Revisiting parcel limits

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Gareth Kanarik
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik »

Thanks Sylvia!

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 »

Sylvia Tamalyn wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:01 pm

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/.

This is not satisfying IMO. We should either raise the area limit to 8*1024= 12,288 sqm or do away with the area limitation at all. I would like to see that on the agenda of the next meeting.

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 »

In my particular case, it means that I don't hypothetically have the option of buying another large parcel that is vacant, which might be harder to sell to someone else, but instead, would have to buy two smaller parcels to stay under the limit, taking those, which *might* be more appealing to a new person just finding us, off the market in order to have the prims to play with if I decide I want them. I realize I may be unusual in that regard.

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 »

Did I write 8 * 1,024 = 12,288 ? I mean 12 * 1,024 of course.

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 »

Tanoujin Milestone wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:40 pm

This is not satisfying IMO. We should either raise the area limit to 8*1024= 12,288 sqm or do away with the area limitation at all. I would like to see that on the agenda of the next meeting.

I agree, Tan. I did not want to vote on it at that time, as I felt things were being rushed to a vote without enough discussion. It went to a vote anyway, and since I did not disagree with the basic premise of raising the limit on number of parcels, I voted in favor.

I would also vote in favor of raising the limit on square meters proportionally (or removing it altogether). And once that is done, I think enough will be enough, and the issue of land limits can be put to rest without the need for further complications.

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 »

It would be nice if the entire covenant was reviewed for things like the Hippo references, which are now old, and update them at the same time. You are essentially updating the master covenants when you're voting on these parcel number/ownership issues.
https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/

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

Rosie Gray wrote: Sun Aug 13, 2017 6:24 pm

It would be nice if the entire covenant was reviewed for things like the Hippo references, which are now old, and update them at the same time. You are essentially updating the master covenants when you're voting on these parcel number/ownership issues.
https://cdsdemocracy.org/cds-themes/

Yes, good idea. I only find the subheading "Hippo Tier Meter Expiration", which can be changed to "Tier Meter Expiration", because it is not interesting whether it is a Hippo or CasperLet or Whatever Tier Meter, do you agree?

Furthermore let us finally change the sentence "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels, totalling 8192 m2." to
"An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels". I see no reason to keep the area limitation, we have grown a bit since this regulation was made and I believe personal land usage can grow as well without further restrictions necessary.

Any other changes you consider useful?

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 »

Very sensible, Tan. I think I saw two references to "Hippo", but like you, thought "why do we not just remove that word?" since there is no need to specify what brand of tier box is currently in use. Then in the future if we change to another brand, there will be no need to update the covenant again!

The only other thing that could be updated, in my opinion, is to remove the reference to how many months of tier can be paid at once. We know what's currently shown there is not accurate, as we have recently seen payments made up to one year in advance. I see no sense in specifying a limit when the tier box allows more to be paid.

Em Warden
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Em Warden »

I really support the idea of adjusting the landarea to the higher number of parcels per citizen- otherwise the increased number looses much of its effect. And I hope somebody is willing to adjust the covenants accordingly as well.

The sooner we have a decision in the RA, the better. But I would like to know how prim parcels will be affected: will they be counted as any other parcel (=virtually no restrictions as to number of prim parcels), or should there be a special limit for those?

When you go through hell- keep walking!

Winston Churchill
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 »

Em Warden wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:06 am

The sooner we have a decision in the RA, the better. But I would like to know how prim parcels will be affected: will they be counted as any other parcel (=virtually no restrictions as to number of prim parcels), or should there be a special limit for those?

I will suggest on the next meeting to:

- remove both references to „Hippo“
- remove the reference to how many months of tier can be paid at once (as Sylvia suggested, one Hippo reference is included here)
- change the sentence "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels, totalling 8192 m2." to "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels".

I think prim parcels should be counted as any other parcel. But we may want to restrict the number of prim parcels one person can own by working on the region specific covenants. The CN covenant allows possession of prim parcels only when they are „attached“ to city parcels. We can clarify it is exactly one prim parcel per city parcel. The NFS and Friedsee covenant lacks such a regulation at all. Let us work on that in a second step, I do not want to overload this discussion. And beware - we will run into the troubles of enforcement and grandfathering again here!

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 »

Agreed, Tan. Prim parcels do need to be addressed because there are no consistent rules about them at this time, but they should be addressed separately from the current discussion or we will get too mired down in side details.

Em Warden
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Em Warden »

Sylvia and Tan:

Sorry to burden you with details here, but I make a note of this so that it is accounted for when we start to get serious about the necessary details:

The prim parcels of NFS are dedicated to the citizens inside the walls. But if you have a parcel in the Valley and a NFS prim parcel, the prims are added up. We need to decide whether the NFS prim parcels are valid for the Valley as well, or else change something (I have no idea how it's done) to prevent that.

More little details like this are likely to turn up as we go along... I suggest that a small group of brilliant people are appointed to work with this issue and to present a draft proposal within a certain time limit :)

When you go through hell- keep walking!

Winston Churchill
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 »

My 2 cents here regarding the prim parcels. The prim parcels in NFS, and then later in CN, were INTENDED (as Em says) to supplement the prims of those owners of parcels within the walls who have tiny parcels and thus very few prims. Again, the INTENT was that one prim parcel could be purchased for each city parcel. And finally, the INTENT was that if you wanted still more prims, you would simply buy a normal parcel outside, *AND* give up the prim parcel to someone who could not afford the expense of a normal parcel outside the walls for prims.

Sadly, that's not at all how they've been used. Since what I label as "intent" has not been incorporated into the covenants, I'm not casting any blame. IMHO the intents described here should have been made formal. But they are a bit complex, so such is life.

The prim parcels on FDS I have never understood, and IMO should be removed. If you need more prims, just buy another parcel. There are certainly parcels there of various sizes.

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 »

I gave up my two prim parcels for exactly the scenario you mention Sudane, I assumed that WAS their purpose and didn't want to tie them up for someone else in NFS that might need them. I can see how that needs to be spelled out more clearly though.

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 »

Tanoujin Milestone wrote: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:06 am

I will suggest on the next meeting to:

- remove both references to „Hippo“
- remove the reference to how many months of tier can be paid at once (as Sylvia suggested, one Hippo reference is included here)
- change the sentence "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels, totalling 8192 m2." to "An individual can own up to 12* CDS land parcels".

I think prim parcels should be counted as any other parcel. But we may want to restrict the number of prim parcels one person can own by working on the region specific covenants. The CN covenant allows possession of prim parcels only when they are „attached“ to city parcels. We can clarify it is exactly one prim parcel per city parcel. The NFS and Friedsee covenant lacks such a regulation at all. Let us work on that in a second step, I do not want to overload this discussion. And beware - we will run into the troubles of enforcement and grandfathering again here!

Thank you, Tan. Noted. But could someone please write this up into a proper motion?

But, with reference to #2, are you recommending a new time period or does the Casper system allow one to rent land ad infinitum?

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)
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”