Revisiting parcel limits

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Forum rules
Post Reply
Gareth Kanarik
Lurker
Lurker
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:54 pm

I have a question. I see that the number of parcels was raised to 12 from 8, but was the land total area raised as well, or is it still 8192? I know there was conversation to raise that amount with the number of parcels and wonder if that was also done. Thanks!

User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am
Location: Colonia Nova, SLT +2
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:01 pm

Only the number of parcels was raised. The complete discussion held during the RA meeting can be read at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8185, but in a nutshell, the motion that was made and voted upon did not address land area, so the limit remains 8,192 sq m. Here is the link to the updated general covenant: https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/.

Gareth Kanarik
Lurker
Lurker
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik » Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:32 pm

Thanks Sylvia!

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Locus Amoenus

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone » Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:40 pm

Sylvia Tamalyn wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:01 pm
Only the number of parcels was raised. The complete discussion held during the RA meeting can be read at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8185, but in a nutshell, the motion that was made and voted upon did not address land area, so the limit remains 8,192 sq m. Here is the link to the updated general covenant: https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/.
This is not satisfying IMO. We should either raise the area limit to 8*1024= 12,288 sqm or do away with the area limitation at all. I would like to see that on the agenda of the next meeting.

Gareth Kanarik
Lurker
Lurker
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:13 am

In my particular case, it means that I don't hypothetically have the option of buying another large parcel that is vacant, which might be harder to sell to someone else, but instead, would have to buy two smaller parcels to stay under the limit, taking those, which *might* be more appealing to a new person just finding us, off the market in order to have the prims to play with if I decide I want them. I realize I may be unusual in that regard.

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Locus Amoenus

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone » Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:35 am

Did I write 8 * 1,024 = 12,288 ? I mean 12 * 1,024 of course.

User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am
Location: Colonia Nova, SLT +2
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn » Sun Aug 13, 2017 8:38 am

Tanoujin Milestone wrote:
Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:40 pm
This is not satisfying IMO. We should either raise the area limit to 8*1024= 12,288 sqm or do away with the area limitation at all. I would like to see that on the agenda of the next meeting.
I agree, Tan. I did not want to vote on it at that time, as I felt things were being rushed to a vote without enough discussion. It went to a vote anyway, and since I did not disagree with the basic premise of raising the limit on number of parcels, I voted in favor.

I would also vote in favor of raising the limit on square meters proportionally (or removing it altogether). And once that is done, I think enough will be enough, and the issue of land limits can be put to rest without the need for further complications.

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1467
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am
Location: west-coast Canada and Neufreistadt

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Rosie Gray » Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:24 pm

It would be nice if the entire covenant was reviewed for things like the Hippo references, which are now old, and update them at the same time. You are essentially updating the master covenants when you're voting on these parcel number/ownership issues.
https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/
"The secret to change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new." ~ Socrates

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Locus Amoenus

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone » Mon Aug 14, 2017 11:21 am

Rosie Gray wrote:
Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:24 pm
It would be nice if the entire covenant was reviewed for things like the Hippo references, which are now old, and update them at the same time. You are essentially updating the master covenants when you're voting on these parcel number/ownership issues.
https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/
Yes, good idea. I only find the subheading "Hippo Tier Meter Expiration", which can be changed to "Tier Meter Expiration", because it is not interesting whether it is a Hippo or CasperLet or Whatever Tier Meter, do you agree?

Furthermore let us finally change the sentence "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels, totalling 8192 m2." to
"An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels". I see no reason to keep the area limitation, we have grown a bit since this regulation was made and I believe personal land usage can grow as well without further restrictions necessary.

Any other changes you consider useful?

User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am
Location: Colonia Nova, SLT +2
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn » Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:43 pm

Very sensible, Tan. I think I saw two references to "Hippo", but like you, thought "why do we not just remove that word?" since there is no need to specify what brand of tier box is currently in use. Then in the future if we change to another brand, there will be no need to update the covenant again!

The only other thing that could be updated, in my opinion, is to remove the reference to how many months of tier can be paid at once. We know what's currently shown there is not accurate, as we have recently seen payments made up to one year in advance. I see no sense in specifying a limit when the tier box allows more to be paid.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest