Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Friedsee

Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Text of the original law (passed as amended 12 May 2006): http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/faqs ... ction-act/

edit: Exchange „Guild“ with „Chancellor“

————————

NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

To protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of structures on shared public land owned by citizens, the Chancellor is required to seek approval after a moratorium for all modifications (creation, deletion, replacement, or modification) to any objects (objects, scripts, textures, or terrain) sitting on public land which have been purchased by the city. The moratorium will be 10 days long. During the moratorium, the proposed modifications to the objects will be offered for review either in writing (a description), in world (on display), or in forum (photographs). At the end of the moratorium, the RA will vote on the modification to the object. In the event of competing choices, the Chancellor will choose between the competing proposals, with that choice subject to RA ratification.

Philosophy
The philosophy behind this law is that it seeks to protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of the city’s public space and places authority for its maintenance in the hands of those who pay for it, the citizens. Because irrevocable changes can be made so quickly, the moratorium and approval process provides citizens protection against rapid and potentially undesirable change. Additionally, the moratorium can be used to display several competing objects to better involve citizens in the maintenance of public land.


——————————

Note: the RA found this law still valid on 9th of March 2017 via Constitution Article II Section 9:

„Any power or responsibility assigned to the Artisan’s Collective by the constitution and precedent that overlaps those provided to the Chancellor in this amendment will be assigned to the Chancellor.“

The update is meant for clarification only. Your comments are welcome.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1859
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am
Location: west-coast Canada

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Rosie Gray »

Some rewording I would suggest to make intention clearer and updated (in blue text):

NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

To protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of structures and to allow for the renovation and updating of public infrastructure on shared public land owned by citizens , the Chancellor is required to seek approval after a moratorium for significant modifications or replacement (creation, deletion, replacement, or modification) of buildings, terrain, and infrastructure on public land in the CDS. The moratorium will be 10 days long. During the moratorium, the proposed modifications to the objects will be offered for review either in writing (a description), in world (on display), or in forum (photographs). At the end of the moratorium, the RA will vote on the modification to the object. In the event of competing choices, the Chancellor will choose between the competing proposals, with that choice subject to RA ratification. If the RA does not make a decision within the following 5 days, the decision will rest solely with the Chancellor.

Philosophy
The philosophy behind this law is that it seeks to protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of the CDS's public space and places authority for its maintenance and improvement in the hands of those who pay for it, the citizens. Because irrevocable changes can be made so quickly, the moratorium and approval process provides citizens protection against rapid and potentially undesirable change. Additionally, the moratorium can be used to display several competing objects to better involve citizens in the maintenance of public land.


——————————
Reasoning:
1) I replaced the words 'all modifications' with 'significant', because we really don't need to have the RA reviewing every little tweak made to landscaping and decoration. Although the intent was probably not there, the initial wording could be interpreted as requiring RA oversight to just fix a texture, update a kiosk, replace a tree.

2) Also, I've replaced 'city' with 'CDS'. When this act was first written there was only the city of Neualtenburg, which is long gone.

3) I've added a timeline of 5 days for the RA to make a decision, so that whatever the work is will not be unreasonably held up because of the RA's inability to meet and make a decision.

4) I've added into the Philosophy section the words 'and improvement', to acknowledge that the CDS infrastructure is a constant work in progress.
"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: 501
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Friedsee

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Thank you, Rosie! Nice improvements.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
Sylvia Tamalyn
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

Tanoujin Milestone wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:47 pm NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

To protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of structures on shared public land owned by citizens, the Chancellor is required to seek approval after a moratorium for all modifications (creation, deletion, replacement, or modification) to any objects (objects, scripts, textures, or terrain) sitting on public land which have been purchased by the city.
I also agree with Rosie's proposed edits. The highlighted text, which would be deleted, makes me wonder about what structures it actually covers. For instance, was the Rathaus "purchased by the city"? We definitely need clarification of this law in light of the current debate over who needs to approve any changes to the Rathaus. If "the city" didn't "purchase" it, is it even required that the RA approve the proposed replacement building?
User avatar
Lilith Ivory
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Lilith Ivory »

As far as I remember there have been discussions in the past that citizens should not just donate their buildings to CDS but get at least a payment of 1L$ for their work.
I am not sure if this is still common practice. But for me it would not make sense if buildings donated by a citizen to CDS could not be protected by law. So if we have public buildings donated to CDS we should change the law so they are protected too.
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."
Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Coop
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Coop »

That falls into the IP protection codes....
I now lay down the command of my legions and retire to private life. Marcus Licinius Crassus
User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1859
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am
Location: west-coast Canada

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Rosie Gray »

I have not been paid for any CDS structures, nor ever 'signed' any contracts. In fact usually I have paid for the privilege of making structures for the CDS by paying for the upload fees for textures and mesh, and sometimes purchasing components. I do want the assets to be protected so that they aren't ever given or sold to anyone else. This act does not address that issue though. The reason I removed that line was because the CDS has not always purchased the assets and so it didn't seem to make sense.
"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
User avatar
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 750
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Updating NL 4-23 Public Property Protection Act

Post by Bagheera »

* * *

The pressing need that has come to light with the Rathaus build has been the mistaken belief held by many for several years that the Chancellor had sweeping authority to make sim changes with minimal accountability in terms of communication and review by the citizens and RA.

I am pleased that Tan reminded us all of NL 4-23 and that the RA has brought this Act up to date.


= = = =
Rosie Gray wrote: Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:02 am Some rewording I would suggest to make intention clearer and updated (in blue text):
These changes appear to me to be more than an update, but would actually be new law.

On initial review of these proposed changes, I already see two areas which I believe would need more work/discussion before adoption:
  • A limitation of a 5 day period for the RA to approve the build or it defaults to the Chancellor seems unworkable. Historically, rarely does anything in CDS move that quickly.
  • The addition of the word "significant" to changes implies a threshold that remains undefined and could (and probably will) become a point of contention in the future.
= = = =

In regards to ownership and payment, as it is possible to purchase a prim for L$0, I would submit that a zero sum payment or simple transfer of ownership constitutes payment if both parties are in agreement.

As many of you may remember, it has always been my contention that prims on public property should belong to CDS, including landscaping. When I was Chancellor I researched existing privately owned items (mostly trees and such) and purchased their equivalents for CDSArchive's account, which means, at least at that time, most of the existing privately owned items on public land related to landscaping had government owned equivalents in CDSArchive's inventory. I was (and continue to be) troubled by the lack of transfer of prims in the Amphitheater and other places, but that is a separate topic from this discussion.

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea that assigning "shared with Land Verwaltung group" was sufficient because those prims remain under the primary control of whoever owns them.

I deeply appreciate Rosie's and everyone else's contributions. I have also done work for CDS, both paid and unpaid. My personal feeling has always been that - if I truly intend it to belong to CDS, whether paid or not - I have passed a licensed copy to CDSArchive and let go of all personal attachments and powers. As I have stated in the past, I do not believe anyone should have the potential power of holding prims hostage on government lands because of private ownership. As I understand it, that was part of the upheaval created by Ulrika.

One of my favorite quotes is from Ernest Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea"
...though he was quite sure no local people would steal from him, the old man thought that a gaff and a harpoon were needless temptations to leave in a boat.
https://la.utexas.edu/users/jmciver/Hon ... a_1952.pdf
Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”