You may have noticed, but I have been quiet. That is because I wanted to wait and see what ideas you would all come up! I have gone ahead and drawn up a bill which, in fact, draws on many of your ideas (and, in Han's and Tan's case, shamelessly uses your language). Attached below is a proposed text of a bill I have drawn up, since this proposal would entail changing the estate's master covenant.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dV9 ... sp=sharing
I am not hard-pressed to stand by the language and specific clauses, but let me explain why I chose what I did.
First, I think we are all agreed that the parcel limits need to be relaxed some. I liked Han's suggestion, but some have had a problem with allowing one citizen own 8192m² in one sim! Instead, I opted for Tan's original wording, but I raised the parcel limit to 12 instead of 10 because we already have a citizen at 13 parcels, according to Sylvia. (Obviously, none of us have noticed.)
Second, I agree with Tanoujin and Sudane that we need to develop a system to prepare for the eventuality that we might have high demand in the future and need to reinforce stronger limits. So, why not just use the system we have now—if it is currently too restrictive? It has worked well enough for us in the past. I do not like the idea of a formula because (1) who will be enforcing those limits and rules? and (2) it causes a lot of confusion and potential strife. It could also appear to be unequal. Instead, I have opted for a flexible yet rigid system where the RA, spurred by an interested party on the RA or from the Executive Branch, can choose the limits between the new/reduced limits and the old/tighter limits. Obviously, however, I do not envision the RA changing the rules in the near future, and indeed I believe making the RA required to change the rules (as it already is) is a check on the limits changing frequently.
Third, I also believe in the relaxation of limits on urban parcels, and it seems many people have also wanted to raise these sorts of limits. I have, for example, restricted parcels on the Platz, on the Forum, and on the Harbor to one per person). But other urban plots I have limited to three (in NFS, the limit is two). I have not, however, specified on a limited area (in NFS, the limit is 1024m²). I think these limits will help us restore occupancy in LA and in CN in particular, and I am willing to entertain suggestions on a limited area per region.
Fourth, since it was raised, I wanted to include a third section dealing with another realm of parcel limits: limitation, whether through law or through spirit, on buying and selling parcels for the specific purpose of passing them on to new citizens in order to build a voter base. This is and has been tantamount to electoral fraud here in the CDS. In the course of preparing this bill tonight, I compiled a chart of the changing population of the CDS overtime (below). You can witness for yourselves how, during times when CLEOPATRA was with us, our population exploded and, for the brief time she inexplicably left us in 2013, our population fell tremendously, only to soar when she returned. This is and should be seen as related to the problem of having a "whale" and I believe this merely reaffirmed what we have known for a long time now: that CLEOPATRA Xigalia bought and sold parcels at reduced rates or for free to her friends and those who she knew would vote for her or vote in her interests. It is a matter about the integrity of our democracy and our financial welfare.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
But I did not include this third section because, though related, I thought it best to focus on the pressing matter at hand. I know that the text of the above bill may be imperfect and may need to be improved, but I hope to revise the language and the clauses as needed in order to prepare it for a vote in the RA.
Please provide me with your constructive criticism.
C. Tib. Curio