Floating an expansion idea

[Beathan]

Historically, we have expanded through collective and highly controlled actions -- and our process has been very slow and cumbersome as a result. I would like to try, as a pilot program, to test the concept of private expansion with public regulatory oversight. This is very much the way things are done iRL in the United States, at least -- and it works fairly well.

Thus, I would like to create a system under which new CDS sims can be bought and built at private expense -- with public (or Guild) aesthetic and thematic oversight (like a RL architectural committee in a city planning department). To encourage such entrepreneurship, I would want the builder of the sim to be able to set the prices for the private lots and to receive all moneys received for the sale of those lots. Roads and other public amenities and buildings would be required to be built and donated to the CDS (again, as iRL). Money rent on such sims should be set at a rate -- say CDS normal +25% -- to provide the CDS with it normal income while also providing some ongoing revenue to the entrepreneur who built the addition.

Beathan

[Beathan]

Answer to some objections:

[13:03] You: private person buys sim with own money; designs (or pays for design) with own money; design approved by Guild or some similar organization; private person builds sim with own money (possibly with approved builders -- who are paid for their efforts); Guild or other entity inspects and improves build; public spaces are donated to CDS at no cost; private spaces are donated to CDS and sold at prices set by developer, who receives the full price; monthly tier is set at CDS rate +25%, so CDS gets full amount it would get if it built the sim itself, developer gets surcharge
[13:04] You: we can also stipulate that all such sims are to be near, but not adjoining, existing CDS sims -- so that if there is a breakdown, we don't end up with a sim attached to the CDS we don't want
[13:04] Lilith Ivory is Offline
[13:04] You: maybe stipulate a 2-sim space distance, so we are not prevented from expanding

Also -- to prevent the possibility of second class citizenship, I would withdraw my suggestion for a surcharge. As in real life, the developer would make back the cost by sale -- not by having an ongoing revenue stream.

Beathan

[Leon]

Beathan,

My primary concern with this proposal is how do we, the CDS, ensure that our brand isn't diluted?

I'm very much against expansion at all cost. For example it was recently mooted (last RA meeting I think) that when expanding we should focus on having 1000m2 plots of land, or 50+ plots on the sim?

I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind this, but the end result would be likely be a 'cheap and nasty' build that could be a blight on our landscape.

The should be at least a few 'large' plots for some more special builds. I think 4096m2 is the best selling land size, as it provides a good compromise between size and prims? I'm not advocating the while sim be this size, just that a full sim of 1000m2 land would be unlikely to look good.

Also, I think the themes are crucial to the success of the CDS. I see the CDS as a premium brand and not some pile em high and sell em cheap outfit.

Leon

[Beathan]

Leon --

The vote on the lotsize was limited to the next build. Further, it would allow approximately a quarter sim for other lot sizes and public buildings. I have proposed using this quarter sim to construct a sandbox -- which has been called for.

With regard to brand dilution -- I tried to prevent this by providing both regulation of the build and physical distance between the CDS and privately build sims -- so we can "pull the plug" on a development we don't like before it ends up part of the CDS and so that we don't end up with an unpleasant attached sim. This makes our porject more like that of a government -- planning and regulatory function -- and less like that of a SL landbaron or developer. We should engage private enterprise within our governmental control -- we should not act like a private enterprise.

In other words, it is time for the CDS to move away from socialism.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

A number of CSDF people (for example Pat, Gwyn, Moon, myself) have been discussing, for a long time, ways to do this. This is what we called the "Burgh" proposal. There are some knotty issues to be worked out however:

1. What would be the relationship between the developer and the residents. In particular would the sim developer be able to leverage their power to control the space and ability to select renters to shape the votes that come from their sims. We have had the same debate about rental systems.

2. What variations should we allow in governance and financial organization within the Burgh? (Just to annoy Beathan) Should we allow socialist-local government sims to join?

[Beathan]

LOL --

Jon --

I think that these questions have relatively easy answers.

First, while my original proposal gave the developer a continuing role in the sims -- which involved sharing rents and possibly sharing the "Estate Owner" function -- discussions with people inworld about this proposal made me change that aspect very quickly. My conception is to have the developer build the sim and then turn it over -- without any reservation of any future role -- to the CDS. The CDS would then sell lots (at the price set by the developer to compensate the developer for the costs of the build) as the CDS would sell lots in sims built by public or Guild initiative. The CDS would also receive rents without sharing the rent proceeds and at a rate in line with "CDS normal."

In other words, developers in the CDS would act like US developers generally act. They would buy land; build a subdivision; and sell the the lots and houses without having any role in the life of the community after they sell their lots. The CDS would then act like a RL government and would inspect and regualte the developer's project and would have a continuing governmental role after the developer is done.

So -- what does a developer get out of this that justifies building these sims as CDS sims rather than as independent sims? First, the developer would transfer the headache of estate management to the CDS. (I have found estate management to be a substantial headache -- so much so that I have contracted out my ML estate management, even at the cost of a substantial profit split that minimizes my income so much that I sometimes don't make tier.) Second, the CDS "brand" would help in selling the lots -- as the buyers would not just get a nice house in a nice sim, but would join us in our democratic project and would gain the real benefits of self-rule. Third, the CDS would directly help the sale of the lots -- just as it would sell lots built by the government or Guild. These benefits are real -- so much so that my proposal has already sparked interest in starting at least one private development company to build sims under the Act.

Your second questions is not unique. We have questions concerning local government and community grouping already in the CDS. My proposal merely changes how CDS sims are built -- not how they are run or how they are populated. Thus, if a Socialist Group wanted to build a sim and populate it by having its members buy the lots from the Guild or the CDS at the prices set by the Group, I would have no problem. In fact, the proposal allows for just this process. The Developer sets the prices. This allows capitalistic developers can sell lots to the general SL community for a profit, allowing reinvestment in the CDS by undertaking another build and allowing some profit to the developer. However, this would also allow cooperatives to set prices such that its members pick up lots for next to nothing. I have not included any right to "presell" lots in my proposal -- but we could add that -- or we could just let the fact that members of a Development Group would have an information advantage that would let them buy up cheaply priced lots before the general public even became aware of them.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

I wonder if the business model: building an island, selling it, and then letting someone else manage it, would work. I don't know anyone developing in SL who is not also trying to manage it long term, and I understand from one SL developer that a good chunk of the profits come from people abandoning land.

But I do think we could find people who were interested, it could be a way to provide business opportunities to good designers, so I suspect I would support it. In fact, it would be quite interesting for Guild people to form a (financially and organizationally independent) entity that could also get into the business of developing islands.

There is another related (but not identical) problem to solve. In particular our method of doing most of our estate management is to hand it to Sudane. There may be a limit to how many times we can do that without her protest.

[Beathan]

Jon --

Excellent points.

I think that the Guild could easily become the starting point for one or more private CDS developers. I also agree that there is less potential for longterm profit (at least cashflow profit) on my model than there would be on purely private, Caledonianesque development. However, I think that there is enough profit potential to interest developers (me included) -- and I would gladly forgo the headache of estate management.

Of course, we are piling on Sudane -- and she can only take so much. The trick there, I think, is to spread the load. If we expand the Treasury to include multiple officials, I see no reason why we can't do likewise with estate ownership. However, you are right, this is a wrinkle I need to work out -- and work out with direct input from Sudane and the Guild.

Beathan