Statement of the Curator of the Monastery about the proposals of the LUC regarding the redesign of Friedsee (17.07.2016)

[Arria Perreault]

It is my official statement as curator of the Monastery. I deeply regret that the LUC did not understand my argumentation by not presenting a proposal without any effect on the Monastery sim. I have to analyze the alternative of the tunnel. I don't understand what it really means. If it doesn't have any visual change, maybe I can live with it.
I am aware that CDS can do everything with its lands. I am also aware that my rights are only on my parcels. I have explained in the forums the special history of the Monastery sim.
If the RA or the Chancellor confirms the following variant : "Replace the current waterfall on Monastery with a curved river with rapids", it will mean that the Monastery sim is not linked anymore to the Monastery building in the point of view of the CDS. So if the RA or the Chancellor confirms this variant, the Monastery will leave the CDS territory on 31.12.2016. I am already looking for alternatives for the Monastery project. In this case, the LUC can also reconsider to make a reparcelling of le Monastery sim for the 01.01.2017.

[Guillaume Mistwalker]

You are at liberty, Arria, to make your own proposal to the Chancellor if you please. However, your behaviour reeks of petulance unbefitting of your character, especially at the recent LUC meeting. You were provided many opportunities to express yourself and to explain your concerns, yet you did not do so. It is not so much that the LUC did not understand your argumentation as much as you did not thoroughly and coherently present an argument: there was little to understand.

[Delia Lake]

Arria, I disagree. I believe that the LUC does understand your position very well, and that we understand the history of both the Monastery building and the Monastery region of the CDS. Every region of the CDS has a special history. The Confederation of Democratic Simulators itself is a history-making endeavor.

A question for readers to consider, and not only for this instance, is how do we hold the CDS? Is this a collection of individuals come together for convenience or a community based on democratic principles where we practice negotiation and compromise to further common interests balanced with individual wants that contribute to that whole. Sometimes this results in individuals not getting everything they want. Take our covenants, for instance. As a group we have decided that people who join the CDS community must abide by the building codes that govern the region where they purchase a plot. That we enforce those covenants for the enhancement of the community as a whole has upset some residents to the point where a few have left the CDS rather than live with them.

Regarding the proposed redesign of Friedsee with which the LUC has been charged, we have taken the perspective that while the specific region, Friedsee, is important, it is not a standalone but should be designed as an integrated part of the CDS Estate. It is that perspective that we took in examining the financials, in exploring design options and in proposing what we believe to be a design that can satisfy the concerns of the current residents while enhancing the overall desirability of the CDS Estate as a whole and the constraints of redesigning including that it is an already inhabited region. In the survey the LUC has done, almost all the respondents said that the aesthetics and beauty of the CDS regions was very important. So designing Friedsee and the connecting areas to be very attractive is a priority.

The LUC did not arrive at this proposed design in isolation. We talked with current residents of Friedsee, abutting residents of Neufreistadt and residents of Monastery. We solicited their concerns in private conversations and in public LUC meetings. You participated in a number of these conversations, Arria.

During the 26 June LUC meeting we did discuss the possibility of lowering the water level on Friedsee to LL water level, and the possibility of connecting that water on Friedsee through Monastery to the lake on that region and thereby creating a 5 region navigable waterway through the CDS. During that conversation, I asked specifically about the waterfall on Monastery. Here is the relevant section of the LUC transcript from that meeting. I have bolded some of the relevant text.

[2016/06/26 15:11] Arria (arria.perreault): I am ready to give a specific desgin, of cours

[2016/06/26 15:11] Arria (arria.perreault): of course*

[2016/06/26 15:11] Delia Lake: so let's look at the benefit of the waterfall vs the benefit of a river gorge, because this is the question. and look at it fromm the perspective of the CDS estate not solely from the Monastery building

[2016/06/26 15:11] Callipygian Christensen: But that's the realit - *both* regions have to be viable

[2016/06/26 15:11] Leslie Allandale: How does the river preclude a waterfall?

[2016/06/26 15:11] Delia Lake: what are the benefits of the waterfall?

[2016/06/26 15:11] RG Cooperstone (roguegeek.cooperstone): or we'll be where we are, where NFS and AM carry the estate

[2016/06/26 15:12] Delia Lake: add that river would be at LL level

[2016/06/26 15:12] Delia Lake: water

[2016/06/26 15:12] Arria (arria.perreault): The benefit of the waterfall is a view

[2016/06/26 15:12] Leslie Allandale: and a waterfall can't flow into the river at

[2016/06/26 15:13] Leslie Allandale: linden level?

[2016/06/26 15:13] Delia Lake: anyone else re waterfall?

[2016/06/26 15:13] Arria (arria.perreault): the lake

[2016/06/26 15:13] Delia Lake: a view is important as it is part of the aesthetics of a region

[2016/06/26 15:13] Delia Lake: what about the lake?

[2016/06/26 15:13] Arria (arria.perreault): and some hills behind the Monastery

[2016/06/26 15:14] Delia Lake: ok. hills behind the Monastery

[2016/06/26 15:14] Arria (arria.perreault): I don't think the land should be lowered directly behind the Monastery

[2016/06/26 15:14] Leslie Allandale: Can we wait on this argument until we have a model to view?

[2016/06/26 15:14] Delia Lake: what about the waterfall?

[2016/06/26 15:14] Delia Lake: this does affect the design though

[2016/06/26 15:14] Arria (arria.perreault): a small hill and then going down

[2016/06/26 15:15] Delia Lake: is there anything besides the view regarding the waterfall? from anyone?

[2016/06/26 15:15] Widget Whiteberry: me

[2016/06/26 15:15] Arria (arria.perreault): I will make a proposal

Arria, as you can see, when asked specifically about the benefit of the waterfall on Monastery you stated publicly that “The benefit of the waterfall is the view.” So taking that into account, the design that LUC has proposed includes a new waterfall that will be clearly visible from the Monastery building including from its tower. Overall it was a fruitful conversation and did inform some of the design decisions made by the LUC. Toward the end of that discussion, Arria, you said you would make a proposal. Weeks later, as of our next meeting of 17 July, you had proposed nothing and put forth nothing but complaints and demands. The LUC has now moved forward, proposed a preferred design and said why that particular design was selected while alternatives discussed were not selected.

It is probably important here to present some reference regarding the evolution of the Monastery region. Neither the current Monastery building nor the landscape are the same as they were when the region was first established. Rather than words, here are a couple of photos of Early Monastery and Current Monastery, link to google docs
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZpF ... sp=sharing

The point is that Monastery, and all the other CDS regions, evolve over time—both in useful functionality and modifications to the design. But back to the argument that Monastery should be preserved as it was originally conceived. That would require that both the landscaping AND the Monastery building be reverted to a former version. Is encased in history really what we want for Monastery, or for any of our other CDS regions?

We have never done a complete redesign of an already settled region in the CDS before. So in addition to the redesign of Friedsee what we are doing is setting precedent for future processes of region modification. That brings me back to the questions I posed at the beginning of this post because it informs this redesign as well as any number of future decisions our CDS community will face. “How do we hold the CDS? Is this a collection of individuals come together for convenience or a community based on democratic principles where we practice negotiation and compromise to further common interests?”

Delia Lake
Chair, Land Use Commission (LUC)

[Bagheera]

Since others have weighed in (Gauis, Delia) with their interpretations of Arria's post here, I will weigh in with my own.

I believe - contrary to the position Gaius has taken - that Arria at this point is clearly just stating her intention based on her observation of the process so far - all within her rights.

She is simply saying that she is concerned the planning going forward may not support the vision for Monastery for which she has poured years worth of dedicated time and resources - and so - if that turns out to ultimately be the case and "Monastery the sim" is no longer in affinity with "Monastery the vision, " she will end the project in CDS and move it somewhere else.

All this post was, to my mind, was ample notification stating clearly the reasons and consequences - being that if CDS no longer supports "Monastery the vision," she will remove it. Since she built it and has been paying for it, that is completely within her rights. She is just giving fair notice - notice that is not actually required - but is very gracious of her to give.

That is my opinion/take on this.

[Han Held]

I believe - contrary to the position Gaius has taken - that Arria at this point is clearly just stating her intention based on her observation of the process so far - all within her rights.

I disagree -to be more clear, that's not my perspective. But your perspective IS a valid one and it would be better to work from a place of problem-solving than a place of conflict.

Right now I am waiting for the Chancellor's recommendation, and then the RA will vote and we'll go from there.

The SL economy and population numbers are contracting and to be honest, we're going to need to consider divestment within the next 2 to 6 terms. Regardless of whether Arria stays or goes.

[Rosie Gray]

...

Right now I am waiting for the Chancellor's recommendation, and then the RA will vote and we'll go from there. ...

I am awaiting the posting of the official LUC proposal on to the forums here, in order to comment.

[Arria Perreault]

Delia

My perception of the process is different. I have expected that the LUC published some drafts that our community could discuss. I did not see any draft. I tried to figure myself how could look the Monastery sim if this river went throughout it. I have made a sketch and I have published it. You have to understand that such process makes our mind evolving. This sketch is a bit different from yours, but it gave a general idea. Especially the average of the sim is much lower. This made me think that the idea we had with the Monastery is very different. I have explained in detail why in the forums.
I am aware that the CDS can change any parcel of land. I clearly said that it was maybe an issue for the Monastery that was predictable, due to our laws.
It is right that the Monastery changed. I have improved the building when SL made some changes in the possibilities of buildings. The relief of the sim changed too. I cannot recall all changes. I know that I noticed one day that the skiing slope that we hardly calculated disappeared. And I remember that you asked me if you can make a new waterfall. I did not ask for all the changes of the relief of the sim and I have absolutely no rights to terraform the sim. I am not responsible for theses changes and I am not sure to agree with all of them.
I was also very disappointed of the last meeting of the LUC. I have expected that the LUC would release all the sketches before the meeting. I have also expect that we could still comment the sketches and ideas of the LUC. I have expected for such an important change several iterations. I was surprised that a motion to pass the project to the Chancellor was made very quickly, without a real discussion with the present citizen.