Ceasar Xigalia wrote “We are prospering, in the black, posting a surplus and part of that is due to the attractiveness of our regions. I would point out that we have had our breakeven point at around 80% for all the regions for the past 10 years and we are thriving.”
Absolutely incorrect and coming from someone who has been involved with the CDS for as many years as you have Ceasar it saddens me that you did absolutely no research before you made this post. Our breakeven point has only been at around 80% since August 2011. That was when my proposal to lower the tier to a uniform rate was passed into legislation.
Before August of 2011 we “thrived” on an overall breakeven point of 68%, broken down as NFS 75%, CN 52%, AM 58%, LA 71% and MON 68%. With 100% occupancy we were collecting $1698.11 in tier. Our cost to LL has remained unchanged since each region was brought online, $1,075.00 a month. That is how we “thrived” Ceasar, by making a profit of up to $623.00 a month. That is how and why we have a healthy reserve in our treasury and that was why the tier was adjusted to the breakeven point of 80% in August, 2011.
Here is the link to the treasury and the financial reports from April 2005 to current. http://portal.slcds.info/index.php/bran ... treasurer/
Ceasar Xigalia also wrote “it introduces a more stringent requirement for occupancy to break even (the current recommendation is 80% occupancy to break even, this law would make it 75%) which Sudane pointed out in the forums greatly reduces the type of region design one can do.”
Once again absolutely incorrect, quite the opposite in fact. The Oxford Dictionary defines stringent as “(of regulations, requirements, or conditions) strict, precise, and exacting.” Sample sentence “their produce must be processed under the most stringent conditions by well-trained staff.”
By lowering the breakeven point we are making it easier for CDS to meet their financial obligations, not stringent. When we increased the breakeven point in August 2011 that would have been considered more stringent.
This paragraph is addressed to everyone who posts in the forums. Get your shit straight before you start posting. I’ve ranted about it before and I’ll rant about it again. Nothing pisses me off more than having to waste hours upon hours correcting other people’s mistakes, lies, accusations, misstatements, misinformation, so on and so forth. In Ceasars post an unknowing CDS citizen would think our breakeven point has been at 80 percent when in reality for the majority of those years it was 52 – 75 percent depending on what region you examined. Quite a big difference from 80 percent, in fact a 12 percent difference.
Now to address and clear up some concerns that Sudane has brought to the table.
Sudane states, “Which intent I TOTALLY agree with, the template has fixed numbers for public/private land ratios and prim multipliers.”
In reality, no, the template does not have fixed numbers for public/private land ratios and prim multipliers. The only fixed number is the breakeven point. If we want all of our regions, current and future, to have a breakeven point of 75 percent than we must have the ability to collect at the most, (100 percent occupancy) of US$393.00.
I will remind readers that the development of our original five regions was performed with no template in mind. That is why, until August 2011, CDS had five regions with five totally different tier rates. Three of those five regions were also grandfathered in, meaning our cost to LL is less than the current rates. I was asked by Sudane and many other supporters of my 2011 tier proposal to make the tier uniform. Whether we own 5 regions or 50 regions I was asked to calculate it out so the per prim rate was uniform across all regions the only difference being the type of region (Full or Homestead). I explained in my proposal that slight adjustments would need to be made once we began expanding beyond our original five because of the cost to LL.
The Land Sale and Tier Act doesn’t restrict our expansion based on prim multipliers. It does restrict our expansion to the per prim tier rate based on the type of region and the breakeven point. The tier rate for a full region under this act is US$0.03 per prim (3 cents). The tier rate for a homestead region under this act is US$0.06 (6 cents).
Sudane mentions, “This template would completely prevent creation of a region like Neufreistadt, which has a comparatively huge number of public prims.”
Without digging through tons of files I do believe that NFS has a private/public ratio of around 50 percent. The limitation on developing a region like NFS (private/public ratio at 50 percent) isn’t due to the constraints of the template it’s due to the fact NFS costs us only $195.00 a month. So how would/could we develop a region with a 50/50 ratio and still maintain a breakeven point of 75 percent? By adjusting the price per prim.
Tier needed to collect at 100 percent to maintain a 75 percent breakeven point - $393.00
Private prims for a 50/50 ratio – 7,500
Public prims for a 50/50 ratio – 7,500
Tier per prim – (393.00 / 7500) = US$ .0524 (5.24 cents).
So based on this information we could put a clause into the Land Sale and Tier Act that any adjustments to the public/private land ratio must be adjusted by the tier per prim rate. This will change our per prim rate for that region but all regions will still have the same breakeven point and in turn the same amount of tier collected at 100 percent.
Well I’ve put in my 5 hours of work today on behalf of the CDS. Give me some feedback on this scenario and let’s see where it goes. It does provide more flexibility in the design of future regions but it takes away what was originally requested in 2011, uniform per prim rate for all regions. Kind of a “you can’t have your cake and eat it to” situation.