Revisiting parcel limits

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

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

One issue I see with this suggestion, considering our current state of events and assuming that when you say "Executive", you mean "Chancellor", is that we don't really have anyone around to perform those duties. As it is, we have parcels "off the market" due to people not paying tier on them, but the EMs can't evict anyone, so the parcels sit there tied up and not generating any income because they cannot be sold. I am reluctant to add any additional responsibilities to the Chancellor's plate, at least for now, so would rather find a solution we can put into place now if we are going to vote on it at all.

[Guillaume Mistwalker]

Let me opine, too, since no one has since proposed actual legal wording to the proposed law.

I disagree fundamentally with Calli's notion that we should simply raise the limit of parcels and let the Chancellor take parcels off the market (which can already happen). I understand your concern, Calli, about interpretation of the law, but the solution is not to make fewer laws: it's to make better laws. This can be done by using better legal language (which I am disappointed no one has suggested anything more) or by making the rationale for a bill clearer and admitting freely the limitations of a law. But we must continue updating and making laws, because that is what our democratic mandate entails. Otherwise, I fear we risk running into the same sort of mess that the US government's budget is in: we constantly delay without addressing fundamental problems.

That said, laws can be made to be flexible, too, and I had hoped my proposal would be flexible yet rigid enough to provide some basic guidelines for future possible situations in the CDS. We could do the very same with the Executive's relationship to placing limits on buying new parcels after the limit has been decreased to putting an individual's parcels in excess up for sale. We can write into a bill both things, and I think we would all agree that is preferential that a Chancellor should cooperate with a landowner before willy-nilly abandoning their land. I do not think anyone should be so reckless. But give me some legal wording and we can debate that, not your opinions and anxieties.

Finally, my proposal does not entail the Chancellor being a watchdog and calculating when occupancy passes a certain percentage. It is about when, in the future, someone complains that there is not enough land to buy, so that relevant authorities (when they discover this proposed law again in our hypothetical future) can authorise a premeditated change in the rules of our estate.

I know very well that my proposal is not perfect and that it does not meet everyone's concerns. But clue me and the rest of the RA into how to address them and give us a proposal.

TL;DR: I reject the notion that we should simply kick the ball down the field without addressing the underlying concerns. That would be bad legislating. But give me legal language and your proposals so that we can debate that and not the validity of other's fears.

[Callipygian]

One issue I see with this suggestion, considering our current state of events and assuming that when you say "Executive", you mean "Chancellor", is that we don't really have anyone around to perform those duties. As it is, we have parcels "off the market" due to people not paying tier on them, but the EMs can't evict anyone, so the parcels sit there tied up and not generating any income because they cannot be sold. I am reluctant to add any additional responsibilities to the Chancellor's plate, at least for now, so would rather find a solution we can put into place now if we are going to vote on it at all.

While the current AWOL state of the Chancellor is problematic, it shouldn't be the basis of covenant changes or laws that are intended to provide the best outcomes for CDS and its citizens long term . A number of the laws and policies we have found challenging to interpret or deal with over the years have been that sort of reactionary legislation. I'd suggest that dealing with the Chancellor's absence and dealing with the land holding concerns be looked at and acted on separately.

Calli

[Han Held]

I understand your concern, Calli, about interpretation of the law, but the solution is not to make fewer laws: it's to make better laws.

This can be done by using better legal language

But we must continue updating and making laws, because that is what our democratic mandate entails.

We're not here to make laws for the sake of making laws.
We're here -or we should be here, for the sake of running the estate as smoothly as possible and solving problems as they come up.

Sometimes the best solution is to sit on your hands.

You can't assume that the next chancellor, the next SC or the next RA come from a legal background, or that english is their mother toungue. This is SL, and we ..ok, **I** want the CDS to be a democracy which is open and accessible to everyone regardless of background.

For anyone who feels the same way I do, that would mean plain english at all times except when absolutely necessary.

Also, Calli is right that this law is shaping up to have too many unintended consequences and that the need for it is actually questionable. Sometimes the best legislation is the one you set aside once it's pointed out that it creates more problems than it solves.

[Sudane Erato]

I'm tending to agree with Calli's position on this. But I also feel there's a need for action... to lift the limit on ownership. There's a lot of yellow land out there, and there may be a few of us who could help by paying for some of those parcels. We need a change which meets the "Calli Minimalist Criteria (CMC)".

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

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

After what is now five pages of discussion, I am right back to where I started, agreeing with Tan's simple suggestions that he offered on page 1 of this thread. I've tried to be flexible and have considered every option suggested, and agreed with parts or all of many of them. However, after going back and reviewing all, I've come to the conclusion that a static rule, as Tan calls it, addresses the most concerns.

We have suggested a lot of "what if's", but realistically speaking, I don't see a disaster brewing if we simply raise the current ownership from 8 to 10 (or even 12) parcels. Doing so will open the possibility of extra income for the estate, while still leaving sufficient available land for sale.

I don't think it's likely that bumping the allowed total up a bit will result in a vast number of citizens who currently own one or two parcels to suddenly decide that they want to own 10 each! If that very unusual scenario came to pass, and we ran low on available land, then it would be time to consider expanding the estate.

I think a simple (and yes, easy to read) change to the general estate covenant to allow a few extra parcels per person is sufficient.

[Gareth Kanarik]

We have suggested a lot of "what if's", but realistically speaking, I don't see a disaster brewing if we simply raise the current ownership from 8 to 10 (or even 12) parcels. Doing so will open the possibility of extra income for the estate, while still leaving sufficient available land for sale.

I don't think it's likely that bumping the allowed total up a bit will result in a vast number of citizens who currently own one or two parcels to suddenly decide that they want to own 10 each! If that very unusual scenario came to pass, and we ran low on available land, then it would be time to consider expanding the estate.

I think a simple (and yes, easy to read) change to the general estate covenant to allow a few extra parcels per person is sufficient.

After reading all this, I've come to pretty much the same conclusion.

I've always believed that the simplest rule possible was always the best one, in this case, that would seem to me to be it.

[Han Held]

I think a simple (and yes, easy to read) change to the general estate covenant to allow a few extra parcels per person is sufficient.

I agree

I've always believed that the simplest rule possible was always the best one, in this case, that would seem to me to be it.

I agree with this as well.

[Ranma Tardis]

I do not see a lot of people wanting to buy beyond the limit or a new influx of citizens. I will say if a Chancellor wants to seize some of my CDS property, they might as well take it all. I see this as why people call us the arguing nation. After an extended peroid of arguing real life politics am not in the mood to do more in CDS. Especially when it is a situtition that most likely will never happen.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

I'm not sure what the point is of posting items in the forums for discussion if discussion (we are not "arguing") is not going to be encouraged. However, if someone is not in the mood for the discussion, then they certainly don't have to participate. I believe we post potential agenda items here not only to give notice, but to invite input from those who do want to join in.

[Coop]

Occam's razor. Change the general covenant, make sure that the specific covenants are in line (which I'd likely move to keep the city limit provisions in the NFS one) and there you go. Simple and clean and quick.

[Ranma Tardis]

I'm not sure what the point is of posting items in the forums for discussion if discussion (we are not "arguing") is not going to be encouraged. However, if someone is not in the mood for the discussion, then they certainly don't have to participate. I believe we post potential agenda items here not only to give notice, but to invite input from those who do want to join in.

I am not in the mood to vote for it as well. Too complex for a need that is not needed.

[Guillaume Mistwalker]

The RA has approved a resolution to raise the parcel limit from 8 to 12.

[13:19] Gaius Tiberius Curio (guillaume.mistwalker): I motion to raise the limit on the maximum land ownership from 8 parcels to 12.
[13:20] Em Warden (mothercard.warden): second
[13:20] Gaius Tiberius Curio (guillaume.mistwalker): Let's vote.
[13:20] Em Warden (mothercard.warden): Aye
[13:20] Gaius Tiberius Curio (guillaume.mistwalker): Aye
[13:20] Sylvia Tamalyn: aye
[13:21] Ranma Tardis: ays
[13:21] Ranma Tardis: aye
[13:21] Gaius Tiberius Curio (guillaume.mistwalker): Motion passes.

[Gareth Kanarik]

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

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

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