Private Development Proposal

[Beathan]

Here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1721

Beathan

[Cindy Ecksol]

This is actually a response to Pat's posting questioning Beathan's right to make this proposal. Regular citizens can't post in the RA forum

Pat asked:
"Which part of the Simplicity Party manifesto at the last elections contained this proposal? I find it objectionable that the Simplicity Party (and others) should present proposal after proposal that has not had a public airing at election time and received any kind of mandate from the electorate."

Pat, I seem to recall that the SP platform included a simple item focused on CDS expansion. Are you implying that there is only one way to expand the CDS, via the "traditional process?" I may or may not think that Beathan's proposal is in the best interest of CDS, but I certainly can't think why I would deny him the opportunity to introduce a creative approach to achieving the goals set out by the SP platform. Can you please explain why you think this item is so inappropriate to introduce for discussion? I don't think you mean to say that every faction must include in their platform all of the legislation they plan to propose for the entire term, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Pat also said:
"This idea may have merit but it should be put forward as part of an election platform and tested by the citizens' vote, not rammed through the Rump Assembly by a maverick RA member untethered from any constituency."

Pat, how would you feel about this proposal if it had been put forward by a citizen (perhaps representing a group of citizens not necessarily affiliated with any one faction) who was not an RA member? Would it be inappropriate to discuss in the RA simply because no faction had proposed it? That would seem to me to be an odd kind of "democratic process," but perhaps you can clarify for us.

Cindy

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cindy

The Simplicity Party was elected to the RA by the voters and given two seats. It stood on the basis of an election platform (as did we all). If a faction intends to introduce legislation to i) depose the LRA and unbalance the constitution ii) change the RA rules of procedure and now iii) open up sim development to private development (of which Beathan, as a private developer, potentially stands to gain - a clear conflict of interest) then it should say so and give the voters the choice. In case you think I'm being mean, I've pointed the potential conflict of interest out to Beathan and suggested he should either recuse himself from the vote or make a commitment that he will not profit personally from such a law; he has yet to do so.

My problem is that all of the legislation introduced by the NuCARE/Beathan alliance this term has not featured in either NuCARE's or Simplicity's manifesto. All of the CSDF legislation we proposed did feature in our election manifesto. My argument is aimed at least partly at Simplicity Party voters and members who are utterly failing to control a maverick RA member on a power trip. I know that some Simplicity Party members are horrified by Beathan's one man assault on our Constitution. But I don't see them doing anything about it.

Of course, the RA needs to respond to what is happening and cannot slavishly follow what was put in the election manifestos but, if there is to be no connection between what factions say they will do if elected and what they actually do if elected, what is the point in having manifestos? You might as well say "We're nice people, vote for us. We'll do stuff, but we don't know what yet! But, it'll be good, honest!" instead and then the contest of ideas would be dead in the CDS and we'd be running a 'beauty contest' election.

[Beathan]

Pat --

I have not assualted our Constitution. My concern so far has been to address three areas -- 1. concerns about the election that arose during and after the election and that, therefore, could not have been included in a platform; 2. internal RA protocol and procedures, which I did not consider to be a political matter warranting inclusion on a public agenda (as it just determines how the RA operates) (I acknowledge, given the controversy about my procedures (although that controversy was mostly driven by members of the RA and their close associates), it is (surprisingly) a matter of public concern.), and 3. the speed of CDS expansion and construction.

However, in both these case, I believe that I wa responding to emergent situations (election problems, the increasing breakdown of the functionality of the RA, and our collective inability to get moving forward on the fourth sim at all (which is a significant worsening of the mere slowness of the past)) and did not have the luxury of waiting until an election can be held based on a platform that specifically sets forth these procedures.

The only Constitutional Amendment I proposed (and later withdrew) this term was to temporarily reduce the size of the RA to five until the byelections fill vacated seats. Again, this was a response to an emergent situation created by the CSDF abandoning its seats. Further, I intentionally made my proposal as narrow and temporary as possible -- just so that I would not disturb the Constitutional balance. (Note, this is a far less substantial Constitutional Amendment than the one you proposed to permanently reduce the size of the RA to 5 -- a proposal that was not on CSDF's agenda.)

Other proposals this term -- such as to elect an LRA -- were made by NuCARE, and I deliberated about them. I think that electing the LRA from the RA would have benefits and avoid problems we have had in the past. (The LRA would rule the RA with the consent of the RA -- and that would make the relationship easier.) However, I have opposed any attempt to depose a sitting LRA or to implement such an election process while there was a sitting LRA.

Similarly, I supported the Constitutional change, again proposed by NuCARE, to repeal the faction elimination rule. This rule caused much problem and heartache in the last election, and it was repealed by a unanimous RA.

Unless it is an "assault on the Constitution" for the RA to continue to do its public work after the most popular faction leaves, I have not done or advocated anything like an assault on the Constitution. Further, if it is an assault on the Constitution for the RA to continue despite the absence of the CSDF, then I would claim that it is the CSDF who assaulted the Constitution by leaving.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

Sonja

I get your point but the citizens have already spoken. We have a representative assembly. The citizens voted for manifestos which support rapid growth. a fourth sim is not in question. The citizens HAVE spoken

MT

Until recently it was also my understanding that almost the entire community wanted some growth quickly. In addition, it made sense to me that a good way to do this would be to work toward addition of a sim that was already in the Master Plan and would only be an expansion of an existing theme in the CDS. This is why a month ago, at the March 2nd meeting, I voted for the RA to support such an expansion.

Since then, however, criticisms of the way this expansion has gone forward have been expressed by former RA members in the CSDF and other citizens, especially in this thread: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1703. At the same time, very little has been said in support of it outside of by its main sponsors.

This criticism has caused me to question the genuine popularity of the current effort to expand. It is true that all 4 factions included expansion as a goal in their platforms for the last election, which would demonstrate wide support for such a movement. However, I have doubts about the complete validity of this concept in regard to where this particular project is, largely because: 1) voters were not given any real choice on that issue in the last election, as not one faction had "no expansion" in its platform, and 2) what type of expansion and how it would be accomplished was not specifically described in any of the faction platforms.

I believe this is a very important issue for our community, and feel that we should ask the community's opinion about it before proceeding further. My personal suggestion has been to work toward placement of referenda questions about this project on the ballot for the April Special Election, but I am also certain there are many other ways to determine how the community feels about it. In the meantime - with apologies to those who do feel completely in support of the current effort to expand and may have put a fair amount of work into it - I will withdraw my support until I feel assured that this project actually is wanted by a majority of the community.

[Beathan]

Sonja --

I respect your position, and even recognize that it is a politically astute one. You will, of course, vote in the manner you believe to be wise and effective.

However, I see the recent opposition to the expansion proposals as falling into two well-worn RL categories -- 1. NIMBY and 2. the anti-immigration position of immigrants.

Much of the opposition to the fourth sim (Salzie's opposition being the exception) is a specific objection to the density desired. That is, the opposition is that the build will cheapen the CDS -- because affordable house, in SL as iRL, is very much opposed by some people. They don't want affordable housing nearby -- and yell "Not In MY Backyard." That is just what is happening here. It is just as wrong in SL and the CDS as it is iRL. We members of the RA should have a moral commitment, that transcends our political commitments, to do the right thing -- and in the CDS, as iRL, it is right to make affordable housing available.

Additionally, we have a species of anti-immigration that is very familiar to me as an American. Almost all Americans are immigrants -- just as almost all (or all) CDSers are immigrants. "Natural Born Americans" and "Naturalized CDSers" -- once they have the rights and privileges of citizenship -- have an incentive to prevent their status from being eroded by future and further immigration. It is the case of someone saying, "now that I am in the room, shut and lock the door." Like with the NIMBY problem, there is a moral dimension to this problem. We in the RA should be committed to doing the right thing, not just the politically expedient thing. The right thing on immigration is to favor openness and immigration, increase opportunities for immigration and immigrants -- and to lead the CDS in this way (not follow the misguided fears of a small set of our current citizens).

Beathan

[symokurka]

NIMBY?? what does this mean?
Anti - immigrant?? Cannot find this anywhere.
Beathan, the only real problem for us newbies is that we do not understand why expansion has to go through what sounds to be an INDIVIDUAL decisional process (yours). And why are you against any action to verify through direct democracy (referenda) if what you propose is understood and accepted. Referenda should not be used too often, ofcourse, but I'm afraid this should be the case indeed.

[Beathan]

Sym --

With all due respect, if you were paying attention you would realize:

1. I am for, not against, referenda. The problem is that we do not yet have a referendum process, and I am the only one to propose a process (although the one I proposed was drawn wholesale from real life and would not apply well without substantial modification).

2. My individual development ideas have never gained traction. If so, we would be building a Salzburgian expansion to NFS. Rather, an expansion proposal primarily championed by NuCARE passed the RA because it seemed to best satisfy what we understood (and what I still understand) to be the general will of the citizens. Fortunately, the RA has never been driven by the loud voices of a few forum posters. (If it were -- we would see far more of my personal ideas in place -- as there are few forum posters louder than me).

3. My private development proposal, far from leading to out of control development based on my own personal ideas, takes me out of the expansion process entirely. I do not qualify to serve on the ACD or as land use hearing examiner. The very people most concerned with the fourth sim proposal -- for aesthetic and architectural reasons -- do. My proposal, therefore, gives ultimate control over expansion to my critics (and the critics of expansion), while also mandating that they expand.

4. This is, I acknowledge, part of a private theory I have about administrative government. In my experience, when a regulatory or benefits agency is run by true-believers, it tends to act well beyond its proper mandate or authority. However, when a regulatory or benefits agency is run by honest and rule-abiding skeptics, it is well-run because it does what it is charged to do (because the people running follow their mandate) but no more or less (because the people running it circumscribe their actions because they are not personally invested in the project).

Beathan

[Sudane Erato]

NIMBY?? what does this mean?

NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard", an expression used for the many human beings of the world who, while expressing great support for a certain plan or proposal, if it is done "someplace else", adamantly oppose it if done in their own neighborhood.

Sudane.....................

[Sonja Strom]

For purposes of discussion, this is to bring in a proposal from where I made it in another thread, here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =15#p10752
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I propose that two Yes/No questions be added to the April Special Election:
1) "Shall a fourth sim be added to the CDS, expanding the Roman city of Colonia Nova?"
and,
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of this new sim, at their own risk and expense?"

[Beathan]

Sonja --

The fourth sim and the private development proposal are not the same and are not linked. They are intended to run in parallel with each other -- not overlap. Thus, I disagree with your questions as stated.

Further, we are putting the cart before the horse on referenda. We can't have referendum without a referendum (wait for it -- here's that nasty word again) process. We need to pass a bill enabling referendum and then use it. I am willing to work on this as a priority item to get it done before the election -- but we really can't just add whatever we want to the ballot. That way lies madness.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

The questions that I proposed above are separate questions, 1) and 2). However, their wording is only proposed and can be altered. Any suggestions for how to make them better?

I have also proposed wording for an official Referendum process here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 667#p10763

[Beathan]

Well -- I would delink question 2 from question 1. Rephrasing question 2 as -- 2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a different (fifth) new sim, at their own risk and expense?"

[Sonja Strom]

How about rephrasing question 2) as:
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a sim, at their own risk and expense?"

[Beathan]

Sonja --

This works, but we still need an authorizing bill.

Beathan