To be discussed: Eminent Domain During Redevelopment Act

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

This has been addressed on a previous bill, regarding Chancellor powers, but because it's not strictly clear how eminent domain is actually applied, here is a proposal. I've included the requirement for redevelopment to be "80% or more vacant lots" as suggested on that other thread (instead of merely 50%). This is a very simple, stop-gap bill to address immediate issues; I expect that more complex frameworks may be required to address other issues when eminent domain might be applied (example: serious conflicts with lack of covenant compliance).

Eminent Domain During Redevelopment Act

Preamble: For many years, the Confederation of Democratic Simulators has applied eminent domain rulings regarding redevelopment of a certain region. The actual act of claiming land from citizens on behalf of the CDS is a power of the Executive, but it is not clear under which circumstances the Executive is allowed to exercise this power. Separate laws clarifies that the Executive is only allowed to claim land belonging to a citizen if and only if they have defaulted tier payments and left their land vacant. The specific issue addressed by this bill is to establish a framework for land claimed for redevelopment, in the extreme case that a specific region is unable to financially sustain itself.

1. If a region has had 80% or more vacant lots for a period at least equal to the reserve fund (currently set at three months), then the Representative Assembly is allowed to vote to start planning the redevelopment of the region.

2. Redevelopment an existing region follows the same laws as developing a new region, with an exception: plans submitted for redevelopment must make an effort of limiting the amount of currently owned land that needs to be claimed and focus on redeveloping vacant land as a priority.

3. If, as a result of the redevelopment, owned land by citizens requires to be changed or claimed, either partially or in whole, the citizens thus affected must be given due notice in advance and have the option of voluntarily redevelop their own parcels to comply with the newly approved redevelopment land or, as an alternative, offer to re-parcel part of their land and retain the remainder.

4. If citizens with owned land in the region under redevelopment do not wish to exercise their rights under point 3., their land shall be claimed under the provision of eminent domain, and citizens will have the following options:

   1. Negotiate with the Executive a fair price for the sale of their land back to the CDS. The base of negotiation shall be, at least, the price originally paid for the land plus all tier paid until the moment the land is claimed.

   2. Negotiate with the Executive an exchange of their current parcel for a similar parcel after the region is redeveloped, optionally with a monetary compensation from the Treasury if the new parcel has a smaller size. In these circumstances, existing owners will have priority in selecting parcels before the redeveloped region is offered for public sale.

5. The act of land claim shall be administratively executed by the Chancellor, as part of their powers.

6. Any conflicts regarding the eminent domain process should be appealed to the Scientific Council.

---

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think this proposal is financially irresponsible. And I'm very unhappy with Gwyn's proposal that the RA rush this through in what could be the final session of this Assembly.

Waiting until we have wasted three months' worth of reserves and occupancy is below 20% before we even think about doing something seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

It's hard to get a compromise, Pat. I originally suggested 50%, if you recall correctly, because I had this statistic from Bagheera that there were 54% vacancies on LA when we started the discussion about its redevelopment. Bromo suggested 80%. I'm fine with either, so long as there is a sunset clause somewhere — i.e., the more plots are vacant, the shorter the time to decide on the redevelopment. What I'm attempting to avoid is a "stalemate": that land remains undeveloped for extended periods of time because there is too much arguing about what needs to be done, and not enough action to correct a problem; and also avoid the other extreme, i.e. that RA/Chancellor just start to redevelop a region "because they can" without having any reason to do that.

Also, I feel it's important that the rules for redevelopment are exactly the same as for developing a new region, with the addition that citizens affected by the change should have some impact.

So... feel free to propose alternatives. I'm fine with 50% and six months, or even 25% and one year, things like that. Or a completely different set of metrics to establish a formal requirement for discussing a re-development. What I wish to avoid is a situation where a single person or group decides, on their own, either to re-develop or to stall re-development.

Oh, and there is no "rushing", I've just proposed this to the RA for discussion and not for voting (unless, of course, the RA believes that two weeks is enough discussion, since the feedback was not overwhelming).

[Patroklus Murakami]

I would like to respectfully request that the Representative Assembly, when contemplating the passage of laws which affect the other branches of Government i.e. the Chancellor or the Scientific Council:

• *invite the incumbents in the relevant branch(es) to the meetings where such discussion will take place
  *schedule them for a time which the others can make and
  *provide adequate notice that the items are up for discussion and/or passage as laws

I would respectfully wish to point out that four and a half hours is not adequate notice of such intent.

[cleopatraxigalia]

1.If a region has had 80% or more vacant lots for a period at least equal to the reserve fund (currently set at three months), then the Representative Assembly is allowed to vote to start planning the redevelopment of the region.

How do you keep someone from them being incentivized to create the 80% vacancy and try to maintain it to force through an idea of a redesign?

[Rosie Gray]

I think that 80% vacancy is way too much to wait to do something about myself. We need 80% occupancy to cover the tier on an individual sim, so 20% occupancy would mean we are losing a lot of money each month, and would seem a clear indicator to me that the theme is not appealing (or there is something else equally unappealing) about the sim.

I think that by the time a sim is only 50% occupied that is a good indicator that we need to do address it. The question becomes how long would the rest of the sims 'carry' an seriously underperforming sim.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Chancellor to bring this to the RAs attention for action at a point at which they become concerned that a sim is failing to remain occupied and is either losing money or about to become a drain?

I don't understand why you seem to think that some supposedly automatic process - which actually involves more bureaucracy as you try to assess whether the arbitrary trigger point the RA has selected has been met - rather than trusting our future *elected* representatives to make a sensible decision to do something about a current issue?

Very odd, to me, that you think this is what the RA should be focussed on when... all of our sims are virtually full and we are bursting at the seams!

I would have thought it might make more sense to focus on enabling a new sim purchase. The 'In Theme' Expansion Act gives us a way forward but needs amendment to take into account that 'The New Guild" as an organisation chartered by the RA is no more. The RA will have to tackle this issue before can expand. Better now than later in my view.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Since when does the chancellors office direct the RA ? What have I missed now.
.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Since when does the chancellors office direct the RA ? What have I missed now.
.

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. I did not say, or intend, for the Chancellor to 'direct' the RA. I don't understand how you would come to that conclusion from my post.

My point is simply that, the Chancellor is responsible for collecting tier and managing land in the CDS according to our Constitution. So, it is likely that if in future we have a sim which is not doing well this is something the Chancellor would expect to notice and take responsibility of dealing with.

I envisaged a collaborative process where the RA and Chancellor work together to find a solution to the problem consulting citizens about what we should do to fix the problem.

All rather odd to be discussing this though when we are bursting at the seams and everyone agrees a new sim is our top priority.....

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Well, I plead guilty of my own background: 'fix what's wrong first, add features later'

But I consider your request reasonable enough; I'll be fine to propose a new bill to add the next region and ask the LRA to move that discussion to the top of the list!

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Oh, and in my haste, I forgot to explain further the reasoning for an 'automatic' system as opposed to a 'consensual' agreement. The issue is simple, really. The CDS has always been neatly split between 'expansionists' (get new regions as fast as we can, worry about filling them later — 'build and they'll come') and 'conservatives' (let's keep our community small and manageable). A balance of the two extreme views is usually best, but there cannot ever be a 'consensus' among both. So, depending on who happens to sit on the RA and Executive, the CDS might veer more towards one of the extremes than the other.

Because until recently we've been through a rather extremely long 'conservative' period, we managed to have a whole region locked down for almost a year, constantly postponing a decision, and, even when one was finally made, all sorts of obstructions and barriers were created to hinder redevelopment — hurting not only the community by itself (due to the many struggles), but, perhaps more importantly, hurting the CDS financially. The past is the past, but this proposed bill for discussion is clearly 'expansionist' — it tries to make redevelopment mandatory, no matter if a 'conservative' group is currently in charge, because financial soundness is, in my opinion, more important than ideological views.

Also, we have no formal, legal framework for redevelopment. It was never clear if redevelopment took the same steps as developing a new region, and under which circumstances it is different (e.g. eminent domain does not apply to new regions). There is a bill for redeveloping Altenburg (the 'Old Quarter' in Neufreistadt), but, when that bill was passed, all that land was vacant — and the bill mandated in-theme compliance. That was a very special case. I propose something more far-reaching.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Oh, and in my haste, I forgot to explain further the reasoning for an 'automatic' system as opposed to a 'consensual' agreement. The issue is simple, really. The CDS has always been neatly split between 'expansionists' (get new regions as fast as we can, worry about filling them later — 'build and they'll come') and 'conservatives' (let's keep our community small and manageable). A balance of the two extreme views is usually best, but there cannot ever be a 'consensus' among both. So, depending on who happens to sit on the RA and Executive, the CDS might veer more towards one of the extremes than the other.

Because until recently we've been through a rather extremely long 'conservative' period, we managed to have a whole region locked down for almost a year, constantly postponing a decision, and, even when one was finally made, all sorts of obstructions and barriers were created to hinder redevelopment — hurting not only the community by itself (due to the many struggles), but, perhaps more importantly, hurting the CDS financially. The past is the past, but this proposed bill for discussion is clearly 'expansionist' — it tries to make redevelopment mandatory, no matter if a 'conservative' group is currently in charge, because financial soundness is, in my opinion, more important than ideological views.

Also, we have no formal, legal framework for redevelopment. It was never clear if redevelopment took the same steps as developing a new region, and under which circumstances it is different (e.g. eminent domain does not apply to new regions). There is a bill for redeveloping Altenburg (the 'Old Quarter' in Neufreistadt), but, when that bill was passed, all that land was vacant — and the bill mandated in-theme compliance. That was a very special case. I propose something more far-reaching.

But in your other proposal you have made redevelopment *impossible* because you have said anyone who has to be moved (even to an equivalent plot next door!) has to be given back every penny they ever paid for their land and tier!

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Ah, I think that my wording on that proposal was a bit unclear, then. What I wished to propose is that people either get money or an equivalent plot, not and. It's only when they're forced to accept a smaller plot that they might receive some compensation.

While the suggested values are really to be discussed, there had to be a starting point somewhere. The main issue here (and you know I'm not a lawyer) is how to measure goodwill.

Suppose that someone gets a plot in a commercial area, and they are making US$5k/month selling their meshed clothes (yes, that's about what a top mesh clothing designer earns these days). Their shop is immensely popular, their business thrives, but, as a result, it lags the whole region, and the remaining citizens are all leaving. Suddenly the shopowner is the last one remaining on the region. The CDS decides to redevelop the whole region and completely change the theme. The shopowner needs to get evicted while the redevelopment takes place, and for about a month, at least, they will be unable to sell anything. But even when the region is up again, old landmarks might fail, etc. So... how much would they expect as a compensation?

I certainly don't know (a lawyer might have an answer), but I can imagine it would be a lot.

Then we have scenario #2 — someone who uses their plot for fun, but love the theme, have bought the land with a reasonable expectation that the theme wouldn't be changed and that they would be able to enjoy themselves in a 'safe' community, where their vote counts, Covenants are enforced, and so on. Suddenly, they get evicted, and their beloved neighbourhood will be gone, to be replaced by something completely different. The change breaks their heart. How much should they be compensated? Here the problem is establishing how much we can assign to emotional issues.

But I'm quite willing to change the value to something calculated differently. Maybe it could be just the price they paid for the plot plus twelve months of rent, or the amount of months they have rented the plot (if it's less than a year). My original idea was that people who have been paying tier for many, many years, stoically contributing for that region not to fail, ought to get a higher compensation than someone who just rented the region a month before.

Again, I have no 'fixed' value in mind and I'm quite willing to discuss anything reasonable. In this case, 'reasonable' should be a considerably high price, to make sure that all other options have been exhausted (i.e. promoting the region, doing more advertising, more events to attract people, and so forth) — and that eminent domain is only invoked in the extreme case that a particular parcel is crucial to be bought back for proper redevelopment. It should encourage redevelopment plans to work around the few plots that remain with paid tier, and concentrate on redeveloping all the rest first — instead of completely ignoring who is already living in the region and just pave them over and scatter a handful of L$ and give them a pat in the back

[Patroklus Murakami]

Gwyn

When do you anticipate needing to *use* this law? We have a history in CDS of legislating 'just in case' and then finding.... the law is never used. The "Franchulates" Act and "Private Development" Act come to mind. Oh, and the Judiciary Act which took up about a year and had to be scrapped.

This one smacks of legislating after the fact i.e. legislating for the LA rebuild... when it's almost done!

Ah well, I guess it's up to the RA to decide how to use its valuable time but, as a citizen, I find your priorities very odd.

[Bromo Ivory]

Gwyn

When do you anticipate needing to *use* this law? We have a history in CDS of legislating 'just in case' and then finding.... the law is never used. The "Franchulates" Act and "Private Development" Act come to mind. Oh, and the Judiciary Act which took up about a year and had to be scrapped.

This one smacks of legislating after the fact i.e. legislating for the LA rebuild... when it's almost done!

Ah well, I guess it's up to the RA to decide how to use its valuable time but, as a citizen, I find your priorities very odd.

You would be correct, presuming we'll never have to revelop a sim. And by having a method in advance, we can avoid the appearance of impropriety by legislating "on the fly" - especially with the exercise of eminent domain, which even in RL is controversial.

The biggest issue we have with our code of laws is the difficulty of digging them up. So in some cases the RA and Chancellor acts without a consult to the laws to see what freedoms of movement they each have.

(But also one of the reasons the Franchulate act has never been exercised is that it is so one sided that nobody would ever want to "give" land to CDS - and it is unclear how to apply it with the nature of CDS now, and the nature of tier. If we ever get serious about accepting land form others, the law would have to be updated, since the terms are so unsavory to the donor, and the tier being so high. The law essentially is discouraging people fomr giving land to CDS, and in that light it has been a highly successful law.)