeches your rarely-seen Minister of Sanity, crawling out of the woodwork of a nearby house.

I think in your bid to make it more funny, you've gone a bit overboard in this spot. It feels out of place to have such a wacky speaker 2 compared to both 1 and 3.

Cretox State wrote:doing @@HIS@@ business in the front yard of one of the houses, then covering the evidence with some leaves.

This might stray a bit too far as well. Describe it a bit more tastefully.

Pretty solid issue.

Candensia wrote:I think it's pretty solid.

Add some quotation marks back to end of option 1. I think they wandered off.

Cretox State wrote:

Candensia wrote:I think it's pretty solid.

Add some quotation marks back to end of option 1. I think they wandered off.

The question is where they wandered off to.

Fauxia wrote:

Cretox State wrote:The question is where they wandered off to.

Bigtopia, according to the issue.

Fauxia wrote:I feel like some leaders may not embrace the kissing babies stereotype so easily. But I’m nitpicking, the issue looks good to me.