Law Review Commission

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and Locus Amoenus and Locus Amoenus

Law Review Commission

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

The Law Review Commission has made some recommendations about laws to be repealed or retired. These were covered at the RA meeting on 3 January 2015. It's clear that Coop, Delia and Widget have done a lot of work on our behalf to consider how we clean up our code of laws. This is really helpful and essential work (but major drudgery!) So thanks to the commission for this work and in anticipation of further forensic analysis.

I've had a quick look at the laws under consideration and have a few questions. It's not obvious to me at first glance why some of these have been flagged for repeal or retirement. For some of them, the RA will need to draft replacement laws as some component of the Act is still relevant (in my opinion).

NL 5-10 Microplot Termination Act
It seems to me that the requirement "In future, the CDS will sell no plot less than 128 m 2 in size" is still relevant and needs to be either preserved or rejected after suitable discussion and debate.

NL 4-5 Central Commercial District Land Fee Act
The requirement "All lots in the central commercial district (as defined in NL 4-2) shall be assessed a monthly land fee equal to 133% of the base land fee for lots inside the city walls" sets the price for the Marketplatz lots. What happens if this is abolished?

NL 7-3 Web Portal Act
I think we need to keep this one, or at least some parts of it. This Act states "The responsibility for administering and maintaining the CDS Web Portal lies with the Executive Branch, and in particular with the CDS Public Information Officer (“the PIO”). The Executive will appoint a system administrator for the new site". What happens if the responsibility in this Act is retired?

CDSL 16-06 Repeal of 13-07 Term Limits Act
I think it's fine to 'retire' this, but somehow we need to keep a record of whether we have term limits or not as we go back and forth on this law quite frequently. I once had to try and work out whether we still had term limits or not (as we seemed to have forgotten) and this required looking at and for all the laws on this and working out which one was current!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Widget Whiteberry
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:13 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Widget Whiteberry »

Hey Pat, First I want to mention that Law Review is not a Commission. We're a citizen's initiative, with input from various citizens ... and always happy to include more in areas where they feel able to contribute. We thank you for the acknowledgement; much appreciated.

I checked in with Delia about the acts you noted. Hope this helps.

Pat wrote
For some of them, the RA will need to draft replacement laws as some component of the Act is still relevant (in my opinion).
We agree. New Acts will, in some cases, include language from prior acts.

Re: NL 5-10 Microplot Termination Act
It seems to me that the requirement "In future, the CDS will sell no plot less than 128 m 2 in size" is still relevant and needs to be either preserved or rejected after suitable discussion and debate.
Delia notes
the practice was terminated by a previous RA, the plots in NFS have been recalculated and there are no microplots. This act was originally meant to increasing the census by allowing citizens to expend next to nothing.
Re: NL 4-5 Central Commercial District Land Fee Act
The requirement "All lots in the central commercial district (as defined in NL 4-2) shall be assessed a monthly land fee equal to 133% of the base land fee for lots inside the city walls" sets the price for the Marketplatz lots. What happens if this is abolished?
Delia notes
4-5 hasn't been in effect in probably 8 years. Businesses in NFS were originally taxed higher than residential parcels.
Re: NL 7-3 Web Portal Act
I think we need to keep this one, or at least some parts of it. This Act states "The responsibility for administering and maintaining the CDS Web Portal lies with the Executive Branch, and in particular with the CDS Public Information Officer (“the PIO”). The Executive will appoint a system administrator for the new site". What happens if the responsibility in this Act is retired?
The Powers Commission is working on a new Web Portal Bill. Delia notes
7-3 sets up the current web portal. You can't set up what is already set up. It's like someone saying to me sit down when I'm already sitting down and keeping a section out of context doesn't make much sense. The danger of keeping that section is that we could end up with a nonfunctional system if we got a new chancellor every 6 mos and each time that person appointed a new web administrator, with no qualifications required for appointment.
CDSL 16-06 Repeal of 13-07 Term Limits Act
I think it's fine to 'retire' this, but somehow we need to keep a record of whether we have term limits or not as we go back and forth on this law quite frequently. I once had to try and work out whether we still had term limits or not (as we seemed to have forgotten) and this required looking at and for all the laws on this and working out which one was current!
Delia notes
16-6 is recommended for retirement not for repeal. all acts, retired or repealed would still be listed as archived, and still be findable, unlike now
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and Locus Amoenus and Locus Amoenus

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Repealing these laws right now would leave a hole in our policy regarding the minimum size of land plots in CDS and management of the web portal. I think this needs more discussion.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Location: Lands End and Neufreistadt
Contact:

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Sudane Erato »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:Repealing these laws right now would leave a hole in our policy regarding the minimum size of land plots in CDS ...
I would strongly urge that this issue be approached by restricting modification of existing parcel lines, rather than by setting a minimum size of parcel. Any establishment of new parcels, or revision of existing parcels, should be done with utmost consideration of land use and tier revenues and changes should be broadly approved by the community. Changes to parcels are significantly difficult administratively, so should be done with considerable consideration. If this is done, I would think that no actual "minimum size" need be put in law.


Sudane...............
*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Coop
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Coop »

Pat said:
NL 5-10 Microplot Termination Act
It seems to me that the requirement "In future, the CDS will sell no plot less than 128 m 2 in size" is still relevant and needs to be either preserved or rejected after suitable discussion and debate.
In that case there are several plots in the estate that are in violation. CN has one, NFS has 3, aside from the original microparcels that are still showing up on the list off the website link.
I now lay down the command of my legions and retire to private life. Marcus Licinius Crassus
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Location: Lands End and Neufreistadt
Contact:

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Sudane Erato »

Coop wrote:
Pat said:
NL 5-10 Microplot Termination Act
It seems to me that the requirement "In future, the CDS will sell no plot less than 128 m 2 in size" is still relevant and needs to be either preserved or rejected after suitable discussion and debate.
In that case there are several plots in the estate that are in violation. CN has one, NFS has 3, aside from the original microparcels that are still showing up on the list off the website link.
Exactly my point. There is nothing wrong with these parcels. There is no need for a minimum size... only a need for due and careful consideration when parcels are created or modified.


Sudane.....................
*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
Widget Whiteberry
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 699
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:13 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Law Review Commission

Post by Widget Whiteberry »

Additionally, if I understand correctly, 'micro-parcels' had different purposes and terms than the currently used 'prim-parcels.' Prim-parcels can only be held by citizens with at least one regular parcel within the same region. Mirco-parcels were used to encourage citizenship with minimal tier obligations.
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”