White Paper for the Guild

[Beathan]

To the tremendous and increasing frustration of the RA, the Guild is stalling and being wilfully obstinate in its handling of the fourth sim expansion proposal. The RA has provided the Guild with all the detail it is appropriate for the RA to provide -- and has done so twice now -- at two different sessions. However, the Guild is refusing to move forward, now on the ground that the information was not "formally provided" in some unspecified sense.

This is intended to fill that gap.

There are 5 questions the RA needs to answer -- and any further details are inappropriate for legislatiive resolution. These are as follows:

"(i) the rough number of plots (ii) the range of sizes of plots (iii) price and affordability (iv) single/double prim (v) rough balance between public, private and commercial land (vi) any specific public builds e.g. the ampitheatre (vii) any other infrastructure that can serve the interest of the community and territory. "

1. About 50 lots for sale; remaining land for public lots
2. Lots for sale to be a mix of 512s and 1024s
3. Lots for sale are to be as affordable as possible
4. All lots are presumed to be single prim lots, unless the design provides a significant prim surplusage after public lands are built; this surplusage is to be used to increase prim allotment on private lots
5. Any land left after the zoning of private lots and public access (roads) is to be used for public gardens; the private lots are to be primarily residential
6. gardens
7. roads

There -- that should be sufficient for even the most mulish Guild members. Now, from the RA, with all due respect, stop stalling.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

Beathan

Given that the Guild is a volunteer organisation and you are asking them to build a sim for you, largely without compensation at market rates, could I respectfully suggest that this isn't quite the right tone to adopt?

On your seven points, I recognise points 1-3 from the discussion we had at the RA meeting I chaired where this was discussed. Where and when did the decisions on points 4-7 come from? I'm not aware the the RA has considered and voted on these points but I stand to be corrected if it took place at a meeting I haven't scoured the transcript of.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I appreciate your point about the volunteer nature of the Guild (just as we have a volunteer RA). However, I think that past experience has shown that we cannot rely on the Guild for CDS expansion. I will be proposing a private expansion initiative to avoid this problem. Don't get me wrong -- I think that the Guild is great organization and the people who staff it are talented and dedicated -- but I think that it has become a bureaucratic bottleneck to progress. The solution is to lighten the load by expanding expansion opportunities beyond the Guild.

I have reviewed the transcripts, and I find clear discussion of 6 of the seven points. We did not clearly discuss whether the lots were double or single prims -- but I think that the default is to single prims unless additional prims are available. The RA clearly wanted a high density residential sim with no new public buildings but with public gardens if space and prims allowed. This seems like more than sufficient instruction to the Guild -- and a more than sufficient basis on which I can reliably call my post a "white paper."

Beathan

[Desmond Shang]

I will be proposing a private expansion initiative to avoid this problem.

Me! Pick meeee!

*grins*

just kidding...

Didn't Michel try to work something out like that once anyway? As I recall it didn't go over too well...

i'm in ur CDS
makin ur trainz run on tiem

[symokurka]

Hmmm Beathan...let me understand and ask you some questions.

However, I think that past experience has shown that we cannot rely on the Guild for CDS expansion.

I'm a newbie here so please let me know: which was the role of the Guild in Alpine Meadows, CN and NFS planning and project? Have they really been so lazy?

I will be proposing a private expansion initiative to avoid this problem.

Great. I'm a RL architect graduated with a thesis in city planning. Do you (and btw RA) prefer me to work for free as a volunteer in the guild or to pay me as a private designer? Just let me know. Though I'm afraid I could be a little expensive.

I have reviewed the transcripts, and I find clear discussion of 6 of the seven points.

Honestly, I'm possibly blind but could not find the transcripts in this Forum. Could you be so kind to show the url?

I REALLY hope you help me understand what and how it's goin on here. I've got the dreadful impression that political game in CDS is burning out a lot of interesting skills and possibly missing the opportunity of good quality growth. Please refute this impression.

[Jon Seattle]

The New Guild is a NGO, and as such, one contractor for building CDS sims. It is different from a commercial contractor in that it:

1. Produces work that often meets or exceeds the quality of work done by commercial contractors (I have been told this by several people in the business) and does so little or no cost to the CDS. A commercial built-out sim, NFS for example, can cost upwards of US$60,000.

2. Directly involves our community in conversations about theme, land use, and planning.

3. Gives citizens a chance to get involved in real SL projects that give them experience in design and building.

4. Does not have a monopoly on sim development for the CDS. The CDS is free to hire commercial contractors.

We need to be careful here, or we may replace a process that can produce excellent quality spaces at minimal cost (though not at a very rapid pace), and gives citizens a direct voice in CDS development, with a model that is aimed at a mad dash at very low quality sims jam-packed with people (50 per sim!) without community involvement.

Perhaps when Princess' and Beathan's attacks on Moon and the New Guild settle a bit (Beathan's post is very clearly an attack, as were Princess' comments at the RA meeting before last) people will come to understand that this is not an either / or proposition. We can have both the New Guild and private development and be better off for the combination.

I like the idea of also allowing private developers, but not with the CDS taking on the risk of the developer's projects, nor at the cost of eliminating the New Guild's right to also do sim development. I think many of us do. If this were Beathan's real goal, I am sure he could achieve it without the attacks on the New Guild. But why succeed without doing more damage?

If you look carefully at Beathan's meager specs (released without any authority or direct approval from the RA!) you have to realize that the RA has really not done its work. I can't imagine that Beathan would seriously use those specs on a work order in his RL business. Or perhaps he would?

[Sonja Strom]

Honestly, I'm possibly blind but could not find the transcripts in this Forum. Could you be so kind to show the url?

Symo, I am not certain which transcripts Beathan is talking about, but my guess is he mostly is referring to the transcript of the Representative Assembly meeting on March 2, 2008. It can be found here:
http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... +2%2C+2008
That is mostly where the RA talked about the new (4th) sim.

The decisions from that meeting also resurfaced in the RA meeting of March 24, about 1/4 of the way down on this page:
http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 24%2C+2008

Hope these are helpful.

[Beathan]

Sym --

You misunderstand my proposal entirely. I propose to open up CDS expansion to private developers -- who bear the risk and foot the cost of expansion, and who reap the profits of selling the lots (but not the continuing "tax base" of rents -- which go to the CDS as usual).

Also, I don't think that the Guild has been lazy at all. I think the Guild and its members have done admirable service -- and as volunteers. Their work is commendable. However, all factions have proposed expansion at a rate that it is clear the Guild, despite its best efforts, cannot maintain on its own. That is why I want to supplement (not replace) the Guild by opening CDS expansion to private initiative, subject to regulation, control and ultimate ownership by the CDS.

Jon --

I was not attacking Moon. I was expressing my frustration. From my perspective, the RA answered all necessary questions on March 4. Some clarification may have been warranted -- but when Moon asked the RA for clarification, her questions were exactly those we had already answered. I understand that the Guild has some heartburn over the RA's density decision -- and does not want to build a sim with these densities for aesthetic reasons. This is fair -- but if this is really the point of breakdown, I would appreciate it if the Guild just said, "we won't build this -- we think it is too ugly -- either respecify the project or get someone else to build it." Further, I believe that if the Guild flatly refused to proceed -- the RA would not respecify the project, but would hire a separate team to build it. (I hear that a number of new citizens are anxious to try a project like this outside the ambit of the Guild.) My suspicion is that the Guild, realizing this, is loath to flatly and honestly reject the proposal -- and is instead giving the RA incentive to change the proposal. Positive incentives are nice -- but in this case they are negative incentives, and the RA as not responded well to the tactic and is not likely to respond better in the future.

With regard to my goals regarding private development, I think you and I share the same goals. I want to allow controlled and regulated private development -- at the developer's risk, and subject to aesthetic control by the CDS. I don't want to destroy the Guild -- or to completely displace it. I do want to supplement it -- because it is clear that we cannot rely on volunteers for the full development and expansion that we want. Again, my attacks on the Guild (and they were snarky, short-tempered and more-than-was-called-for) arise from the specific frustrations described above rather than from anything like real antipathy towards the Guild and its members -- who I find, without exception, to be admirable and altruistic.

I do believe that the "meagre spec" provided by the RA is more than sufficient to design and build a new sim. The RA did not want to dictate design terms to the Guild. Therefore, we provided the Guild with the equivalent of "performance specs" -- and the Guild could then do a design/build proposal based on those specs. This is a common process iRL -- and I have been involved in many public bid projects that started with just such minimalist suggestions from the public agency seeking the project.

Beathan

[Rose Springvale]

Given the involvement the citizens were allowed in the development of AM, and the number of opportunities to learn and participate, and the amount of thematic detail that went into all prior sim decisions, I'm very curious as to why our RA is in such a rush to add a high density compound to our current community, with only generic direction of the form that takes.

Why did the community get shut out of this decision? Can you tell me without snickering that because it was in RA transcripts that are so painful to read they embarrass me, that there was community buy-in, as has been postulated? Where are the models? Where are the descriptions? I still have the models and drafts that we started from last year … and I'm sure Arria does too. Would you like to see them? If you scour these forums, there was a call for MORE detail, not less, when CDS pursued the next sim, to insure that such things as prim allocation and lot size were decided before sim purchase! Yet now the guild is supposed to divine all this internally?

Where, in fact WERE you adamant RA members, when there were hours and hours put into the last sim development? I am sure at least you Beathan, are sensitive to the amount of time and cost that goes into the private development of sims, as you've spent the better part of the last year on yours. No one waves a magic wand and creates Colonia Nova or NFS or even AM. GOOD sim development takes time, and care, and creativity.

If you want to criticize the process, perhaps you should understand the process employed... the members of the guild not only build your sims for you, they also teach anyone. ANYONE... who wants to learn. It has to be frustrating for them, but I've never seen them balk at the task. My own vocabulary and proficiency in such things as RAW files, lot cutting, elevations, historical construction.... etc etc... has grown immensely. A year ago, I could rez a block. Sometimes. Maybe we only have all skilled builders in the CDS. Maybe no one wants to learn anything new. (Maybe we should invest in more rose colored glasses )

Private development is fine, but before you take my money (yes, as a citizen of the CDS that money is mine too) I want to see what i'm buying. Builders in RL take risks; they don't get to "play." I want quality and community. So let's see what you are offering. And IF you are going to pay someone, shouldn't there be an RFP, sealed bids, qualification determinations, contracts, deadlines and yes, even bonding?? How about preferential treatment for minorities? Or at very least, our own citizens. You want to apply rl standards to sl, lets do it. And while you are at it, shouldn't we have it all reviewed by counsel for both sides? Will the lawyers be paid too? Or do we depend on volunteers for that? Who decides on quality...of builders, contracts, counsel? Will the guild be charged with that job? Or does the RA see itself as general contractor now?
It took nearly a year to come up with an appropriate way to OWN our assets in CDS. Do you REALLY want to go down THIS path?

There are lots of places to speculate, lots of places to add your own personal interpretation of theme, but that isn't' what I read in the organizational documents of the CDS. I'm not an "old school" person, (if you don't believe me, look at my group members lol) but rapid growth for the sake of rapid growth is not necessary in SL. Why is it that we want to repeat the BAD part of RL government and practices in this world where we have the chance to create a society and community we can all be proud of? And if you hate the process so much, why are you in CDS? What exactly is the point?

I had such high hopes for the RA this session, as I felt that all those elected were responsible people. I'm appalled at the number of those people who are no longer willing to serve. The remaining few of you would be wise to listen rather than push and insult. Listen to your builders. Listen to the people who've been here paying the bills, and along the way paying "dues" by actually following through on their commitments and promises. By actually doing things quietly for YOU instead of trying to gain the spotlight. By not lying, cheating, threatening, insulting and gloating. Then listen to yourselves attacking the institutions and people who brought you here in the first place. You are only creating a community of which no one will be proud.

If there is such a high demand waiting list for property in the CDS, I will be happy to sell some of the land that my groups have accumulated. Seems to me some others have an abundance that can be offered as well. Do we actually have a list, of people who are just WAITING to buy in CDS, or is this just politics too?

I was as frustrated as anyone with the amount of time it took to bring AM on line, I wanted it for Oktoberfest in September, and we actually got it in late November. Wow... a delay of ...six weeks. But the time was taken to build consensus, not to stall. There were major differences of opinion. And for that sim we had a model, a verbal description and community vote supporting what we wanted to do. This "white paper" spells only disaster, in my humble opinion.

This is not a capitalistic, corporate sim. This is a place where we don't make money on our land, and shouldn't. If you want fast, unfettered development, with simple to follow, privately built themes, I suggest you go see the benevolent dictator.(/me blows kiss to Desmond) But it was my understanding that THIS experiment was about democracy. You remember, that form of government where the PEOPLE have a voice in decision-making.

And I apologize in advance, as you all know I'll take this down.

[symokurka]

Beathan,
I personally join Rose in this critical question:

Who decides on quality...of builders, contracts, counsel? Will the guild be charged with that job? Or does the RA see itself as general contractor now?

Atm this is not clear at all.

[Leon]

Rose,

Long time no read. Thank you for a great post and verbalising my personal thoughts and sentiments accurately.

Regards
Leon

[Arria Perreault]

Rose,

thank you for your post. I totally agree.

[Beathan]

Rose --

I am inclined to agree that there has not been broad community participation in the decisions on the specs of the expansion. These specs were set politically -- by members of the RA based on our sense of our constituencies' desires gleaned from conversations and party meetings -- rather than community proposals, maps and modeling. Frankly, we are at a stage in the process that is too early for maps and modeling.

Even with AM -- which was a wonderful build (and I think our most successful build) -- there was political action authorizing and defining the general goals of the build before we had the contest. The specs prepared through that process were even more minimalist than the specs for the fourth sim -- but the contest participants had no problem coming up with designs. We then had a long process of community proposals. The perception of the RA was that the AM process was far too slow -- in large part because it had so many steps. We are trying to run a more efficient process on this build. Like all new things -- it is an experiment -- but it is an experiment that should be given a chance to work.

With regard to my pending private development bill, all I can say is that you completely misunderstand it. My proposal will not involve the CDS spending public funds to hire private contractors. It will be a "no public cost" proposal. Private developers would build sims on spec, subject to design and land control by the CDS, and would make back their investment from the sale of lots. No public moneys would be involved. All public amenities (and some will be required) will have to be donated. In fact, my first conception is that the entire sim will have to be donated to the CDS when acquired (or the developer will have to give the CDS funds with which to buy the sim in the first place) -- to preserve CDS ownership and control. The developer and building team would then be given the permissions needed to build the sim (reserving estate owner regulatory power to the CDS). Then the CDS would sell the lots as it would sell lots in a Guild-built sim, but the proceeds of those sales would go to the developer. The CDS would be landlord and estate owner and would keep rents and the proceeds of any resales.

With regard to design control -- I have floated the idea that the Guild step in as a regulatory agency -- but I have been told by the Guild's leadership that that is not within the Guild's ambit. The RA certainly lacks the competence or desire to do it. My current thinking is that we should have a new agency that operates like a local planning agency. My current plan is as follows (but I am open to suggestions and comments):

"There shall be a architectural control department (ACD) which shall regulate and approve or disapprove all new construction and new sim designs. Whenever a citizen or developer wishes to build or modify land in the CDS, the citizen or developer shall submit a design to the ACD for approval and shall build only in a manner consistent with the ACD approval. The ACD shall also have the right to inspect the work and request changes, which shall be implemented by the citizen or developer. In the event the citizen or developer disagrees with a determination of the ACD, the citizen or developer shall have the right to appeal the decision to the RA (RL appeal to city commission model) (alternative, shall have the right to appeal the matter to a land use hearing examiner, who shall be a member of the SC otherwise qualified to serve on the ACD (RL appeal to hearing examiner model)), which (who) shall make a determination either accepting the ACD determination; modifying the ACD determination; rejecting the ACD determination and accepting the developer's alternative, if one is proposed; or rejecting the ACD determination and remanding the matter to the ACD for further action. The ACD shall be composed of three citizens who have participated in the construction at least two CDS sims."

The benefit to the private developer would be in branding (a "CDS democratic sim") and in piggy-backing on the CDS's general publicity efforts (which are also on the RA agenda this term).

Finally, with regard to demand for CDS land, I understand that there is no land available for new citizens at the moment. I think this is terrible. SL moves so quickly. If an av shows up, is interested in our project, but cannot buy-in on the spot, we will likely lose that person forever -- and that would be a terrible loss to our community, which is based on democratic ideas of openness. For that reason, I want (and I think the majority of the RA wants) development to proceed at a pace that creates new available land such that there is never less than 10% of the current land available for "buy-in" by new citizens. We chose to have the next sim be high density to jump start this process -- to create a large amount of available land so that we can be more deliberate and careful with future builds without ever (hopefully) reaching the point where we are now (no land available for new immigrants).

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

So far as I know, all 4 factions in the Representative Assembly were acting on what they thought the community wanted when they moved forward quickly to approve the addition of a new, fourth sim. The concept of “In-Theme Expansion” for this development was championed by the CSDF, but also supported by the other three factions SP, NuCARE, and DPU. For references on this subject, see:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1605 and: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1612

Some guidance on the location of this new, fourth sim and its population density was also requested from the RA by the New Guild, and this was provided within the RA’s ability to reach these decisions at the time (and there was some discussion about this). Background on this can be found here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1605

In my case, I talked with many people in the community about the discussions regarding a new sim as they were occurring, and every day I read carefully through all of the Forum entries to see what the community wanted. I made a particular point of inquiring with the members of my faction (the DPU), to be sure I was representing the views of my party. There was only one citizen I knew of at that time who voiced criticism of working toward addition of a new sim, Salzie Sachertorte (who is not in the DPU). I was aware of her view, but so far as I knew hers was a lone voice of criticism in a sea of support for acting quickly to add a new sim. Seeing nothing wrong with adding a new sim, and finding nearly universal support for it, I voted for it.

Yet, from the conversation in this thread it would appear that perhaps Salzie was correct all along, and our community really does not want to construct a new sim? Perhaps the community wants a sim, but not one east of Colonia Nova? Perhaps it wants a sim in that location, but of a different type? At this point I am not sure how to answer these questions.

One possibility that might be helpful is, I have asked if some of these questions (and perhaps others) could be posed to the community as Referanda in the upcoming April Special Election, here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1715
One problem with this is that so far there is no structure in place for referenda questions to be asked. However, maybe the RA could put that together in time to accomplish this.

It seems to me that while Beathan's tone might be overly political, he is making some good points about the importance of being accommodating to new citizens, and he is trying to suggest ways we could do that more quickly than was the case with the past three sims, yet still doing so with a high standard of quality. It also seems to me that his ideas are worthy of consideration, at least in so far as they are a possible solution for a relatively quick development of one new sim - one arrived at nearly by consensus in the RA on the basis of our existing themes and Master Plan.

Yet, this said, I am willing to recommend we stop everything and reconsider all of our work to-date if doing so would be in the best interest of the community. I see no reason for us to move forward so quickly that the result is bitterness and division within the CDS.

Perhaps some citizens knowledgeable about mediation, such as Symo and Rose, could help us to understand one another's intentions better in order to work together better toward the future we want for our community.

[symokurka]

Thank you Sonja.

I will not speak here as a Guild member, nor as a builder, but as a CDS citizen. And as a citizen I just feel frustrated for how some decisions are taken in RA without really involving citizens in debate or having in mind other experiences on a subject –sim expansion- which is of vital importance for the whole CDS’ future.

Now I personally emotionally dislike the idea of extending CN in a dull roman residential slum. I personally like wide luminous spaces like Alpine Meadows, and that’s why I bought my land there. And maybe that is the reason why AM was so successful and quicly sold out. But this does not matter. I said myself I had to try to analize in a rational way the reasons that led our RA to the option 1 - slum decision.

I’ve read carefully the two RA transcriptions, and I’ll try to focus on the few “reasons why” that led to the slum option without (yes, without) a real discussion. So if I’m not wrong the keypoint is:

We need more people in CDS to make them buy from our empty shops in CN + small lots bring in new citizens + small lots are easily and quickly sold out + larger lots are too expensive.

First. The problem of commercial development of CDS is a real problem. But why should a new CDS citizen buy in a CDS shop in a globalized SL world, where search engines and teleportation help us choose far away rather than walk to the next sim??
And do we really believe that pennyless temporary residents would buy our goods next door rather than look for freebies in search engines? I’m maybe wrong, but the equation “new (poor) citizen = more commercial development” sounds like a tremendous mistake.

Second. “Empty” sims. Folks, I get mad. Are you newbies? Do you ever get around in SL? It’s full of empty sims. This is the hardest problem to face for SL residents and investors. This is the highest challenge we can get engaged in as CDS. And how do we face it? Rushing to buy more land without thinking, just like all others do? Without a vision, without a project? Oh my.

Third. Just a doubt. Is maybe the real problem rivitalisation of CN? Are we tryin to hide this to ourselves, or trying to solve it through expansion? That won’t work. If this is the real problem (as some new citizens believe) it should be analized and should maybe become another priority in RA’s agenda.

Well. These were just some free thoughts for this debate, as I said, speaking as a CDS citizen.
As a Guild member I’ll go on humbly doing the jobs that Guild ask me to do, and serving at my best our community.