Monastery expansion proposal

[Jamie Palisades]

Please note that we've received (as of last Wednesday) a proposal posted by Arria Perrault to move the Monastery from Alpine Meadows sim to a new adjacent void sim. See here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2054#p11883

Her proposal also raises some questions about how CDS charges rental tier to NGOs. On NGOs generally, see here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2068

Some summaries of our current sim expansion rules are provided here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2067

While the Monastery proposal does not appear to fit exactly within the Private Development legislation, I still feel that we ought to respond to such proposals within the two week period that the PD bill suggests for such things. Accordingly I am working projections for that plan, and several other possible uses of voids, into a more detailed budget plan that I expect to bring to the RA by the end of August.

If citizens have comments on the basic concept Arria has described, feedback would be timely now. Of course, the community also will have the chance to comment later, if this goes forward, when an actual parcel map is available for public review.

Regards Jamie P

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'm going to respond to Arria's proposal on the monastery here rather than in the other thread which is primarily for discussion of Government Space Reorganisation.

I see three issues:

*Should the CDS purchase a void sim so that the Monastery can be moved to achieve greater prominence and the establishment of a community of supporters in proximity to it?
*Should the CDS adopt a policy of hosting other NGOs on void sims?
*If so, should the CDS subsidise the tier fees for the Monastery (and possibly other NGOs with similar plans)?

I think the Monastery, and the Virtus NGO supporting it, is an excellent initiative within the CDS. This is an independent initiative, privately-financed which provides a cultural home in the CDS, holds exhibitions which draw in interest from across the grid and which sits firmly in the tradition of European monasteries which have historically provided a home for culture and knowledge and for quiet reflection. It would be to the benefit of the CDS as a whole for the Monastery to have its own sim as the project could expand in the ways Arria outlines. The fact that there is a community of volunteers prepared to put in the time and effort to expand the Monastery is fantastic news and deserves encouragement.

Whether *all* NGOs should get their own void sim rather depends on the nature of the NGO though. I can see the case for the New Guild having such a space (or at least more workshop space than at present). Moving the MoCA out of Neufreistadt would enable some rebuilding to take place though, now that I live opposite the MoCA, I've got used to having this hugely modern structure in the middle of our bavarian village Ah well, you can get used to anything I suppose! I doubt whether the Traders' Association, or a Chamber of Commerce, really needs a sim to itself though.

The question of subsidising artistic, cultural and educational activities is a little more difficult though. In the end, someone has to pay. If we were to provide a void sim (or many more) at less than it costs us to rent them from LL, tier fees for private citizens will have to go up to compensate. Personally I have no problem with subsidising such endeavours (though it would depend on how much the subsidy was and how much my tier increased as a result!) Others may have different views. One consequential issue if we go down this route is "Who decides whether an NGO is worthy of subsidy?" Presumably it will be the RA as it authorises the budget. This is probably the best solution even if it's not ideal. In future elections factions will be able to put themselves forward with their intentions on government spending on this kind of activity. Voters can then choose whether they favour the use of subsidy to promote cultural activities or want to restrain government spending. Should be interesting

[Arria Perreault]

Maybe I should not ask these lower fees for NGO at large, but only for NGO which are "state-approved". These NGO play a public role and sometimes do what states do (in some rl states). The New Guild has a charter which was approved by RA, as it play an important role in expansion. CDS spare money, because it must appoint people to do this work or to pay for building (if you know the prices of building, you can appreciate the sparing effect). MoCA and Monastery play also an important role in cultural life and make our community attractive and well-known.
There is several ways to offer lower fees for NGO:

- we can have fees a little bit higher for everyone and use the surplus to finance better public life (it is non popular, I guess)
- it seems that CDS make a benefit with our fees. Why not offer to NGO the fee that we would pay to Linden, without benefit
- CDS can also try to be able to benefit from Linden Lab policy for non-profit, educational and cultural institutions. I know that CDS has to solve some institutional questions to do that (like create a RL institution). I don't think that we can justify every sim in this category, but at least the one of some NGO. We can also attract other NGO and become a very creative place.

It is not a secret: Arria Perreault don't see the future of CDS in commercial activities (being a small seller and a great client by many fashion shops ...). The future of CDS is probably more in educational and cultural activities and also in our experimentation of online democracy. People would be happy to become citizen of a place which can provide a good cultural life and opportunities in education. People can either be consumer in this life, but also participant. New Guild or Monastery invite people to participate, to share their knowledge. This makes us richer.

I am not asking money for Monastery. The project of installing it in a sim is also a way to insure its future (if I am tired once). The Monastery can finance itself this move by selling its current plot and also by selling small plots on the new sims. The owners of these small plots will finance the fees of the whole sim. In exchange, these owners can use the Monastery for their projects (or their friend's projects). I just consider that CDS should find ways to encourage our activities. In this case, I expect at least to pay the right price for the void sim and the right fee (as announced in Linden web site) . The CDS will buy it for us, as it is not possible to buy a void sim without being private land owner. The CDS could also buy a void for a citizen who will have his/her own island for a house or a shop. In this case, we can accept the idea that CDS charges a little more than Linden prices and fees. If CDS accept to buy void sims for "state-approved" NGO (RL or SL NGO) or for museums, libraries, colleges, we can have a chance to grow with a high level of quality.

[Jon Seattle]

One other factor is how active the group is that is building and running the NGO. I think NGOs go though a natural life cycle, beginning with an idea and its promotion, gaining public interest and support, construction and expansion, maintenance, and decline. At times I expect the more important NGOs will go through this cycle several times (without the "decline phase") as new waves of citizens bring new energy to the projects.

The Monastery not only has a lot of energy behind it, but I think is ready for a second phase of expansion and could be a an important means for recruiting creative new citizens. I will also say that the CDS is actually not an easy place for builders to live (for lack of prim resources) and some resources could be devoted to New Guild projects intended to make life better for builders.

My view on the commercial prospects of the CDS is slightly different from Arria's in this respect. I think the CDS has a great potential future if it can develop the skills of it's citizens and attract people who's main interest is in design and arts. Marketers tend to follow the creative class because they need products to sell. The best thing we can do along these lines is:

1. Make the CDS a wonderful place to live for creative people. And by creative people I do not mean only builder / designers, but writers, creative software developers, and other innovators.

2. Invest in citizens who want to develop these skills. By investing we tell our own citizens that we value them and want to build our future by investing, not replacing them. At the same time we will be attracting new citizens who want to develop their own future.

3. By changing our policies to help NGOs. In particular we must recognize that not every NGO will be in its expansion phase at all times and that is not a failure, but part of a natural process. By helping to fuel new growth stages for existing NGOs and support the foundation of new ones the CDS government can form a lasting infrastructure to support citizen's activities.

At the same time we need some public standards for what a NGO can be. A particular risk is that CDS support for a single group can be used to exclude others: other designers, other merchants, or other potential museum curators. In my opinion NGO should be open and democratic, not hold official monopolies or serve as quasi-official arms of the state. This is not an "of course", it has happened in the CDS already..

The CDS Old Guild (very different from the current New Guild) was supposed to be an organization of builder / designers open to all citizens and a way for citizens to get a design education. It was a large reason I originally wanted to join the CDS. By the time I joined the Old Guild had become a center of political power, in part because of its veto power over the budget. The "masters" were mainly not active builders, but those with a political office. I tried to join as an "apprentice" (basically a non-voting member) four times and was turned down. My impression at the time was that the CDS was a horrible place for would-be builders and architects: no prims available, and the only organization that was supposed to bring such people together in any kind of community was turning them away.

And so Moon and I started the New Guild.

[Rose Springvale]

NB: This post is written in my capacity as a citizen of CDS,and not as a member of the Chancelor's staff. I'll also disclose that i was an original donor to the Monastery project, and remain supportive of the people involved with it.

I think moving the monastery to a void is a great idea. Financially, however, I disagree with the proposal.

First, let's talk about the "linden lab" treatment of NGO's. While it is true that educational and charitable organizations qualify for discounted sim purchases and tiers, there are two major limitations attached to that. The first is that the NGO must be recognized as such by the laws of the country in which it is formed. To do so, at least theoretically, someone disinterested has made a determination that the group actually runs within the framework of a qualified non profit organization. That doesn't mean it has to be a "charity," but it does mean certain legal hoops have been jumped through to get that approval, and it's been approved by people with at least some expertise in the area. Generally it requires review of financial statements, missions, accountability of management, qualifications of membership, detailed rules for the handling of income,expenses and transfer of assets on any dissolution. And, at least in the United States,it includes implications concerning the application of certain tax provisions both for the organization and individual donating to it. (query: if CDS recognizes its NGO's as subsidized entities, and I, as an altruistic, civic minded citizen, make donations to certain NGO's (but not all) am i entitled to a deduction from my tier payments for those donations? Seems only fair...)

Second, LL requires all such recognized entities to pay tier at least six months in advance. (They may elect to pay on an annual basis as well) I can speculate on why this is, but you all can to. Would we mirror ALL the LL terms if we choose to subsidize?

I have worked with literally hundreds of non profit entities for many years, as member, fund-raiser, founder, volunteer, board member, officer, attorney... you name it. The most successful ones are the ones with organization, (including structure and adherence to internal rules), clear purpose, committed volunteers and a desire to self sustain.

IF the CDS wished to subsidize NGO's, i'd ask that we look at it from a general platform first, NOT considering whether we want to do it for this specific organization. Then anyone with altruistic intentions who may not have had the money to follow through can compete for what is ultimately a limited amount of funds. The monastery project grew from a desire to add to the Alpine Meadow sim... not from a proposal to CDS that we subsidize a group who is monastic. There really is a difference. LOTS of people have run educational, event oriented programs from their CDS property. No one ever expected to get a deal on their tier payments... but if we start now, with this monastery, I think we need to open application to all the others as well... before we say yes.

From the CDS point of view, I'd propose a three tiered system of support for NGO's, which would include:

A. A coordinated use of public prims..coordinated because they really do have to be shared. I hate thinking of taking down art exhibits to put up Oktoberfest activities, but we only have so many public prims... decisions have to be made and those decisions need to be fluid enough to adapt to the needs of the sim at any given point in time.

B. Specific grants for specific projects. An allocation of start up funds from our reserves seems appropriate. This could also take the form of interest free loans. Operating grants would be for specific times.. say one RA term, to assure that the mission and commitment to the project has not died away and we are subsidizing sentiment rather than project. I'd require the signature of no fewer than three avatars who would be responsible for achieving whatever goals such grants are provided for, and accounting back re the project before further grants would be given. That keeps the State out of running the organization, but also clearly shows our expectation that if CDS funds are expended, they will be spent on the things that we as a collective hold important, and recognizes that those things MAY change over time. It also keeps the proponents of a project engaged.

An outline of the programs to be presented, estimated costs, number of avatars "benefited".. might make up the basis of a 'grant" program. I'd MUCH rather see NGO"s come to the RA for specific financial requests than just impose what will amount to a "tax" on the rest of the citizens to support them with reduced tier. It is hard enough to "sell" land in SL these days. While some may only want more citizens "like" us, it doesn't create a very diverse community. What if someone is fundamentally opposed to the mission of the NGO ?

*edit* An issue we face often in RL that no one has mentioned here is the situation where services are duplicated. How does the mission of this NGO differ from that of others? if there is overlap, shouldn't they find ways to work together rather than in competition? Isn't that part of the point of CDS?

C. Use of CDS staff to support fund-raising and mission supportive events. We are terrible in CDS when it comes to assigning value to the time of our volunteers. If you had to hire event coordinators, builders, scripters, etc, every time someone volunteers that skill in CDS, there would be no reserve at all. So if we say, yes, we will support the fund-raising event of an NGO, whether it be by running an auction or setting up a donation box, we need to recognize that it is a valuable asset to that NGO, and it takes away from other projects that those CDS volunteers might otherwise participate in. Asking the event coordinators to assist in one fund-raising event per term per NGO seems fair, and one that i believe is supported by our current administration. If we get a lot of NGO's, maybe we need to look at increasing our support staff.

D. In very rare circumstances, reduction in tier for NGOs. I would suggest that if we do this, that we review the reduction on a case by case basis at regular intervals to assure that the NGO was meeting our standards of contribution to the quality of CDS life and had not just become another nice empty building in the CDS. I'd ask that it be a chartered NGO that had very specific requirements, including the escrow of six month's tier, review of the mission of the NGO, including how the citizens, present or potential, will go about attaining the mission. I'd want to know who would be members, and who is willing to pursue the mission with resources other than money.

Finally, we need to consider other options for such organizations to be part of CDS. I think CDS expansion should be adapted to include affiliation with sims without direct ownership of those sims. I think we should allow for a "local rule" option. This would allow both new and established communities to "join" CDS... all of which is truly outside the scope of this post, but my point is that then a specific NGO, such as the Monastery, could go directly to LL and get their designation, buy their own sim and attach or affiliate somehow with CDS as we all see fit.(this IS complicated by the rule that to buy a void, one must own a full sim. Perhaps we need a combination in our own structure.) It removes a complicated issue from CDS governance, allows the NGO to have its lowered tier, and allows CDS the opportunity to support with resources other than cash.

One last point. Last year CDS provided "seed money" for Events in the sims. The RA allocated 4000 Lindens per month for ALL events, and, in application, the stipends for investing time and money into the organization of things that brought people into our sims was limited to 400 L. The program was not particularly successful. With averages events running at about 5000L, it isnt' difficult to see why. I'd ask that our government recognize that we all have different interests, and that by providing reduced tiers to some, we are legislatively electing to financially favor one interest (such as the monastery) over other legitimate interests (such as live music.) Let's not be hasty with this, however much we like the Monastery.

[Arria Perreault]

Thank you, Rose, for your constructive posts. I would like to answer on some points:

NGO must be recognized

I think that CDS should open a process to recognized "state-approved" NGO, by submitting the charter to the RA or by voting a bill about NGO. Virtus has a charter that is published, but not yet approved by RA. It must be changed with the moving on the void sim.

From the CDS point of view, I'd propose a three tiered system of support for NGO's, which would include:

A. A coordinated use of public prims...

B. Specific grants for specific projects...

C. Use of CDS staff to support fund-raising and mission supportive events. ...

D. In very rare circumstances, reduction in tier for NGOs...

If the Monastery is on a void, it cannot benefit from use of public prim. Until now, it did not get money for any project.
I have asked once, but I finally did not ask for the money because the project was cancelled.
Support of CDS staff is a great idea, but CDS staff help NGO and other people.
The reduction of tier for NGO has my favour, if the NGO get the right status in CDS. We are going to develop a proactive policy to favour commerce, despite the fact that SL has a long train economy (that doesn't need proactive policy). I think that developping activies with and through our NGO as well as with RL non-profit, cultural, educational entities is a better option for the future. If the Monastery has good conditions to exist, it could maybe propose a collaboration with an RL library to develop the Library. We can also get trafic, events. It would also be possible to join some SL community to work with and share ressources.

I think CDS expansion should be adapted to include affiliation with sims without direct ownership of those sims. ... to buy a void, one must own a full sim...

This is the point. To get a void, someone needs to own a full sim. CDS could provide a service under certain conditions buying void sims in the name of non-profit, educational, cultural entities or projects. It buys them to LL and resell them to this entities, NGO, projects .... which pay the fees. The question is maybe the profit of the CDS. As I am not avaricious by nature, I would like that someone calculate the price of a void sold by CDS (to a NGO and to a private person) as well as the amount of fees. For me there is a big difference between someone who buy a land for her/his own pleasure and a NGO which owns land for its activities.

I can explane again what I am trying to do: insuring the future of the Monastery by buying a void sim, buy subdivising some plots (6-8) to sell to people who are ready to share in equal parts the fee of the whole void. These people will get a small cottage with few prims (wow of poverty ), but they will have the opportunity to use the Monastery for their projects or for projects of friends. The owner of these plots can be private persons, but why not RL entities, groups, NGO, ... I can imagine that owning a plot in the Monastery void sim does not confere the CDS citizenship. By doing that, I try to find new ideas to develop our community and its activities. I am opened to any feedback and ideas.

Finally ... tell me what the CDS can lose ... This project is financially neutral.

[Rose Springvale]

I'm a little confused with your concept but here is the math.
Full regions are 65,536 square meters, 15000, prims, puchase price 1000 USD and tier 295 usd. That works out to be roughly .07 usd purchase price per prim, and .02 USD tier per prim.
Open Space regions cover the same 65,536 sm, but have only 3750 prims, purchase price 250 USD, tier 75 USD. Prim cost is identical, (close enough anyway) (figuring the value based on sqm doens't make a lot of sense, but you can do that math too)

Passing through only the direct cost of the open space to the NGO disregards the need for equity among NGO's that are not on an open space. It also, as i've pointed out, disregards the other uses of land that have been neither commercial nor personal. Several parks in CDS are available for the enjoyment of all, yet full tier is paid. The NFS School pays full tier. Changing the treatment of those spaces automatically increases the responsibility of everyone else. I personally think it is very bad policy to reconfigure tier payments that are already set for land already purchased. Other than dipping into reserves, i dont' see how that fair treatment could be financed any other way. It isnt' just about THIS NGO.. it's about being fair.

Finally, while a second class of citizenship had been discussed in the past, the CDS has always rejected that. Land owned in a CDS sim means citizenship, so that portion of this proposal opens another set of questions. Also, all land sold up to now has always been sold BY CDS, with tier collected by the treasurer,not a private owner... if we are going to allow that in an open space owned by an NGO, shouldn't we allow it everywhere?

As far as being totally independent, since the sim would be connected to CDS, on one of the open spaces defined by the GMP, there would have to be some public land to make things like slope, water and roads,etc "work." If the island would not be open to all our citizens for the cultural uses defined, why would it be part of CDS at all?

Lastly, Arria, what if you get disillusioned or busy in real life and decide to leave SL? Someone is left with the tier payments for the land, and that someone is CDS. I am sure all this is a matter of technicality, but i'm gong to stand by my position.. budget neutral, in my experience, is rarely truly budget neutral.

[Jamie Palisades]

It's my hope to form this into a plausible proposal. I agree with some views of my esteemed colleague Rose, and may disagree with some others.

I agree that we need fairness across NGOs. Which means to me that we should not draft an arrangement for the Monastery NGO that substantially differs from something we can provide to the other NGOs

I am not sure I agree that lower rent rates are out of the question, for accredited NGOs that serve a significant CDS purpose. Vis a vis accreditation, a special arrangement might mean that RA review and consent to the NGO's charter is required, if that has not occurred.

I think Arria's proposal was seeking to fit, approximately, within the Private Development Law [1]. In which case her group would take the primary balance sheet risk, not CDS ... and in tha event, of course, the owner's rental of some space is not intrinsically wrong. So long as CDS is satisfied with the plan's fit and feasibility. The GMP still should apply, for example. We were not thinking of voids, specifically, at the time of Beathan's law drafting, but it seems that it could apply equally to them.

I'm not sure that all of the proposed details, as Arria has described them, conform to that law yet, though. The idea of the PDL was that CDS not be "on the hook" (financially responsible). We will need to talk some more about how that might work in this case.

It's my job to work with Arria to develop the proposal. Once we have that, there will be additional opportunity for citizen comment,

Regards Jamie P

[1] viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2067

[Jamie Palisades]

(A) The RA at its last meeting discussed the proposal we received from Arria Perrault about a new void sim for the Monastery NGO.
(Transcript not yet posted.) Here's my summary of that conversation:

1. Arria requests we approve an adjoining sim under the "Private Development" rules. See here for a summary of those rules: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2067 The law itself is here: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=217

2. Essentially the NGO proposes to pay for the sim, relocate to it, and fund its operations by (i) selling the old Monastery site and (ii) selling several other tenant land plots on the new void.

3. The way this normally would work under the PD act is as follows:
(i) Developer buys sim
(ii) Developer develops (plats and landscapes) sim
(iii) Developer gets CDS government approval of plan, landscape, covenants, financial feasibility and "fit" for CDS
(iv) Developer opens land and sells plots. (Revenue stays with developer, reduces net cost of sim to them.)
(v) Once land is rented out, with some minimum specified occupancy percentage, developer grants sim to CDS, at which stage CDS takes over both the land, and the future risks of nonpayment. (CDS pays tier, and takes the rents, thereafter.)

4. Arria described a plan for the Monastery plus approximately 6 tenants. She also indicated that her NGO is ineligible to purchase a void sim, so they wish CDS to do so, and be reimbursed by the NGO.

We agreed to further study and discuss the matter at the next RA meeting.

(B) Arria has provided further information to us as follows:
1. The NGO plans to modify its charter in October to cover the proposed land operations.
2. CDS would buy the void sim by ordering in October for November delivery.
3. Arria suggests that it be placed to south of Locus Amoenus, as this is the most acute scenic gap we have at the moment.
4. The NGO or an affiliate (Virtus) would buy and pay local tier (rent) on all seven plots, so that CDS starts with 100% rented out.
5. As they are sold, the plot owners become new citizens as usual for CDS. The sim would open and plots be available for purchase starting in December.

(3) Here are my notes and recommendations from the executive branch.

1. As noted before, I believe this project generally is a good idea, and we should find a way to support it.
2. Particularly in a down SL real estate market, we are better off bringing fully rented, or rentable, sinms on board than opening up additional unrented land.
3. Although Arria has brought this proposal to us in good faith and has done much to make it workable, I do not completely agree that there is no risk to CDS. The primary risk to CDS from expansion is not sim *purchase* but rather sim *tier*, and keeping land rented. This proposal does not quite conform to the PD Act, because CDS is asked to purchase and own (as Estate Owner) the sim at the *beginning*. The MAIN safety remedy that the PD Act gives CDS is NOT to accept the sim until it's (a) turned over as a conforming, satisfactory fully terraformed sim; and (b) rented out to plausible permanent tenants. Under Arria's proposal we will NOT have that remedy: if the development phase failed, in this case, we still would own the sim (and be liable for tier).
4. Arria has worked to remove the second risk, by agreeing to have Virtus pay tier on all new 'rental' lots until they are re-sold. That reduces our risk, leaving only the credit risk of having a single owners responsible for a large proportion of our land. But we have two or three other large-concentration owners in CDS, so I do not see that as a fatal problem.

Here is what the PD Act says:

The citizen or developer shall create a construction design and submit that design to the Chancellor for review and approval; the Chancellor shall review the proposal and either approve it or send it back for specific revisions (in accordance with any existing master plan for CDS expansion) * * *

<jamie's comment> I believe a rough plat map, parcel size numbers and proposed rental amounts are required to satisfy that step. (Take a look at the material that the guild supplied for Locus Amoenus, as reported to the RA and approved by Alexicon, the chancellor at that time.) I suggest the RA do what i am required by law to do: wait until that information is provided and the Guild (BAC) has a chance to comment on it. </>

* * * donate sufficient money to the CDS estate owner to allow the CDS to acquire a sim that within two sim-spaces from the CDS and to pay tier on that sim for four months; * * *

<jamie's comment> Could we obtain confirmation from Arria whether that is the amount proposed to be "banked" by payment to CDS? We would order the sim as soon as we receive a payment for four months' tier on the void? </>

* * * construct the sim in compliance with the approved design (with the Chancellor or BAC shall periodically inspecting the work and requesting modifications within the discretion of the Chancellor, but subject to appeal); upon completion, the Chancellor or BAC will inspect and the Chancellor shall approve the sim as final or request additional work * * *

<Jamie's comment> As a practical matter, in the unlikely event that the sim was not properly delivered, CDS' further financial risk could be mitigated by selling the void back or abandoning it after the four months.

I recommend that we proceed as noted above, after confirming the matters stated above, and assuming that a confirming plan, map and rents schedule is provided as the relevant laws require. I do not believe RA action or attention is required until that material is presented for review.

Regards Jamie P

[Arria Perreault]

For several reasons, I don't agree with the message of our Chancellor about the Monastery Project. I will give first my proposal and then my comments:

here are the details of the project of void sim for the Monastery:

Step 1 (october)

Some internal processes will be held in Virtus: agreement for selling the plot in AM to finance the operation, modification of the charter to be submitted to the RA

Step 2 (november)

CDS buys a void sim. After reflexion, I think that the best way is to place in the square between AM and LA, so the problem of view is quickly solved.

Step 3 (november)

Terraforming and landscape will be done by Arria Perrault with the technical help of the New Guild
6 plots will be drawn.

Step 4 (november)

Arria Perreault buys(*) the 6 plots(**) in the name of Virtus and pay the fees. In the following months, she will sell each plots to interested people. The owners of these plots are CDS citizen and pay fees to CDS directly. If they will leave their plots, they have to sell it, like in the other sims.
(*) Arria Perreault makes the bank if the plot of AM is not yet sold.
(**) each plot will be isolated and will have a cottage hidden in the forest.

Step 5 (november)

Arria Perreault organize the move of the Monastery with the team of the builders. The Monastery will be set on public land.

Step 6 (november)

The RA approve the charter of Virtus and give to the NGO the management of the Monastery.

Step 7 (december)

Official opening

Point to discuss:

Price: a void sim is $250 at LL. It is similar to the price of the current plot of AM. At which price the CDS will sell it to Virtus.
Fees: $ 75 divided in 6 plots -> $ 12,5 for each plot (3300 LL). Will CDS add an little extra fee like in the other sims? We will try to make attractive plots with a good multiplicator.

Advantages of the project:

- a new sim for CDS with a potential of 6 new citizen (it will not be obligatory to be member of Virtus to buy a plot)
- the Monastery will be more visible and also be an atttractive place for CDS
- the visual hole of AM from LA will not be there anymore
- neutral cost for CDS: a new sim for free
- no risk for CDS

I am ready to answer to any questions.

I have sent this message to following people:¨

- CDS Chancellor,
- CDS Treasurer,
- Secretary of the New Guild,
- Members of the Representative Assembly

The RA has asked me and the Chancellor to work together on my proposal. Infortunately this did not happen. Mainly because I was in holidays, I have decided to write a mail to him and other concerned people, that means not in the forum. I did expect an answer per mail, with copies to others. I consider the fact that the Chancellor discusses my proposal in public forums as unfair. The goal was to make an acceptable proposal to the RA and to open the discussion. By publishing in the forums, he makes things hard to discuss and to modify. Again, this is very unfair. I have to continue what was supposed to be a constructive discussion in the forums.

My first comment is that the Monastery project has nothing to do with Private Development Act. I have never asked to buy a sim, void or not, under this Act and I don't intend to do it. Since the beginning I have put this project in the General Master Plan development. I have announced this project at the time of the consultation for the GMP with a short description. It clearly belongs to the normal expansion process of CDS. In this context, I have offered very good conditions to CDS, that will have nothing to pay for it. I will buy all the plots and the fees immediately and I will resell them myself, without hurry. So CDS will not have to deal with unrented land. To finance it, I will sell the plot of AM. If I cannot sell it quickly, I will assume this myself.

This project has several advantages, as I have said in the above proposal. It belongs to our development. I am ready to give a map and a map of plots and the fees of plots, as soon as possible after my holidays.
In the original Master Plan, the sim of the Monastery was east of AM. I have proposed to put it west, because of this visual gap. But I can also respect the original Master Plan.

I will also make an important precision: the new sim will have 6 plots for CDS citizen, but the Monastery will be on public land. The owners of the plots will have the priority to develop projects in the Monastery.

I will make two general additional remarks:

- the Monastery can play a role in the promotion of CDS as cultural agent
- the expansion through void sims and NGO management is a good strategy for CDS, because it put together land and activities.

[Arria Perreault]

The RA has approved today starting planning for a 5th sim (a void sim) pursuant to NL 8-2 http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=214. This is the normal way to build sim in CDS. You can read the transcripts when they are publish. For further details, please read proposal above.

Phase I asks for a rough plan for the new sim(s) following broad guidelines laid down by the RA for

(i) the rough number of plots
(ii) the range of sizes of plots
(iii) price and affordability
(iv) single/double prim
(v) rough balance between public, private and commercial land
(vi) any specific public builds e.g. the ampitheatre
(vii) any other infrastructure that can serve the interest of the community and territory.

The Guild must give all these informations. It is clear that we will help the New Guild to prepare all these informations. Some of them are already done, others are still in preparation.

As the Monastery and Virtus are open, I invite all persons interested to collaborate to this wonderful project or to give inputs to contact me per IM or mail (My avatar first name (dot) My avatar name at gmail).

Thank you to all who have already helped or support.

[Sonja Strom]

So, the six cottage owners would cover the monthly land fees (tier) for this sim?

[Jamie Palisades]

Sonja, yes, as of this morning's posting by Arria, that is my understanding.

The RA went on after its scheduled time; several of us were unable to stay past 11:00 SLT. I have been informed that the RA also gave preliminary approval to an aspect of the plan that I did not know about -- the rent-free deal, in which the NGO would live on the community land rent-free, in return for taking the initial rent risk. I have no more information, because it was acted on by the RA quickly after I left.

But that does NOT mean this aspect of the proposal is wrong. The "Phase I" approval under NL 8-2, which Gwyneth Llewellyn urged the RA to use, is only a preliminary approval. The NL 8-2 procedure requires more analysis and recommendations to the RA before final approval. When it is analysed, it is quite possible that the proposed arrangement will prove to be a very good deal for CDS. There is no doubt in my mind that Arria's NGO wishes to work with CDS in good faith to make this a good arrangement for all. So let's keep an open mind until we see the proposed numbers and analysis.

Regards, JP

[Rose Springvale]

I have just read the transcript from today's RA meeting and i am frankly, angry.

As I have had from the beginning of this discussion, i have MAJOR issues with this proposal. Until TODAY, this was presented to the us as a private development project. ONLY today, AFTER the RA time had officially concluded, and the Guild meeting begun! was it suggested that the project be a "regular expansion" sim. If that is the case, WHERE is the public input? Where is BASIC NOTICE?

I am very uncomfortable with one person taking what has been a private project since inception, which actually shaped the way Alpine Meadow was formed, and now with NO public input whatsoever, including an attempt not even to bring the issue to these forums, by her own admission, but solicit input only by private email, takes a position that we should have a public monastery. On FREE land! I will go now and resurrect my post from when Locus Amoenus was decided, and ask you all, including you Arria, how this process is an improvement. I really do not understand. Here is the thread. Please note that Arria "totally agreed with me." What has changed?http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1703

I spend a lot of time trying to bring new people into CDS, explaining about sims, and how we all have a input in sim governance. Right now i feel as though i have not been giving them the facts. I'd like to see all these potential monastery supporters buy land in Locus Amoenus, and help us shape the next sim. Not cloister off in a place that last week was to even be PRIVATE!

I am very disappointed. It has nothing to do with the project, though i admit i would much rather see us use the space proposed for something that has broader appeal, but the PROCESS.. that thing we are supposed to be guaranteed with a democracy, is terribly terribly flawed.

I am asking the RA to reconsider, to open to the public the process of determining our next sim, and to send this project back to the private development act where it belongs.

[Arria Perreault]

In this project, it is not question to give land to rent for free to any NGO (or person ...). The Monastery will be a public infrastructure on this new sim. The presence of residents in others make possible to have infrastructures and nice building like the Schloss and the church in NFS and the theater in CN.
I am talking about this project publicly since long time. I have used émail recently to respect the wish of the Chancellor to work with me on this proposal.I would have then make public the result in any case. Infortunately I got no personal answer, but a text in the forums on which I could not agreed. So I have published my original proposal before the meeting (but late I admît). Now poeple can compare and react, as it is clear that the RA will have to vote on the next phase of the process. It is still possible to end it before achievement. In the following days I will explane it better and show the interest for CDS.
In my mind I have never seen this project as a private project under the Private Development Act because I have doubt for this process. The RA decision was a political one. There are several types of policies for expansion...
It was a mistake to put the Monastery on private land. At that time, we did not had the choice ... Now we have to repair this situation.
Monastery supporters have at least bought 4 plots in LA ... and my only problem with LA proposal was density.
Now ... the vote of the RA was only to give a chance to this idea ... Let some time now to develop
I really think that the Monastery has won its place on public by being successful and by contributing to the image of CDS (if not, why put it in a slide show about CDS ...)