Private Development Proposal

[Moon Adamant]

Hello everyone,

As the NG is already working upon the 4th sim plan... it would have been kind to warn us if you are considering to:

1. risk cancelling the process - citizens may after all say in their absolute right: 'No, we don't want to expand Colonia Nova. We prefer something else.'
2. give it to private development.

In any case, and according to Beathan's proposal, a privately developed sim must be developed according to Masterplan, which is also being currently revised, enlarged, and bettered.

In my opinion, Beathan's phrasing for number 2 is more realistic in terms of the time involved to have the new Masterplan ready, as also the implementation of the safeguards that the Draft Analysis to Private Development of Sims proposes.

Though, i am thinking now, if you want to referend the private development of sims, shouldn't then the discussion of proposal for private development of sims wait for the referendum input? Wasn't this discussion scheduled for this Sunday's RA? Or are you planning to refer back to the already RA-approved proposal in your referendum question?

[Beathan]

Moon --

I, for one, do not want to derail the 4th Sim development now that the Guild has put substantial effort into it. I think that the RA is very unlikely to pass the referendum on the 4th Sim.

The RA may pass a referendum on my private development proposal (which I am revising per the Guild's comments and should resubmit the modified text this afternoon).

I think that the Guild should proceed without worrying about the referendum proposals. At present, there is no referendum process (although there should be one by the end of the term -- and there may be one by the by-election). Even if there were, I think that the process would be better used on other proposals than the expansion proposals. It is crazy, in my opinion, to refer an issue as critical to CDS survival but as susceptible to NIMBY and "Now I'm here, shut the door" problems as CDS expansion.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

Moon, it would be easiest for the RA to simply decide what it wants and let everyone know what its decisions are. This is how the structure is at present, and in a way this would be perfectly normal because the RA consists of democratically elected leaders for the community.

However, recently there have been complaints made - some of them posts in this Forum - that the RA has been acting only on its own behalf and not including the community in such major decisions as whether or not private developers should be allowed to work on new sims. I do understand this, because so far the citizens have not been directly involved in making this decision.

Wanting to be certain the community is accurately represented and has a voice in this decision, I thought it would be good to include the citizens in making it, in the form of a Referendum question. I have gotten this issue on the agenda for the next RA meeting for debate. Probably by the end of that meeting it will be known whether or not this question will be on the ballot for the April Special Election.

If you are against our having this as a Referendum question it would be helpful for the RA to know that. If this is the case, I will reconsider my support for having it as a Referendum question myself.

If this question does end up on the ballot, the outcome of it will be known at the same time we find out who the two new members of the RA are.

Moon, if this issue is on the ballot, you say you prefer this question:
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a different (fifth) new sim, at their own risk and expense?"
to this one:
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a sim, at their own risk and expense?"

BTW, the next RA meeting is to be held tomorrow, Saturday, at 9:00am SLT, not Sunday.

[Moon Adamant]

Hi Beathan,

As said, we are working already in the 4th sim and will question the RA on two points this next session about it.
Passing a referendum on your private development proposal is of course for the RA to decide.

Looking forward to read your revised proposal!

[Moon Adamant]

Sonja,

As mentioned in my reply to Beathan, the RA has the sovereignity to decide to referend the private development of sims, and indeed, on all matters concerning representativity.
As to the wording of the question in the eventual referendum, that is also for the RA to decide - can i just suggest that there is interest to promote sufficient awareness and public discussion of the matter in question, which is complex indeed?

The question of 'a sim' or the 'fifth sim' is not my concern, but yours. My concern was that at some point in this discussion there was a suggestion for the question to refer' the fourth sim', which we are already working upon - we held a kickoff meeting yesterday, have already more questions to the RA, and will work upon it more on sunday GN Board meeting. Another concern is that we are currently revising the masterplan, very ambitiously. Thus, and considering that both Beathan's proposal AND draft analysis plan advise that private development must follow the masterplan, there is a timeframe to consider also.

As for the RA session, thanks for the notice! Though i am not sure i will be able to attend, since i already have something scheduled for tomorrow, saturday.

[Sonja Strom]

In my opinion, Beathan's phrasing for number 2 is more realistic in terms of the time involved to have the new Masterplan ready, as also the implementation of the safeguards that the Draft Analysis to Private Development of Sims proposes.

Moon, I would like to make it clear that my question if you prefered -
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a different (fifth) new sim, at their own risk and expense?" (Beathan's proposed wording)
to:
2) "Shall a private developer be allowed to work on development of a sim, at their own risk and expense?" (my proposed wording)
was because of the opinion you gave which I have quoted above.
The latter version of the question was my latest proposed wording.

Any reference to the 4th sim for this question had already been superseded, and was no longer under consideration by me or Beathan - nor, I would assume, by anyone else.

[Beathan]

Updated to take into account the Guild's comments:

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

Beathan

[Beathan]

Revision --

A Bill to Authorize Private Development in the CDS --

Whereas, all factions agree that the pace of development and expansion of the CDS has been slower than that of SL as a whole, and slower than desired by our community;

Whereas, the Guild has done an excellent job in the building and designing of new sims, but, as a volunteer organization, is not able to design and build sims at the desired pace; and

Whereas, there is a pool of human and financial resources in the CDS citizenry that has not been fully tapped through the Guild-driven process:

It is resolved that private development and expansion of the CDS by citizens and development groups is authorized, subject to a retention of ownership and control by the CDS, and subject to development regulation by the CDS.

Further, to facilitate and coordinate this process, 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. The ACD shall assess the plan in light of the regional plan for the CDS and shall approve, deny or request modifications to the developer's plan in a manner consistent with the regional plan. The citizen or developer 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 in a manner consistent with the regional plan and aesthetic and architectural standards of the CDS, which shall be implemented by the citizen or developer.

The ACD shall be composed of three citizens, appointed for a term by the Chancellor, who have participated in the construction at least two CDS sims. The ACD shall also, in coordination with the Guild, create, update and maintain a CDS master plan under which future expansions in land area and themes shall occur. This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the RA, and shall be resubmitted to the RA for approval whenever it is modified.

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 matter to a land use hearing examiner, who shall be a member of the SC, appointed by the Dean and otherwise qualified to serve on the ACD. This land use hearing examiner 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.

Such development shall proceed on the following process:

A citizen or developer wishing to develop a sim for addition to the CDS shall follow one of the following two processes:

1. The citizen or developer shall create a construction design and submit that design to the ACD for review and approval; the ACD shall review the proposal and either approve it or send it back for specific revisions (in accordance with any existing master plan for CDS expansion) within two weeks of submission (if the ACD fails to act on the proposal within 2 weeks, it shall be deemed approved); acquire a sim that does not lie within two sim-spaces from the CDS; construct the sim in compliance withe the approved design (with the ACD periodically inspecting the work and requesting modifications within the discretion of the ACD, but subject to appeal); upon completion, the ACD will inspect and approve the sim as final within two weeks of notice from the builder that the sim is final; thereafter, the citizen or developer shall deed the sim to the CDS (through the CDS estate owner), which shall own, operate, sell, and police the sim as a CDS sim, except that initial lot prices shall be set by the builder/developer and proceeds from the sales of those lots shall be paid to the builder/developer. The builder shall further agree to give the CDS an unlimited, non-exclusive license with regard to all intellectual property used in the build, and shall warrant to the CDS that the developer has ownership, permission or other rights to use and transfer all intellectual property rights used in the build.

Or

2. The citizen or developer shall create a construction design and submit that design to the ACD for review and approval; the ACD shall review the proposal and either approve it or send it back for specific revisions (in accordance with any existing master plan for CDS expansion) within two weeks of submission (if the ACD fails to act on the proposal within 2 weeks, it shall be deemed approved); donate sufficient money to the CDS estate owner to allow the CDS to acquire a sim that within two sim-spaces from the CDS and to pay tier on that sim for four months; construct the sim in compliance withe the approved design (with the ACD periodically inspecting the work and requesting modifications within the discretion of the ACD, but subject to appeal); upon completion, the ACD will inspect and approve the sim as final within two weeks of notice from the builder that the sim is final; thereafter, the CDS (through the CDS estate owner), which shall own, operate, sell, and police the sim as a CDS sim, except that initial lot prices shall be set by the builder/developer and proceeds from the sales of those lots shall be paid to the builder/developer. If construction takes longer than four months, the developer shall reimburse the CDS for any tier costs incurred by the CDS during construction. The builder shall further agree to give the CDS an unlimited, non-exclusive license with regard to all intellectual property used in the build, and shall warrant to the CDS that the developer has ownership, permission or other rights to use and transfer all intellectual property rights used in the build.

Upon final completion of the construction, privately built sims shall become part of the CDS and shall not differ from other CDS sims except in the manner in which lot prices are sold and the proceeds from those sales are distributed. Any AV who buys land in a privately built sim shall be a CDS citizen and shall have all the rights, immunities and privileges of citizens.

Further, the CDS shall set up a publicity agency to publicize the CDS, CDS businesses, and available lots for sale in the CDS. This agency shall publicize all CDS land equally, without regard to whether the land was Guild-built, privately built, or otherwise acquired, and shall publicize all commercial, shopping and event areas,without regard to whether the land was Guild-built, privately built, or otherwise acquired. The publicity agency shall be an agency under administration of the Chancellor, with a member or members appointed by the Chancellor, and shall have its own budget.

End

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Beathan, you are very, very lucky. I've just lost something that took me a bit over two hours to reply.

So you'll just get the resumed version.

Basically, even after receiving the thorough answers you've requested from the New Guild, a document that was collaboratively written by 14% of the citizens of the CDS, with representatives of all factions and all bodies of Government to provide you with some guidelines, reasoning, and models for the RA to chose from, you're suggesting something completely different.

Instead of having the Chancellor, who has the Constitutional power to buy sims, develop them under whatever contract, and puts the plots for sale — so long as the RA approved the budget, of course — a new "agency" is created instead, which does not answer to the Chancellor (it's only appointed by him), nor to the RA which is elected by the citizens, and not even to the SC (except to provide ADR between the CDS and the developer — and the SC member has to be "qualified" to do so, which is something that only the SC can determine — never an external body), which will have the full power without control to establish all what the Chancellor is supposed to be doing, but without anybody's interference?

Are you suggesting that this model — while certainly being "faster" than any other — is more fair, just, and balanced than the proposed alternative that exists currently via the New Guild — where a Chancellor can tap know-how, talent, skill, planning, organisation, management from a citizen-run organisation, which can provide advice and everything that the Chancellor requires to fullfill his Constitutional duties? But never limit the decision — which ultimately is the Chancellor's, never the New Guild's — nor the control — which is by the RA — nor even the appeal (the SC can still impeach).

Ironically, however, the "ACD" will require people with the same set of skills that is found on the New Guild. On your request to the NG you stated that you didn't wish to "resurrect" the old Artisanal Collective. Instead, what you're doing is to create an independent agency, without control, checks, balances, or citizen participation. It's a body that's appointed once and will be able to approve whatever they wish, in the manner they wish, for a full term — without being elected and not subject to anyone but themselves. There is no appeal to their decisions, no way to remove them from office, and no accounting of their acts. They have no responsibilities towards anything or anyone in the CDS. Don't you think that these are exactly the reasons we have fought for three years in the CDS to be eliminated from our community?

Trust me, like you, I'm an expansionist and also feel the urge (like you do) to grow as fast as we can possibly can. But not at any cost!

Let me suggest that you reconsider your proposal under a more favourable spirit of compromise, democratic participation, and citizen oversight and establish at least a minimalistic set of checks and balances.

[Beathan]

Gwyn --

I am willing to reconsider my proposal -- but I think it has far more checks and balances than the Chancellor-centric proposal of the New Guild.

For instance, the RA checks the entire process by controlling the master plan, which is implemented by the ACD. The Chancellor is involved directly by appointing members of the ACD -- who, unlike the Guild proposal, serve to check each other (as a group of three, rather than a single person) -- and who, again unlike the Guild proposal, are compentent (there is an institutional guarantee of expertise). Finally, the SC checks the specific process through the hearing examiner. This strikes me as a far more balanced and safe system of checks and balances than the Guild's proposal of essentially adding the powers I share out among multiple participants to the office of Chancellor. It is further a far more safe and balanced system than the AC was -- as the appointment for a single term, especially when coupled with the controls by other branches, prevents the institution from becoming captured by a single interest group (as the AC was).

That said, I am and remain open to compromise. However, I think that flatly empowering the Chancellor is a bad compromise and a bad idea.

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

This feels like 'franchulates' all over again

For anyone who hasn't heard of them, bear with me. There's a reason why you haven't heard of them and why they're relevant to this proposal. Here's the way it goes:

• 1. RA member has a bright idea that they personally stand to benefit from. With Pelanor Eldrich it was the idea of establishing 'franchulates' (horrid word) where a mainland owner would sell/give their land to the CDS so that we could expand our territory. Beathan Vale, a private sim developer, now proposes that we allow private sim development. Folks, this is the very definition of conflict of interest and Beathan has not yet made clear that, if passed, he will not make money from this legislation. He must do this to address the obvious conflict of interest here.
  2. RA passes legislation to empower the 'bright idea'. In the case of franchulates we spent most of a whole term discussing the proposal in the RA and on the forums. This time it may well pass quicker. It depends on whether there's any real will to listen to the thorough analysis presented by the many talented members of our community (14% of the CDS population) who wrote the document presented by the New Guild.
  3. Nothing happens. There hasn't been one successful franchulate application. Not one. (Sleazy Writer tried to get this to work a couple of times but the fundamental problem was with the franchulate idea - either the CDS pays through the nose for a mainland presence or the franchulee gives their land to the CDS for peanuts in return for.... citizenship. The people Pel told us were eager to establish franchulates never materialised).

I can see the impetus for this, we want to expand and many are frustrated with the current pace. But there's a universal law that cannot be cheated at play here: "Good, Fast, Cheap - pick any two." We get our sims Good and Cheap through the New Guild, but the process is not Fast. What is this alternative going to be? Good and Fast but not Cheap? Or Fast and Cheap but not Good? Sorry folks but you can't have all three!

I'm drawing the analogy with franchulates because I can see an enthusiastic RA member putting forward an ideas he's personally committed to (and may personally benefit from financially). I'm not seeing any appetite from outside for this opportunity. In the end, there wasn't any demand for franchulates from outside the CDS (Sleazy was already a citizen when he decided to try out the legislation). Where is the evidence that there are private developers inside or outside of the CDS just itching to get on with building CDS sims? Won't they have their own interests at heart rather than ours? In the real world, when we employ private contractors to do work for the state, we draw up contracts very carefully so that both parties are clear what their rights, roles, responsibilities and rewards are going to be. Do we have the expertise in the CDS to manage this process so that we don't end up being taken to the cleaners? Is this really going to be faster than working through the New Guild?

In the January elections the CSDF proposed expanding to 18 sims and completing the Regional Masterplan by 2010. Here's how I think we could achieve this:
08 1st term --> add 2 sims (by extending CN and NFS themes)
'08 2nd term --> add 1 sim (Nea Hora)
'09 1st term --> add 2 more sims (extending CN and NFS themes)
'09 2nd term --> add 4 void sims
'10 1st term --> add 3 sims (these could be a mixture of 'city' and void sims)
'10 2nd term --> add 3 sims (same as above)
Personally, I'd rather consider a realistic plan for expansion in a measured way over the medium-term than try to rush through a quick fix we'll later regret.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Was this approved at yesterday's meeting? I'm just checking, since it's pointless to discuss it further if it was approved...

[Beathan]

Gwyn --

I at least got the RA meeting time wrong yesterday. I don't think we had a quorum -- so I don't think it passed. I was not going to push for passage in any case, because there are obviously some wrinkles yet to be ironed out. Sonja wants to make this a referendum topic, so I think that the measure probably would not have passed in a regular meeting (yet).

Pat --

I hope my proposal will turn out different from franchulates. It has some critical differences. First, it does not rely on strangers to our community choosing to be benefactors. All of the benefits could come from within -- and our citizens have proven ready to be generous with our community. Second, I think the process I have sketched is more accessible and streamlined (but this might be an inaccurate assessment from pride in authorship). Finally, unlike franchulates, which were an attempt to expand our community in a manner radically different than we have (building sims), my proposal uses the tried and true method, it just expands the opportunities for doing so and the people involved.

With regard to my "financial interest", I have none. If a pilot project were needed, I might participate in it (and resign from the RA in such case, because of the conflict). However, my attempts to build sims in SL have proven to me that I am not very good at it -- although I recognize that others are quite good at it. I would much rather leave such a thing to people better at it than I am.

Beathan

[Beathan]

I have been persuaded by members of the New Guild that we should try this proposal without creating any new agencies or branches of government. If it is necessary to create such branches to administer private sim expansion, we can do so in the future. However, for now let's try to do things with what we have.

Thus, I propose the following final changed version --

Bill to Authorize Private Development in the CDS --

Whereas, all factions agree that the pace of development and expansion of the CDS has been slower than that of SL as a whole, and slower than desired by our community;

Whereas, the Guild has done an excellent job in the building and designing of new sims, but, as a volunteer organization, is not able to design and build sims at the desired pace; and

Whereas, there is a pool of human and financial resources in the CDS citizenry that has not been fully tapped through the Guild-driven process:

It is resolved that private development and expansion of the CDS by citizens and development groups is authorized, subject to a retention of ownership and control by the CDS, and subject to development regulation by the CDS.

Further, the Chancellor shall facilitate and coordinate this process, and shall consult with the Building Approval Committee (BAC) of the New Guild when doing so. However, the BAC shall be advisory only, and that Chancellor shall have ultimate authority on matters relating to the implementation of this Act. The Chancellor may appoint a deputy to assist him or her with this process, or to run this process under his or her supervision.

Whenever a citizen or developer wishes to build or modify land in the CDS, the citizen or developer shall submit a design to the Chancellor for approval. The Chancellor shall assess the plan in light of the regional plan for the CDS and shall approve, deny or request modifications to the developer's plan in a manner consistent with the regional plan. The citizen or developer shall build only in a manner consistent with the Chancellor's approval. The Chancellor shall also have the right to inspect the work and request changes in a manner consistent with the regional plan and aesthetic and architectural standards of the CDS, which shall be implemented by the citizen or developer.

The New Guild shall develop an advisory committee called the Building Approval Committee to assist the Chancellor in inspection and approval of privately built CDS sims. The New Guild shall also create, update and maintain a CDS master plan under which future expansions in land area and themes shall occur. This plan shall be submitted to and approved by the RA, and shall be resubmitted to the RA for approval whenever it is modified.

In the event the citizen or developer disagrees with a determination of the Chancellor, the citizen or developer shall have the right to appeal the matter to the SC. This SC shall make a determination either accepting the Chancellor's determination; modifying the Chancellor's determination; rejecting the Chancellor's determination and accepting the developer's alternative, if one is proposed; or rejecting the Chancellor's determination and remanding the matter to the Chancellor for further action. The SC shall make its decision within sixty days.

Such development shall proceed on the following process:

A citizen or developer wishing to develop a sim for addition to the CDS shall follow one of the following two processes:

1. The citizen or developer shall create a construction design and submit that design to the Chancellor for review and approval; the Chancellor shall review the proposal and either approve it or send it back for specific revisions (in accordance with any existing master plan for CDS expansion) within two weeks of submission (if the Chancellor fails to act on the proposal within 2 weeks, it shall be deemed approved); acquire a sim that does not lie within two sim-spaces from the CDS; construct the sim in compliance withe the approved design (with the Chancellor or BAC periodically inspecting the work and requesting modifications within the discretion of the Chancellor, but subject to appeal); upon completion, the Chancellor or the BAC will inspect and the Chancellor shall approve the sim as final or request additional work within two weeks of notice from the builder that the sim is final; thereafter, the citizen or developer shall deed the sim to the CDS (through the CDS estate owner), which shall own, operate, sell, and police the sim as a CDS sim, except that initial lot prices shall be set by the builder/developer and proceeds from the sales of those lots shall be paid to the builder/developer. The builder shall further agree to give the CDS an unlimited, non-exclusive license with regard to all intellectual property used in the build, and shall warrant to the CDS that the developer has ownership, permission or other rights to use and transfer all intellectual property rights used in the build.

Or

2. The citizen or developer shall create a construction design and submit that design to the Chancellor for review and approval; the Chancellor shall review the proposal and either approve it or send it back for specific revisions (in accordance with any existing master plan for CDS expansion) within two weeks of submission (if the Chancellor fails to act on the proposal within 2 weeks, it shall be deemed approved); donate sufficient money to the CDS estate owner to allow the CDS to acquire a sim that within two sim-spaces from the CDS and to pay tier on that sim for four months; construct the sim in compliance withe the approved design (with the Chancellor or BAC shall periodically inspecting the work and requesting modifications within the discretion of the Chancellor, but subject to appeal); upon completion, the Chancellor or BAC will inspect and the Chancellor shall approve the sim as final or request additional work within two weeks of notice from the builder that the sim is final; thereafter, the CDS (through the CDS estate owner), which shall own, operate, sell, and police the sim as a CDS sim, except that initial lot prices shall be set by the builder/developer and proceeds from the sales of those lots shall be paid to the builder/developer. If construction takes longer than four months, the developer shall reimburse the CDS for any tier costs incurred by the CDS during construction. The builder shall further agree to give the CDS an unlimited, non-exclusive license with regard to all intellectual property used in the build, and shall warrant to the CDS that the developer has ownership, permission or other rights to use and transfer all intellectual property rights used in the build.

Upon final completion of the construction, privately built sims shall become part of the CDS and shall not differ from other CDS sims except in the manner in which lot prices are sold and the proceeds from those sales are distributed. Any AV who buys land in a privately built sim shall be a CDS citizen and shall have all the rights, immunities and privileges of citizens.

Further, the CDS shall set up a publicity agency to publicize the CDS, CDS businesses, and available lots for sale in the CDS. This agency shall publicize all CDS land equally, without regard to whether the land was Guild-built, privately built, or otherwise acquired, and shall publicize all commercial, shopping and event areas,without regard to whether the land was Guild-built, privately built, or otherwise acquired. The publicity agency shall be an agency under administration of the Chancellor, with a member or members appointed by the Chancellor, and shall have its own budget.

End

[Sonja Strom]

A proposed authorising bill for Referenda is to be found in "General Discussion" here:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... d=a#p10932
and in "Representative Assembly Discussion" here:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1792