Revisiting parcel limits

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Bagheera »

This is the first I had heard that the concern for parcel ownership limits was because someone might leave all at once and put the CDS in peril. I don't think that is the primary concern. If you go through the history of these forums, you'll see a lot of discussion about the following as the primary concern: Land hordeing as a method of controlling access to citizenship.

This can happen at least two ways.

First, during CDS boomtimes, when parcels are scarce, by persons snapping up parcels and only making them available to whoever they select.

Also, CDS has quite a number of small (NOT prim parcels) such as the fachwerk in NFS, these makes becoming a CDS citizen entry-level accessible. I believe the limit on quantity of parcels, not just size, is deliberate - specifically to prevent one person from snatching up 20-30 entry-level parcels.

When I created lots for the Locus Amoenus re-do, I deliberately made 3 very large parcels available, believing that there might be a demand for them. They tend to be vacant more often than not, although part of the reason might be they are residential only.

I think, before we change quantity and size of parcel ownership allowance, we might have more success if we allow light commercial on what are now residential-only parcels.

A separate issue is that we have full sims/ double prim sims & homestead sims. If sweeping changes are made without considering these differences, we could have some untidy consequences.

My opinion, fwiw.

Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sudane Erato »

Whew! There are many sides to this issue!

Above all, I agree with Tan that we MUST keep the solution here simple. This is a policy which may come to impact many people, and any confusion about it will cause strife. For example, even the seemingly simple distinction between "normal" parcels and "prim" parcels confuses many... as evidence the ownership of the prim parcels in CN.

So... my opinions here.

1) I do not believe that worry about someone owning too many parcels because they might leave and cause a cataclysm in our budget is a valid worry. In a real life business, yes, but even real life businesses go this route when needed, and manage to recover when changes happen. But we are a "non-profit" with a basic bottom line of monthly tier payable to Linden Lab. The dynamics are different.

2) I do agree with Bags that the danger exists that too much ownership in one person risks control of the voting rolls. But this is complicated. That person controls the voting rolls only in two ways... a) by restricting the purchase of parcels to new residents who may vote against them, and b) by divesting those parcels to persons who will vote for them. While its a real threat, as we have actually observed, Concern A is met by the requirement that citizens be forced to divest if the fraction of available land falls too low, and Concern B both lowers their ownership and is a process in which we rightfully have no say in whatsoever. Anyone should be free to give their parcel to someone else.

3) I do not agree with the idea of raising the ownership to 10 parcels from the current 8, but then doing nothing to force divestiture if parcel availability becomes too low. That helps the current yellow parcel financial malaise very little, and does not address the problem of freeing up parcels if our availability becomes too low.

4) I no not agree with the idea that we solve the yellow parcel problem now, and wait until things swing around to solve the low parcel availability problem. That is putting on blinders. Now is the time to solve the low parcel availability problem, when we do not have one! And feelings about the issue will be cooler and more rational, and the resulting rules ultimately fairer.

5) I think the core of the solution should be the following points:
A) Remove limits on ownership of parcels, subject to thoughtfully designed reimposition of limits as availability drops.
B) Do not distinguish between normal parcels and prim parcels. That is a separate topic with totally different concerns.
C) Do not include distinctions between size parcels or town/country parcels. That too is a totally separate concern, which indeed can include ownership limitations... it should!
D) Define an appropriate threshold for parcel availability. Below this, owners who have more that a defined number of parcels, such as the 8 now, or even fewer if needed, shall be required to surrender the parcels of their choice back to the community until the threshold is restored. How many each large owner must restore can be a mathematical formula, proportional to their ownership.

The burdens of this solution are only the need to keep track of individual ownership records, and keep track of the percentage of available parcels. And devise that mathematical formula. The benefits are that there will always be land available, and that the citizens of the CDS are free to support the community financially to the maximum of their ability.

Sudane................................

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Thanks for your post, Sudane. I pondered over it for a while. While trying to find a formula, I was astonished to observe that we would be sold out if everyone had about 2-3 parcels. But apparently 34 of 71 „tenants“ are happy to own just one parcel. 16 have two parcels. I admit I did not distinguish between possessions of Alts and Citizens. Anyway, that is already 50 tenants.
Then we have 17 individuals who own between 2 and 6 parcels, then a gap, followed by 3 potential „whales“ with 8 or more parcels who might want to own even more.

Next I tried to analyze two extreme scenarios: if we had flexible ownership limits, what policy would we choose at a very low occupancy, and what would we do if parcels become scarce?

If we had 100% occupancy we could cram 197 citizens into our estate. To be able to sell the 29 prim parcels we would allow them ownership of 2 parcels. Given everyone would max out their properties, it would still be 113 citizens. We would have a private land market. Something between 113 and 197 citizens.
But the problem is, it would not make such a big difference to take parcels away from their owners, and it would cause a lot of irritation. We surely would rather set up another region instead of infringing the well-kept property of our citizens.

The other way round, if we had a very low occupancy, say around 10%, we would be forced to give up some regions to consolidate. Again, if we would try to control occupancy via ownership limits, it would not have much impact, because only a minority wants more than 8 parcels, or even more than 2. Maybe we would find about 2 persons who are able to hold a whole region, but that is just speculation.

As far as I understood, you are asking for a mathematical function with „occupancy“ on the x-axis and „ownership limits“ on the y-axis. I am not able to find a definition for the extreme points, it is all just arbitrariness.

So, I humbly ask for a more detailed suggestion regarding flexible ownership rules. I am not able to find a mathematical model that fits to that problem.

P.S. I would use a linear function, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_fu ... (calculus)
But I need two points of it defined. For Example I would be okay to set a limit of 8 parcels at the 100% occupancy point. But I do not have any idea of the second...

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
Gareth Kanarik
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik »

I'll add my voice to this conversation, just for perspective.

I'm the new guy, and I own eight parcels, two of which are prim parcels, so I assume I'm one of the "whales".

For me, this is a case of finding a place I really like, after playing a long time, and wanting to make it my SL home, I gave up my other SL home to set up the house in LA I have by the bridge, my last place was one I had for over five years. Despite the multiple parcel ownership here, I still had to significantly cut down the number of prims I'm accustomed to using, which I was willing to do. Ownership of eight parcels (which is still not anwhere near the 8192 sq m limit) is still much less land than I'm accustomed to owning elsewhere, in fact, because of the limitation, I rented some estate land elsewhere yesterday to consolidate some of my other properties from the mainland. I'd rather be offering that tier money to this group, if it would be helpful, but at the same time, I understand and value the rule about too much ownership and the influences it might offer. It becomes a conundrum and I admire the debate going an about it, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to sort it out.

I still need to move my building skybox, and will probably give up one of my prim parcels, or both, to be able to buy a parcel here to do that so I can move it here, which means I can fit under the current rule with no problem. But, like others, I look at all the yellow spaces on the maps and wonder if it wouldn't be easier to rent available spaces to others if there was less available, supply and demand is a funny thing, from lots of time selling land in SL early on, I remember that land was always more desirable if there was less of it to choose from.

I love being here, thanks to everyone for the welcome!

Last edited by Gareth Kanarik on Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Glad to have you, Gareth. Welcome!

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

Calculus makes my brain explode, so I'm going to sit back and watch the debate as long as it's focused on formulas, since I've already thrown in my opinion that I like the KISS concept. I'll confess to being one of the "whales" (can we come up with a more flattering term, please? lol) so have some interest in what develops, but I have no intention (or resources) to add more than a minimal amount to what I already have.

Welcome to CDS, Gareth! I'm glad you are here contributing to this thread, fellow whale! :lol:

User avatar
Han Held
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Han Held »

Gareth Kanarik wrote: Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:51 am

I'll add my voice to this conversation, just for perspective.

I'm the new guy, and I own eight parcels, two of which are prim parcels, so I assume I'm one of the "whales".

For me, this is a case of finding a place I really like, after playing a long time, and wanting to make it my SL *home*, I gave up my other SL "home" to set up the house in LA I have by the bridge, my last place was one I had for over five years, despite the multiple ownership, I still had to significantly cut down the number of prims I'm accustomed to using, which i was willing to do. Ownership of eight parcels (which is still not anwhere near the 8192 sq m limit) is still much less land than I'm accustomed to owning elsewhere, in fact, because of the limitation, I rented some estate land elsewhere yesterday to consolidate some of my other properties. I'd rather be offering that tier money to this group, if it would be helpful, but at the same time, I understand and value the rule about too much ownership and the influences it might offer. It becomes a conundrum and I admire the debate going an about it.

I still need to move my building skybox, and will probably give up one of my prim parcels to be able to buy a parcel to do that so I can move it here, which means I can fit under the current rule with no problem. But, like others, I look at all the yellow spaces on the maps and wonder if it wouldn't be easier to rent available spaces to others if there was less available, supply and demand is a funny thing, from lots of time selling land in SL early on, I remember that land was always more desirable if there was less of it to choose from.

I love being here, thanks to everyone for the welcome!

Welcome to the CDS -you do awesome landscaping and it was great to meet you inworld and hopefully we can visit more too.

You don't have to worry -you're not a "whale". I might be mistaken but I think there are others who have more land than you have. A couple in particular.

I think the Whale thing is a hypothetical and I agree with Sudane's dismissal of it as something we need to worry about.

In my mind the biggest problem is the one you've stumbled across ...being new, wanting to get land and not being able to because of red tape. That makes sense when land is at a premium -but not when we're drowning in yellow.

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
User avatar
Han Held
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Han Held »

Sylvia Tamalyn wrote: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:14 pm

. I'll confess to being one of the "whales" (can we come up with a more flattering term, please? lol)

I'd like to throw out the entire concept, myself. 8)

In many, many ways the CDS has reached thirteen years of age (wtf? does that mean it's going to start smoking behind the shed, listening to loud music and skipping school?) because of the patronage of large landowners keeping us afloat. (that, and our reserves from the early days).

That's probably the largest contributer to our longevity and the primary reason we're here and Al-Andus, PN, etc are not.

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
User avatar
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Bagheera »

Gareth Kanarik wrote: Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:51 am

...I'm the new guy, and I own eight parcels, two of which are prim parcels, so I assume I'm one of the "whales"...
... I gave up my other SL "home" to set up the house in LA I have by the bridge...Ownership of eight parcels (which is still not anwhere near the 8192 sq m limit) is still much less land than I'm accustomed to owning elsewhere...I still need to move my building skybox, and will probably give up one of my prim parcels to be able to buy a parcel to do that so I can move it here, which means I can fit under the current rule with no problem.

Welcome, Gareth. As you are in Locus Amoenus, there are two very large parcels (2 of the 3 I mentioned earlier) that are available. Locus Amoenus is a double prim sim, so ownership of one or both of these parcels gets you quite a few prims which you can use on any parcel you own in the same sim. Maybe this will help solve your conundrum.

Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
Gareth Kanarik
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik »

I had planned this already Bagheera, and that's probably what I'll do, I'll just give up the two little prim parcels I have in NFS so I'm under the limit, after looking at the map, I figured someone there might need those more than me anyway, I already have two land parcels there outside of the city walls, so I'm pretty good on prims there. The conundrum I mention isn't really mine, but the one of balancing the availability of parcels in the future with renting more of them now, and the rules that have to be enacted to make that fair to everyone. I've enjoyed reading the thread and the discussion going on, thanks for letting me be a small part of it.

Thanks for the welcome everyone!

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

I woke up with an example formula:

y = -0.2 * x + 25

with y being the maximal number of parcels you may own and x being the average occupancy (we can take that from the Casper site)

In effect, we would allow 5 parcels at 100% occupancy and 25 at 0%. At the moment we are at 70%. The limit would be 11 parcels.

Now we can play with it and adapt it to our needs.

Edit: sorry for posting so much. I’ll try to keep that short.
I raised the y-offset by one, but kept the gradient:

y = -0.2 * x + 26

To give you a better idea of the graph, i am going to present you a lookup table

26% - 30% -> 20 parcels
31% - 35% -> 19 parcels
36% - 40% -> 18 parcels
41% - 45% -> 17 parcels
46% - 50% -> 16 parcels
51% - 55% -> 15 parcels
56% - 60% -> 14 parcels
61% - 65% -> 13 parcels
66% - 70% -> 12 parcels
71% - 75% -> 11 parcels
76% - 80% -> 10 parcels
81% - 85% -> 9 parcels
86% - 90% -> 8 parcels
91% - 95% -> 7 parcels
96% - 100% -> 6 parcels

Because there is no such thing like half a parcel, we would round down the limit to the next integer.
Occupancy 71% -> 11,8 matches 11 parcels.
There might be a problem if we are close to the threshold. It could occur that I buy my 12th parcel at 70%, but make the occupancy rise to 71% by this, so that I lose my legitimation to have it immediately. No idea how to adress that. Maybe it is a minor problem, I do not know.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sudane Erato »

Tanoujin Milestone wrote: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:39 pm

I woke up with an example formula:

y = -0.2 * x + 25

with y being the maximal number of parcels you may own and x being the average occupancy (we can take that from the Casper site)

In effect, we would allow 5 parcels at 100% occupancy and 25 at 0%. At the moment we are at 70%. The limit would be 11 parcels.

Now we can play with it and adapt it to our needs.

Edit: sorry for posting so much. I’ll try to keep that short.
I raised the y-offset by one, but kept the gradient:

y = -0.2 * x + 26

To give you a better idea of the graph, i am going to present you a lookup table

26% - 30% -> 20 parcels
31% - 35% -> 19 parcels
36% - 40% -> 18 parcels
41% - 45% -> 17 parcels
46% - 50% -> 16 parcels
51% - 55% -> 15 parcels
56% - 60% -> 14 parcels
61% - 65% -> 13 parcels
66% - 70% -> 12 parcels
71% - 75% -> 11 parcels
76% - 80% -> 10 parcels
81% - 85% -> 9 parcels
86% - 90% -> 8 parcels
91% - 95% -> 7 parcels
96% - 100% -> 6 parcels

Because there is no such thing like half a parcel, we would round down the limit to the next integer.
Occupancy 71% -> 11,8 matches 11 parcels.
There might be a problem if we are close to the threshold. It could occur that I buy my 12th parcel at 70%, but make the occupancy rise to 71% by this, so that I lose my legitimation to have it immediately. No idea how to adress that. Maybe it is a minor problem, I do not know.

Tan, YES!

I love the reasoning here. I could not have come up with the formula, but I understand the formula, and I love this approach because taking the problem as a mathematical challenge means that the solution is fair... it is solved by math, rather than by arbitrary rules.

But some reading this may not be able to translate this into "real world". So let me offer a translation.

The CDS has 226 parcels for occupancy (I'll omit any distinction of normal parcels vs prim parcels for the purpose of this discussion... we can make that distinction later if you wish). At this moment, 176 are occupied, and 52 are empty.

Using Tan's formula, I have converted his lookup chart to "occupied parcels". The following chart shows the range of occupied parcels which would yield how many parcels an owner may own.

Occupied Person Can Own
1-5 ____ 26
6-17 ____ 25
18-28 ____ 24
29-39____ 23
40-51 ____ 22
52-62 ____ 21
63-73 ____20
74-85 ____19
86-96 ____18
97-107 ____17
108-119 ____16
120-130 ____15
131-142 ____14
143-153 ____13
154-164 ____12
165-176 ____11
177-187 ____10
188-198 ____9
199-210 ____8
211-221 ____7
222-226 ____6

So you can see that with 176 parcels occupied, the max ownership would be 11 parcels... which is as Tan said.

So, Tan brings up a complication. What if he owns 10 parcels right now? He's allowed to buy one more. But he buys the one more, and occupied increases to 177. Suddenly he's only allowed to own 10 parcels. Wheee! A black hole of logic!

In fact, using this underlying formula, we could make this much more simple. By applying the realities of our situation to the otherwise purely mathematical formula.

1) In my opinion, if fewer than say.... 190 parcels... are occupied, then we shouldn't need any detailed limitations. We need the money, and we'd like to see occupancy. We should simply apply the maximum cap, in this case 26. That would simplify the chart hugely!

1- 189 ____ 26
190-198 ____9
199-210 ____8
211-221 ____7
222-226 ____6

Then, we don't really need 5 tiers of allowableness. 3 would be plenty. So the table is further simplified.

1- 189 ____26
190-210 ____9
211-226 ____6

We're still using the mathematical formula, but we're simplifying it down to what we actually need. And the simplification makes it much easier to administer... to understand even.

So that would be my suggestion.

Sudane.........................

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

Thanks, Tan and Sudane! Tan for the formula, and Sudane for breaking it down so I can visualize it better. At this time, I'm undecided about how many tiers would be best, but I think you are on the right track here... although my mind boggles a bit at the idea of one person owning 26 parcels!

User avatar
Han Held
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Han Held »

Sylvia Tamalyn wrote: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:09 pm

although my mind boggles a bit at the idea of one person owning 26 parcels!

If they want to, and can afford them, then I say god bless 'em for picking ours! 8)

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Rosie Gray »

I love this mathematical solution that you came up with Tan, and thanks to Sudane for the simplification of it. The whole thing makes good sense, in my opinion!

"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”