[ABANDONED] Dark Sky Preserve Creation Act

[Boston Castle]

any costs incurred by the land owner or member government for the site, such as markers for educational purposes and conservation measures for flora and fauna

'Any costs' are not the same thing as the example descriptors. Examples of that sort are not generally viewed as exclusive. Under RNT, a nation seeking free things also would not interpret them to be exclusive, and it would be likely that such a view would win out in the end.

So what would you prefer then? Something like "all"?

[I agree with Uan aa Boa's point about there needing to be incentives-I think this is the best possible idea for them unless you have some other incentive scheme idea. So I'm curious what language you would prefer.]

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd prefer an enumerated set of things which the committee could throw money at.

[Boston Castle]

I'd prefer an enumerated set of things which the committee could throw money at.

It's not a large list, the IDSP's guidelines don't require much, but they do cover the main things that the IDSP mentions in terms of funding: educational "things" (they refer to events, I think that's silly in this context) and lighting upgrades. Also added some partial scientific research reimbursement due to even mentioning the conservation thing.

[Bananaistan]

This still doesn't do anything. A government or landowner can get a site designated as a preserve if it meets certain conditions. Then it gets put on a list of such sites. There's a conservation plan for the site. Later, it can be removed from that list if the government or landowner wants.

There should be some incentive for creating a preserve. Perhaps funding or some kind of professional support for conservation measures or for education or astronomy?

Also, I assume you mean to allow ASTRO to remove a site's designation if the landowner decides to pave it over and cover it in floodlighting, but you haven't actually said that.

"It does at least one thing (even if it's a bit pointless) - it gets the WA's cheque book out to pay for signs.

"Opposed. The Pit Fund is not a bottomless general!"

[Boston Castle]

[hits something]
bump

I'd be more than happy to include a funding mechanism for it, but not sure that wouldn't fall afoul of certain other resolutions.

[Wallenburg]

This proposal is entirely optional and consists entirely of committee. I'm sure you are aware proposals are meant to have some effect on member states outside of paperwork, in this case elective paperwork.

As far as the policies of these preserves go, why on earth are custodians and site staff for these preserves tasked with becoming park rangers as well? That is entirely out of step with the subject of this proposal. In fact, while you've listed this as an Environmental proposal, this clause is the only one that has anything remotely to do with the environment. The rest is some vague mish-mash of a scientific mission and property maintenance. I'm not sure this fits in any category.

[Bananaistan]

[hits something]
bump

I'd be more than happy to include a funding mechanism for it, but not sure that wouldn't fall afoul of certain other resolutions.

"The better the idea would be to not have any WA funds whatsoever going to put up signs in some crank's back garden."

[Boston Castle]

Going to put this on hold for now. Just need to think through some things and not exactly sure when it will all work out in my head. So....on hold for now. Might probably/will maybe revisit this at some point in the future.

[Boston Castle]

So update on this. I might be working with a c-worker to address the issue of light pollution more directly, but we can consider this a wrap.