Revisiting parcel limits

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

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 »

I've talked to a few people inworld and I can tell you that a theme I've heard repeatedly is that taking people's land away would be one of the quickest ways to destroy any trust in the CDS. I've heard that from multiple people.

I think it would be good to wait a bit and go inworld and talk to as many people as you're able to and get as much feedback as you can before settling on this.

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
User avatar
Guillaume Mistwalker
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Guillaume Mistwalker »

I haven't settled on it! In fact, the wording of the law is that the affected citizens must be informed. Sylvia asked how it would be resolved, and I have said that that is a future political decision for a future hypothetical Chancellor, in my opinion. In addition, I have personally advocated for the Executive placing a limit on citizens who are over the maximum land ownership limit from buying more than, which is already our practice. (normally)

If you suggest that it should be written into the bill that no land must ever be taken from citizens, I would agree! Give me the wording and I'll put it in the Google Doc.

Gaius Nebuliens Curio (Guillaume Mistwalker)
si enim pecunias aequari non placet, si ingenia omnium paria esse non possunt, iura certe paria debent esse eorum inter se, qui sunt cives in eadem re publica. (Cic. De Rep. 1.32.49)
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 »

Guillaume Mistwalker wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:05 pm

If you suggest that it should be written into the bill that no land must ever be taken from citizens, I would agree! Give me the wording and I'll put it in the Google Doc.

I have a couple ideas, pick whichever you think is better:

1)Change the premable to something like the following:

This act is to relax the CDS’s limits on the number of parcels and the amount of land legally allowed to be owned in the Confederation in response to decreased population and occupancy. Nothing in this law allows for the Chancellor, SC, RA or any other party acting the in the name of the CDS to take any property away from citizens who are current in their teir. Any reading of this law in whole or in part which is used to excuse any such seizure should be understood to be a misreading of this law.

In order to diversify our tier income and to accommodate citizens who want and can afford more parcels, this law envisions two different systems of parcel limits: one for times of low occupancy (as we found ourselves in Q2 of 2017), and another system for times of regular occupancy. “Established parcel controls” are the controls for times of high occupancy, typically over 80%, while “reduced occupancy controls” are the controls for times of low occupancy, typically under 80%. These two systems are chosen for simplicity’s sake and for the ease of citizens’ awareness, and are only to be changed following a procedure envisioned by this law. This procedure is intended to provide stability and to reduce strife in CDS’s land market, yet to respond to changing circumstances.
Note on language: this act uses the terms “limit,” “control,” “limit on maximum land ownership,” “maximum land ownership,” et cetera as synonyms referring to the maximum total amount of land able to be legally owned by one citizen.

2) Add a third section, a post script:

Section 3: Scope and Limitations of this act

It will be understood that this act is only intended to address future purchase ability of citizens. Nothing in this law grants power to the Chancellor, SC, RA or any other party to sieze property away from citizens who are paid up on their properties. It should be noted that any attempt to use this law to justify any seizure of property is a misreading of this law.

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
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 »

I'm concerned about this desperate anxiety about taking away a citizen's parcel.

The concept of expanding the number and amount of land that a citizen can hold DEPENDS SQUARELY on the concept that, should land availability lower so that there are no more parcels for new citizens to buy, existing citizens holding a larger number would be required to give up some in order to become in compliance with lower caps. If larger landowners are not REQUIRED to give up parcels, but only REQUESTED to do so out of their own good will, then, I feel, the whole concept falls flat.

This is like saying that ethical standards MUST apply to all officials appointed to the executive branch of the United State government, but that those ethical standards are not compulsory for the president. If they are not compulsory, then the president will come along with excuses that he need not comply with them, since he is not REQUIRED to.

If we can't make the aspect of the law compulsory which requires that owners reduce their holdings in times of scarcity, for the very important reason that land MUST be available for new residents, then I think we should revert to the simple limit on ownership. Perhaps more than it is now, but a single, simple limit. It will be very nice to kindly request large owners to make parcels available for newcomers... but it will be just that... very kindly if they do so.

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
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 »

Sudane Erato wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:20 am

I'm concerned about this desperate anxiety about taking away a citizen's parcel.

The concept of expanding the number and amount of land that a citizen can hold DEPENDS SQUARELY on the concept that, should land availability lower so that there are no more parcels for new citizens to buy, existing citizens holding a larger number would be required to give up some in order to become in compliance with lower caps. If larger landowners are not REQUIRED to give up parcels, but only REQUESTED to do so out of their own good will, then, I feel, the whole concept falls flat.

a)It doesn't fall flat. It's a cap. "This much and no more".

Side note ...it is to be hoped that if we were to find ourselves in that situation we would be looking at other options for making room ...such as adding regions in accordance to the grand master plan.

b)There is never an excuse for our government to forcibly take land from citizens who are otherwise acting in good faith (current in rent, acting in accordance with the TOS and all Covenants). To do so is to obliterate ...not erode, obliterate trust in the CDS as a business, as an estate and as a government.

There are other arguments, which it being 3am I am unable to make...let me just throw out there a reminder of the fits (rightly) thrown about both civil forfeiture and imminent domain in the real world.

The anxiety is real, and it's far from mine alone, nor is it new.

It needs to be specified in this law for the sake of reassuring people that we're not simply going to snag their crap.

It needs to be spelled out in the clearest and most direct language possible.

Because in all honesty, snagging folks' land should never, ever be an option with the possible exception of bankruptcy where it's unavoidable.

---
"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 »

Han Held wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:12 am

Side note ...it is to be hoped that if we were to find ourselves in that situation we would be looking at other options for making room ...such as adding regions in accordance to the grand master plan.

Which actually brings up an interesting question...getting another region is always an option, so why do we need to have this cap in the first place?

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
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 »

I don't understand the anxiety, either. We have a cap right now. Has anyone's land ever been snatched away from them in the middle of the night because they are over that cap? No. Not that I am aware of at any rate; if it has happened, please provide specifics.

I don't know who you have been talking to that is so worried about this, but it's not me, and I'm one of the ones right at the current limit. I have no problem with giving up a parcel or two in the future if it was needed because our regions were so blessedly full of citizens that we needed more land to accommodate new ones. If it's all spelled out in the law, then it is no surprise, and, as an aside, no one would be taking anything from anyone unless a landowner was refusing to comply with law. Why would someone lose trust in the government for enforcing a law that was openly there for anyone to read? I'd be curious to know how this question is being presented to the people that have been queried.

If we can't enforce the law, then why are we spending three pages here in the forums debating all this in the first place? Perhaps this has all been a waste of time.

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 »

Also, this is already in our Constitution:

"The Chancellor of CDS shall, subject to the laws of CDS, have the power:

...

(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of CDS for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly, provided always that no citizen of CDS shall not be caused to have no holding in Neufriestadt at all thereby;"

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 »

Han Held wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:24 am
Han Held wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:12 am

Side note ...it is to be hoped that if we were to find ourselves in that situation we would be looking at other options for making room ...such as adding regions in accordance to the grand master plan.

Which actually brings up an interesting question...getting another region is always an option, so why do we need to have this cap in the first place?

Apologies about triple posting, but I'm awake with some coffee in me now, so, in response to the question of why we need a cap... I would assume the need to have a cap is to avoid a single person or persons from buying up a ton of parcels and then, perhaps handing them out to friends in order to control votes and therefore our government? :wink:

Back to seizure of land, to try to clarify my own position, because I think I may have sounded like I am contradicting myself: I do not support taking away any land currently owned by any citizens.

What I do support is that, IF we make a law that raises the current land ownership cap, and IF that law states that in the future, the cap may revert to the lower number, and IF the law states that if the cap is lowered, land owners whose total parcels are above the lower cap amount will need to divest excess parcels of their choice until they are in compliance with the new lower cap (or risk the choice being made for them), THEN everyone has been put on notice regarding the risk inherent in buying above the lower cap amount. If someone then proceeds to buy parcels up to the higher limits, knowing they may need to lower their total of owned parcels in the future, they should not later complain if the lower limits are necessary and excess parcels have to be given up.

Again, I do not support going back and seizing land that was purchased prior to any new law going into effect (assuming tier is current). I don't support retroactive application of the proposed law. I do support effective enforcement of the new law as it pertains to any future purchases made, once said law is in place.

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 »

Han Held wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:12 am

b)There is never an excuse for our government to forcibly take land from citizens who are otherwise acting in good faith (current in rent, acting in accordance with the TOS and all Covenants). To do so is to obliterate ...not erode, obliterate trust in the CDS as a business, as an estate and as a government.

I totally totally... totally agree! But that's not the issue here. If the community passes a law which says that a citizen holding more than a certain number of parcels must relinguish a certain number if the number of available parcels drops below a certain number, then citizen who refuses to do so, in that situation is no longer

who are otherwise acting in good faith (current in rent, acting in accordance with the TOS and all Covenants).

In this situation, saying that you must relinquish a parcel by law is the same as saying that if you don't pay your tier, by law you must relinquish your parcel. This is not a government "taking" of land at all! This would be simply enforcing the law.

Again, if the law has no enforcement mechanism, requiring that citizens relinquish parcels (by one of the calculations proposed) if the availability of land gets too low, then I think it's an ill-advised law. Sure... publish it as a request. But a law without enforcement... meaning... that the community-oriented people comply with it and the recalcitrant anti-community people don't... should not be put on the books.

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

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
Gareth Kanarik
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik »

Since I don't know, I'll have to ask.

How likely is it that there will be a land shortage in the future? Is there the possibility of adding land if that were to happen? If people just want to donate financially to the cause now, can't they do that anyway without owning land in the form of a donation?

The idea of buying extra land and spending the time and money to develop and use it, for both myself and the good of the community, with the possibility that it can be taken away later is discouraging to me. I'd much rather stick with the rule we have now, of a single, simple limit, or even change those limits if that's what everyone decides as Sudane suggests, than find out later that after a lot of effort and time, I'm going to have to surrender land that, until then, nobody else wanted.

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 »

Gareth Kanarik wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:21 am

How likely is it that there will be a land shortage in the future? Is there the possibility of adding land if that were to happen? If people just want to donate financially to the cause now, can't they do that anyway without owning land in the form of a donation?

It is uncertain if we will ever have a land shortage again. Nevertheless it should be taken into account to be prepared for all eventualities. We can always add a region to get more land, but it can not be taken for granted that this new land will be as attractive as Neufreistadt for example. Friedsee is our newest region, and it does not sell very good even though a lot of planning, discussion and work flew into it. Of course you can always donate instead of owning land, but some may think that is not as rewarding as to own a parcel.

——-

I would like to make clear that I tend to support the static rule solution, for example 12 parcels per person without taking area into account. But I could be persuaded to second a dynamic rule on two conditions:

1) it should only affect a minority of citizens in all cases - people who would have been informed of the fact that they can not be sure of their ownership of parcels exceeding the minimal limit.

2) please let us not make rules we do not want to enforce. I think the reasons are self-evident.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
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 »

Guillaume Mistwalker wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:05 am

... I think this is best left up to the Executive to decide. It would be unpopular, assuredly, to take away someone's parcels... The Chancellor will decide! ...

I probably have more to say on the general proposal, but this remark stands alone.

Please, please, PLEASE! do not predicate a law with an already predicted unpopular action as something for the Executive to decide. As a former Chancellor, I can tell you that being into that kind of position as a Chancellor where having to make a decision for the good of the community at the expense of a citizen's privilege - whether real or imagined - is a nasty layer of Dante's Inferno for the Chancellor.

Let us please recognize that all of us, even those of us in government, are really here because we want to have a good time. I HOPE we are not fostering government servants who want to cudgel their fellow citizens with the law. A situation such as you are proposing is only enjoyable for someone with a real "enforcer" personality. For someone like me, it felt like hell.

If you are going to write a law that is heavily dependent on the Chancellor's discretion, think about the potential Devil and the Deep Blue Sea scenario, where doing the right thing for the community puts the Chancellor in the position of taking away something a citizen feels they are entitled to or acted in good faith to acquire, thereby creating a scenario where only ill-will can prevail.

Thank you.

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
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 »

As for taking away lands, I propose instead that, if someone purchases parcels up to the allowable limit at the time of purchase, they can hold those lands - however they would be limited in acquiring new lands if the limits decrease. Generally, we have enough attrition that lands will free up. If it turns out that land does NOT free up, that seems like a really good indicator we are ready for expansion. This approach avoids eminent domain situations (a VERY unpopular proposal in the ramp up to the Locus Amoenus re-do, so we have faced it before) while also protecting the availability of land for everyone.

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
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Callipygian »

A number of people have pointed out a number of good reasons why dealing with this concern does not, and probably should not, require a law to be passed. Laws often have unintended consequences, due to variations in meaning and interpretation as we all know. Any law created to address this *must* be enforced in the future, so needs to be clear, specific and unambiguous - leaving as little room as possible for misinterpretation or loopholes that allow for favouritism or the perception of it or the use of the law to harass one or more citizens.

Formulas and sliding scales of what is allowed must be monitored by someone, enforced by someone - I am guessing the odds of that happening long term and consistently are fairly slim, considering CDSs' track record with such long-term and infrequently needed laws. I could lay out a whole bunch of 'what if' situations that demonstrate potential problems but I think with a little thought most of you can identify a few without my help. Even to say that 'no one can complain if its a law - they knew when they bought' is somewhat laughable; we can't get some members of gov't to read or remember laws, some that they themselves debated and voted on - yet we expect all citizens will pay attention to this one?

Either way, I think any law about this will
- deter some new residents from settling here,no matter how slim the chance of them needing to forfeit land is
-create unnecessary work for the Executive arm in monitoring and applying,and/or the SC in interpreting and settling disputes
- 'reward' citizens who buy/pay tier on extra parcels to help maintain the financial integrity of CDS by insisting they surrender some of those parcels, more a punishment than a reward
-create a whole new area of potential ill-will and dispute around surrendered land e.g. how will the Executive ensure that only new citizens can buy surrendered parcels

So if not a law, then what? It's been pointed out that two factors are at play in current limits - number of parcels and sq. metres owned. The sq metres owned is the 'financial risk' element and potential threat of inability to pay tier to LL on a region that was no doubt a concern back when the limits were first imposed. I think a few people have pointed out that the current financial reserves of CDS ensure that the departure of any one citizen would not result in financial difficulty resulting in a loss of a region. This suggests that removing the sq metre restrictions makes sense.

The number of parcels is more the concern that RA needs to consider. In CDS land ownership = citizenship and ensuring opportunities for citizenship. It has been mentioned already that ownership can be used to manipulate how many citizens there are and who they are but the reality of CDS is that, excepting some blips around some hotly battled elections the number of citizens in CDS has hovered around the 75 mark, give or take, for a number of years.

A simple solution to the ' but there must be land for new citizens ' is for the Executive to remove 12 parcels from the market - they can be a variety of sizes and locations, and only list them for sale if and when most other parcels are occupied. Those parcels should only be available for purchase by new citizens, fairly simple to enforce by announcement of them going on the market and that they are not for general purchase. Since break even is
in the 70 to 80 % occupancy range, removing 0.5% of parcels from the market is not a huge impact on the bottom line. Then you can remove limits on number of parcels completely, or raise it to a substantial number while maintaining limits on some types of parcel in some areas. To quote Sudane :"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." AND this leaves responsibility for land management to the Executive, where it belongs, without adding a layer of law that will make flexibility and response to market changes more difficult.

Calli

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”