eminent domain

[cleopatraxigalia]

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 241#p22241

Does everyone understand that the chancellor now has extreme power over what happens to land in cds. The only check in this Power is impeachment by the RA. Currently a chancellor and 2 RA
members could be in agreement that land should be taken from citizens and it would take until the next election to rectify the situation. By that time irreparable damage could be done to the reputation of cds as a.safe place to own land. I would like to propose we hash out an imminent domain law that would assure that only under extreme circumstances and with cooperation of all three branches ( sc appeal by thw citizen with a higher than usual standard in favor of the citizen ) , including unanimous support of the RA would it be possible for the government to take land from citizens who are paying tier

[Bromo Ivory]

If we take inspiration from RL Eminent Domain Laws in the US, is that property can be seized (with "fair value purchase") only for purposes of public use.

If we feel that in SL that that is a suitable restriction (that land can only be seized if it is going to be used for public use, and not reparceling), then it should be straighforward enough, though might require an amendment.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Oh Bromo. I totally disagree with you. Here's one place I think rl and sl differ greatly. Basically in rl land is finite and unchangeable but in sl and CDS it's not. Saying any chancellor can take our land as long as he makes it into a park ( or another public space ) doesn't cut it for me. I'd like it to be more like, we can take your land if and only if the sim would have to be sold in order for CDS not to go under if we don't. I'd like something more like "undue hardship" on CDS if we don't take this land from you. Also you talk about a fair market value ....That's really unfair. But it makes me think of alexia and my shops where years of landmarks and classified ads are spent to get the whereabouts of a business known, not to mention the work it takes to reattach slurs on marketplace to each item..etc. and what about elaborate custom builds like rosies house in NFS. That She can't just plunk that down anywhere and No telling how many hours it took her to build ..... so giving a person the " fair market value " doesn't pay a person sometimes for what it really costs them to relocate. Under your plan bromo, all the waterfront on LA could have just been gathered up and taken as long as it was then made public. No i beg to differ in cds it should be. A last resort for the govt to take our personal land ESPECIALLY if it's just for a public works project. In cds we can terraform and buy new Sims and do all sorts of things to get more land for public property. I'd like a citizens rights centered approach to land ownership that makes it next to impossible for the government to take our land unless all of CDS is in danger of going under and then there needs to be some.additional measure that taking that land would actually solve the problem it's supposed to be solving.

.

[Pip Torok]

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 241#p22241

Does everyone understand that the chancellor now has extreme power over what happens to land in cds. The only check in this Power is impeachment by the RA. Currently a chancellor and 2 RA
members could be in agreement that land should be taken from citizens and it would take until the next election to rectify the situation. By that time irreparable damage could be done to the reputation of cds as a.safe place to own land. I would like to propose we hash out an imminent domain law that would assure that only under extreme circumstances and with cooperation of all three branches ( sc appeal by thw citizen with a higher than usual standard in favor of the citizen ) , including unanimous support of the RA would it be possible for the government to take land from citizens who are paying tier

Readers, look at that last sentence ... ("I would like to propose ... who are paying tier.")

You'll see that CLEOPATRA Xigalia puts forward the possibility of that extreme power.

In effect, she proposes the irreparable damage that she speaks of ... it's all there, in black and white.

In my opinion, the very best thing she could propose for CDS would be her imminent leave of absence from it.

Pip Torok

[cleopatraxigalia]

Pip.

You have completely misunderstood what you read. I am proposing to take the extreme power of the chancellor to have complete power over how land is put to use in CDS and the ability to implement eminent domain or as you call it, compulsory purchase orders. And instead make it a very stringent next to impossible happening that requires many people on agreement other than one persons whim as it is now.

Please update your above false statement. Flagging your post.

[Bromo Ivory]

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 241#p22241

Does everyone understand that the chancellor now has extreme power over what happens to land in cds. The only check in this Power is impeachment by the RA. Currently a chancellor and 2 RA
members could be in agreement that land should be taken from citizens and it would take until the next election to rectify the situation. By that time irreparable damage could be done to the reputation of cds as a.safe place to own land. I would like to propose we hash out an imminent domain law that would assure that only under extreme circumstances and with cooperation of all three branches ( sc appeal by thw citizen with a higher than usual standard in favor of the citizen ) , including unanimous support of the RA would it be possible for the government to take land from citizens who are paying tier

Readers, look at that last sentence ... ("I would like to propose ... who are paying tier.")

You'll see that CLEOPATRA Xigalia puts forward the possibility of that extreme power.

In effect, she proposes the irreparable damage that she speaks of ... it's all there, in black and white.

In my opinion, the very best thing she could propose for CDS would be her imminent leave of absence from it.

Pip Torok

In your search for "demons" and your desire to point to Cleo and shout "Look! There is the Enemy!" and then demand she leave CDS at once, you have made two errors:

1. You misread her proposal. She is talking about limiting the power of the Chancellor to prevent abuse. Unless you feel limiting the power of the Chancellor is causing irreperable harm and leading to extreme power, which I don't think you do, you didn't understand what she has written.

2. By continuing to demand for someone to leave the community, and continuing to try to demonize another citizen, you are creating a toxic culture and environment in CDS where it is "ok" to persecute other citizens you do not like (and then open yourself for the same sort of persecution). I would suggest by misrepresenting Cleo and demanding she leaves and recounting a long list of slights you feel you have bourne, you have become the caracature you have tried to pin on her. I am saying YOU are behaving how you think CLEO does. I don't think anybody wants that, and I don't think you do, especially.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Personal attacks besides, I would also like to review the Eminent Domain issue.

I'm afraid that I haven't (yet) found out where the latest eminent domain bill is posted to see exactly what it entails.

NL 5-8 Covenant Revision Act applies to Neufreistadt only, more specifically, to the Marketplatz, and states:

Zone P, Article 2:

Should the owner fail to achieve a success commensurate with the goals of the City for its Platz, the City may exercise the right of eminent domain and “Reclaim” the parcel at fair cost.

I think that this was launched in reply to a discussion about what to do if shop owners left their shops unattended and the space empty in what was considered "prime location" in the CDS back then. Some thoughts were expressed on this thread: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=989

Bagheera, in 2010, started a thread discussing the disturbing wording of the Constitution: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?t=2909&p=15384

Let me quote her:

Constitution and Article II, Section 2. (e) gave me (great) pause (and some concern).

"(e) subject to the payment of adequate compensation to any citizen or citizens thereby affected, reclaim or swap any land held by any citizen of CDS for the purposes of discharging any function of the Office of the Chancellor conferred by this Act or any other Act of the Representative Assembly, provided always that no citizen of CDS shall not be caused to have no holding in Neufriestadt at all thereby;"

Eminent domain has been discussed at least since 2006: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/faqs ... e-15-2006/ Let me quote Pelanor Eldrich:

I think this is for national security, national emergency or *big ass* projects only.

This was discussed over and over again, and on the 13th term it was part of the overall agenda for the RA for that term: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?t=2904&p=15276

Pat, back in May 2007, was against any eminent domain laws allowing the Government to seize land from the citizens, while Sudane, in contrast to what she more recently said, tended to view eminent domain as useful if we had some citizens abandoning property, leaving gaping holes on prime location, but continue to pay tier in order to keep their citizen status. There was an agreement to go the middle way: if shops were left vacant, and the owners were willing to sell/swap their land, then either Government or the Trader's Association would be able to buy it back and sell it to someone willing to develop it. So the idea was to make things more voluntary, and more as part of Covenant enforcement.

I've avoided to read the most recent discussions around this topic and, instead, I suggest the following:

Eminent domain laws are to be applied on extreme circumstances only, and these should be listed in advance. A few typical examples:

• Clear violations of the Covenants, where the citizen refuses to comply. There might be some recourse on this (i.e. to allow citizens to complain about unfair interpretations of the Covenant). But if the citizen refuses even after the complaint was turned down, it is fair to assume that in these cases the Chancellor should reclaim the land, pay for the corresponding value plus something else (to be defined — we never discussed how citizens are compensated for "improving" land value), and put it up for sale again.

• Extending public areas. This requires the RA to approve a land reorganisation — to the best of my knowledge, the Executive can do whatever they like on existing public land, i.e. order all existing structures to be destroyed and new ones set in place, so long as they keep to the Covenants — but it cannot claim citizen's private land for public works — except if the RA approves a new land reorganisation plan. Historically, those plans were actually turned into public tender, i.e. input from all the community would be required, a public contest would be held, and the public's choice would be implemented. This was never turned into a "permanent law", but just passed as specific bills in specific cases (for the early regions). So, personally, my choice would be a triple requirement in those cases: 1) public contest for land reorganisation, all citizens vote on their choice; 2) RA picks the winner and announces new plan; 3) Executive reparcels terrain, and pays compensation for parcels that have been bought to become public land.

• Change of theme. In the extreme case where the citizens — and the RA, by consulting with them — find that a certain theme has lost its appeal, then the whole region might simply be changed from scratch. This naturally means a complete redevelopment of the region, and, as such, it certainly means evicting current landowners in the existing region. The closest we have had to this was Locus Amoenus — the theme has not completely changed, but it has gone through a fundamental change of focus. In those cases, I would also force the three-step process as described above, with an exception: landowners in the region being developed would get "first pick" of the new parcels, and be entitled to get same-sized (and same-zoned) parcels for free, paying the difference if they wish to increase their ownership in the newly rebuilt region, and being paid a compensation if they wish smaller parcels or forfeit owning parcels in the newly redesigned region.

Except for those extreme cases, I would personally avoid any application of "eminent domain" laws. The major reason would be to prevent the temptation of actively enforcing ostracism, by pushing citizens out of the CDS without a fair trial.´

Note: this is not "quite a bill" yet, but certainly the foundations of a future bill, and all I'm asking at this stage is some input so we can do it better

Also, pointers to existing eminent domains laws — maybe already collected and compiled by Rose? — would be very welcome.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

I haven't been able to find more information regarding "eminent domain", so I've proposed a new bill that at least attempts to clarify the role of the Chancellor in the issue of eminent domain. Simply put, I propose that reclaiming a citizen's land for the purpose of change of theme/change of region layout has to be decided by the RA, but it will be up to the Chancellor to enforce it. The Chancellor, by itself, cannot reclaim a citizen's land (unless they have been defaulting in payment; I'm addressing that on a different bill).

[Bromo Ivory]

Love it, and agree, Gwyn!