I do apologise, Bagheera. Because the other thread was a bit confusing after a while, I wasn't clear what you actually wished to discuss.
Again, let me repeat: the current law is crystal clear. Land can be set, not deeded, to groups. No member of the group is entitled to citizenship because of that. So, that's what we have. Things might have been different before; I have no idea, I didn't follow all the confusion of past laws until we reached CDSL 16-03. But that's what we have right now.
So, I think we can all agree to this?
Now, your purpose in starting this discussion is not to discuss what the current law says or doesn't say, but to propose an amendment that allows land to be deeded (not merely set) to a group, and, additionally, that takes into account the limits on land ownership by each citizen, something that CDSL 16-03 is not clear about.
That's something different — I think we all were mislead, Bagheera, because you started this (and previous) discussions by saying 'previous laws said X...' and 'Pat said Y...' and 'in May I started discussing group ownership...' and 'in some transcripts people contradicted themselves...' instead of plainly and simply asking:
The current law, CDSL 16-03, does not allow deeded land. Can we change that?
The current law, CDSL 16-03, is not clear how land ownership size calculations are affected by land set or deeded to group. Can we change that?
Well, sure, we can change everything! Let's discuss what is the best way to change the law!
What major catastrophe will happen if land is deeded instead of set to group? I know about the advantages; what are the disadvantages? There was a reason why CDSL 16-03 explicitly excluded deeded land. Someone remembers why? Maybe we could ask Sudane? Maybe there were bugs in the SL permission system which have long since been fixed? Whatever the reason, if there are no valid reasons for land NOT to be deeded as opposed to simply set, I'm all for amending the legislation to allow deeded land.
The second thing is a bit more complicated, and which has to do with the calculations of how much land a citizen can own. Also, we have two different situations to handle. One is a 'normal' group, that is, something that a group of citizens (and eventually non-citizens) have spontaneously set up to hold land together. I would say that this is the hardest thing to solve, since calculations would become tremendously difficult, specially in groups where membership is constantly changing — a nightmare for anyone to calculate!
Then there is land owned by corporations and NGOs. Both are formally chartered in the CDS, and that means that they are legal entities independent of their members, with its own set of liabilities (limited or unlimited, depending on the charter). They have someone who is legally responsible for the organisation, of course. In these cases, I would say that the organisation — not its individual members — is allowed to hold land as if it were a single citizen, and this wouldn't be counted towards the land size limit of the individual members. One could argue that in this way some citizens could set up a hundred separate organisations and thus completely sidestep the limits — but there is a price for that: it means additional bureaucracy as each organisation requires a lot of time, planning, and a set of rules to keep the charter active. A small group of citizens being part of a hundred organisations would probably spend all their daylight hours in meetings for all those organisations — and failing to do so would mean not complying with the requirements of having a chartered organisation, thus allowing the CDS Government to revoke that charter. So I think that the case of organisation-owned land is more easy to handle with.
Not so with impromptu, ad-hoc groups — groups that include partners, friends, family, or simply similar-minded individuals. These are, by far, the more common case — and the ones that are more likely to pop up and change membership constantly. And, of course, those are the cases that will be way harder to track. I feel tempted to say that we have no other choice but to check how much land is 'owned' that way and see if it's over the limit for each individual citizen. An alternative is to restrict membership in, say, just one group per region, but I feel that would be really intruding into a citizen's right of free association.
And a further alternative is simply to disregard the land holding limits altogether, and allow anyone to hold as much land as they want, but we all know what that will lead to...
In any case, you're right, these two issues should be addressed. The first — land deeding — seems to be easier to tackle. The other — land ownership limits — is a can of worms. But that doesn't mean we should just forget the issue, we should earnestly discuss it to see what is feasible.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back!
but that's beside the point: although she is part of a group holding land in the CDS, she's not a citizen, and doesn't want to be one.