Proposed: Commerce Clarification Bill

[Jon Seattle]

In order to insure fair and equitable implementation of the Commerce Bill and to clarify the meaning of terms used in the legislation:

1. The Chancellor should submit a map listing all commercial plots in all sims. A map of commercial plots must be approved by the RA so as to make unambiguous the plots that are subject to regulation under the bill. All future changes must likewise be approved by the RA.

2. The RA will accept applications for the organization known as the Chamber of Commerce under the bill. Application will be open to all organizations that wish to fill this role. No organization shall be considered the Chamber of Commerce under this bill unless its charter, and all future changes, is approved by the RA.

3. The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate removal of the Chamber of Commerce as an approved organization able to carry out the role described in the bill.

4. No organization may be considered a Chamber of Commerce under the Commerce Bill unless it provides voting rights on an equal basis to all CDS citizens who maintain business offices (including offices on non-commercial property) or are involved in administering non-profit organizations in the CDS, no matter where actual financial transactions or work takes place. The Chamber may not discriminate against service, consulting, or non-profit organizations.

[Jamie Palisades]

While I am sympathetic to some of Jon's concerns, and said so here:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 062#p11892
I believe this bill is hastily drafted and premature, for the following reasons.
I have an alternative suggestion to this knee-jerk approach, below.

1. Generically I do not think that legislation with a lot of stakeholders should be written on a Friday and adopted the next Sunday with no meaningful chance for input. This is true generally, but is even more so when the legislation being modified was itself the transparent, long-debated work of a publicized official commission.

I'm unable to attend Sunday's RA meeting, being on vacation. Can't imagine that many other people with day jobs have had time to think about this either. Unfortunately, as I am not available, I feel I need to take time off from that vacation to at least provide this response.

2. As for Jon's paragraph 1: Sentence 1 reads "The Chancellor should submit a map listing all commercial plots in all sims." I can see no objection to that -- and was going to do so anyway.

3. Sentences 2 and 3 of Jon's paragraph 1 read: "A map of commercial plots must be approved by the RA so as to make unambiguous the plots that are subject to regulation under the bill. All future changes must likewise be approved by the RA." There is no danger of "ambiguity" because the original Commerce Commission bill specified that commercial lots cannot suffer enforcement, unless clearly marked as such in the LAND LOT metadata. (Not much risk that the landowner can miss that.)

Now, whether the RA should reserve to itself the right to decide which lots are commercial, as Jon wishes, is a political matter for the RA. However, if the RA wishes to take that over, I'd appreciate being given a chance to make a proposal first. As I've already reported, the old RA directed the former Chancellor to get all commercial plots marked by 1 August. For various reasons, it didn't happen; I already indicated that I expect to be done by 1 September.

4. Jon's paragraph 2 says "The RA will accept applications for the organization known as the Chamber of Commerce under the bill. Application will be open to all organizations that wish to fill this role. No organization shall be considered the Chamber of Commerce under this bill unless its charter, and all future changes, is approved by the RA."

I am disappointed by the tone and approach of this and paragraph 3. It reads like Jon's terrified that a FrankenChamber will rampage through the countryside, destroying all fairness and commerce in CDS, with the weak chancellor and stupid constitution unable to stop the terror, animated by the Evil Mad Doctor Lundquist, unless the RA rides in on its white horse to save us all. Please. I expect better behavior and a more collaborative tone from ALL of you this term.

The idea that the Chamber should be an accredited NGO, with a charter approved by the RA, is a fine idea! But there is a calmer, decorous way to do so. I suggest how below.

The idea that the RA should take applications for an NGO is anticonstitutional, as well as unnecessary and possibly meanspirited. (To me the bill reads as follows: MT and The Princess started a chamber so it must be evil .. let's give it to the CSDF-run RA, which must be good. Feh. Sorry, Jon, both assumptions are wrong on multiple counts, and I'm offended.) Let's be clear:
-- MT is acting as convener because the RA ASKED him to, which is utterly apt, as he was an unfailingly productive RA member, the chair of the successful commission, and the bill's author.
-- I have been working with him on the timing because that's my job, to prod and make things happen. There have been some actions already started to form the chamber. They include a proposed draft charter: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 062#p11892 It's a draft! Hold the drama please.
-- The RA is not supposed to run NGOs. It's supposed to approve NGO charters and then butt out. I will oppose this provision as unconstitutional if it is adopted.

5. Jon's paragraph 3 says: "The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate removal of the Chamber of Commerce as an approved organization able to carry out the role described in the bill." This is a punitive, absurd, overdefensive rule. This is not how CDS deals with NGOs, nor should.

As I suggest below, the RA should review and approve a Chamber charter. An NGO that violates its charter can get into trouble under *existing* law, which is sufficient without creating a new special thumbscrew for NGOs being convened by people you don't like. I will oppose this provision as unconstitutional if it is adopted. It is structurally the wrong way, and a discriminatory way, to handle NGOs in CDS law.

5. Jon's paragraph 4, sentence 1 says: "No organization may be considered a Chamber of Commerce under the Commerce Bill unless it provides voting rights on an equal basis to all CDS citizens who maintain business offices (including offices on non-commercial property) or are involved in administering non-profit organizations in the CDS, no matter where actual financial transactions or work takes place. " I suggest that all of the above provisions can be properly placed in an NGO charter for the Chamber, approved by the RA. If Jon wants to argue for radically different Chamber charter rules, great -- as a citizen he's more than welcome to do so. But let's do it in the usual way, as part of a charter drafting and approval process, not with cruise-missile preemption with personal tones to it.

6. Jon's paragraph 4, sentence 1 says: "The Chamber may not discriminate against service, consulting, or non-profit organizations." That may need review: the language describing expanded types 'commercial' use should carefully harmonized with the language of the original bill itself. Let's not create a new list of quasi-commercial uses, with different words, every time we discuss this subject. That would be bad legislative drafting.

===
As a constructive alternative, I suggest that the RA adopt a rather shorter and simpler bill along these lines:

1. The CDS Chamber of Commerce will be operational once an NGO charter is approved by the RA.
2. The RA requests that MT Lundquist, who has been asked to serve as convener, use one or more initial organizational meetings for the Chamber to formulate a draft charter, take citizen input, and bring a final version to the RA for approval by [date (ask MT)], 2008.
3. The RA instructs the Chancellor to provide a map or list of all CDS parcels that are proposed to be zoned "commercial" by 1 September 2008; and not to mark parcels as commercial or impose penalty rents against them until that map has been reviewed by the RA.

Regards Jamie P

[Patroklus Murakami]

Jamie

There are several points I would take issue with here but let's focus on the main issue. The RA passed a piece of legislation which would allow the yet-to-be-established "Chamber of Commerce" to rule an enterprise as non-compliant in some way and then double their tier in the first month, then double it again later. There is no established CoC as yet and our bill is intended to provide a way to establish one in a fair and open manner.

There *is* a danger of ambiguity because there is no specification of the use in the land lot metadata, at least none that you can't simply delete once you become the owner. So there is a pressing need to have an unambiguous definition of which are/are not commercial lots in the CDS. You're probably right in saying that the decision on which lots are/are not commercial is for the Chancellor though rather than the RA. That can be amended I'm sure.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I don't think the RA *should* establish a Chamber of Commerce. It certainly shouldn't set one up which has power over landowners to increase their tier fees! But, nevertheless, the RA did pass this legislation and, if there it to be a state-run CoC, it should be open, democratic and chartered. Frankly, I couldn't care less who sets up the group provided the organisation is run democratically and is open to all who have an interest. This needs careful thought; do non-profit enterprises qualify as commercial land? Do they still get to join the CoC? I don't think this was as carefully considered as it could have been when the RA passed the Bill and Jon's suggestion of a non-discrimination clause is entirely appropriate. We don't want to have a situation where a non-profit organisation, which holds a lot defined as 'commercial' has no representation on a Chamber of Commerce which has the power to impose punitive tier fees on them if they don't qualify according to whatever rules they settle on.

I think your constructive alternative is helpful. I'm sure that a compromise combining the best bits of both is possible.

[Jon Seattle]

What plots are considered commercial and are regulated by the Commerce Bill? I took a detailed look at all our current covenants:

1. Alpine Meadows: (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1461)

All zones: (in theme) Commercial and Residential

2. Neufreistadt: (http://neufreistadt.info/id26.html)

Zone C (City): Commercial and Residential
Zone B (Bivarian): Residential Only
Zone M (Modern): Residential Only

3. Colonia Nova: (http://neufreistadt.info/id26.html)

Zone R (Villa): Residential Only
Zone C (City): Commercial and Residential
Zone T (Public): Well public
Zone E (Cardo): Commercial and Residential
Zone L (S River): Residential Only
Zone B (Skybox): Commercial and Residential

Zone S (Stalls): Commercial

The only zone that is unambiguously commercial are the tiny stalls in Colonia Nova! I have to assume that the Commerce Bill was intended to apply to more than that. Mixed use plots can be legitimately used for residential, commercial, or both. At least as thing stand there is not requirement that the owner of a mixed use plot do business there.

Now, it seems to be a bit unfair if a citizen bought a plot with the understanding that it was zoned for mixed use and suddenly finds out that they will be subject to large fines (as much as 4x tier) just because they are not using it for a retail business. Either the Commerce Bill will result in numbers of mixed-use plots being rezoned (and the value taken from the owner unless they want to pay the fines) or it should be renamed: Colonia Nova Stall Regulation Bill.

[mtlundquist]

In order to insure fair and equitable implementation of the Commerce Bill and to clarify the meaning of terms used in the legislation:

1. The Chancellor should submit a map listing all commercial plots in all sims. A map of commercial plots must be approved by the RA so as to make unambiguous the plots that are subject to regulation under the bill. All future changes must likewise be approved by the RA.

Jon the land is already zoned, one of the actions of the commission was to walk the sites of CDS with Sudane the EO and note the differences in zoning ALREADY established by the Guild. Seems to me that we already have the zone list.

2. The RA will accept applications for the organization known as the Chamber of Commerce under the bill. Application will be open to all organizations that wish to fill this role. No organization shall be considered the Chamber of Commerce under this bill unless its charter, and all future changes, is approved by the RA.

The 8th RA established the Chamber of Commerce and asked me to set up its inaugural meeting. This I have done using the details from the bill passed by the RA. However the CoC is strictly a NGO and as such has no powers whatsoever in the role of government. Therefore it seems inappropriate for the RA (i.e. government) to run and rule over a commercial organisation, otherwise this might seem something like communism where the state rules all activities.

3. The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate removal of the Chamber of Commerce as an approved organization able to carry out the role described in the bill.

Again Jon, is the State to rule every part of CDS.....doesn't sound like democracy again!

4. No organization may be considered a Chamber of Commerce under the Commerce Bill unless it provides voting rights on an equal basis to all CDS citizens who maintain business offices (including offices on non-commercial property) or are involved in administering non-profit organizations in the CDS, no matter where actual financial transactions or work takes place. The Chamber may not discriminate against service, consulting, or non-profit organizations.

If you read the definition of commercial in the bill passed by the 8th RA you will see that commercial has a very broad definition in that bill. There would be no discrimination as suggested here.

The second part of the commerce bill i.e. the part dealing with non commercial use is for the Chancellors office to administer as the executive branch of government and was never intended to be the responsibility of the CoC.

In summing up I see no purpose in this new bill not already covered in the original bill. I am worried that control of the state might be excessive if we are not careful. That would not be appropriate in a democracy in my view.

[Jon Seattle]

While I am sympathetic to some of Jon's concerns, and said so here:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 062#p11892
I believe this bill is hastily drafted and premature, for the following reasons.
I have an alternative suggestion to this knee-jerk approach, below.

It is a well thought out response to a poorly designed piece of legislation. As I note above (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 920#p11920 ) is it not even clear what it is supposed to regulate.

2. As for Jon's paragraph 1: Sentence 1 reads "The Chancellor should submit a map listing all commercial plots in all sims." I can see no objection to that -- and was going to do so anyway.

But as I note above, you can't really do that without zoning some citizens out of (being able to afford) their legitimate land holdings. If so, how do you intend to compensate them?

Now, whether the RA should reserve to itself the right to decide which lots are commercial, as Jon wishes, is a political matter for the RA. However, if the RA wishes to take that over, I'd appreciate being given a chance to make a proposal first.

The proposed bill does exactly that. It provides you with an opportunity to make a presentation of a plan to the RA. The final two clauses insure that this and all future CoCs will be required to maintain the CoC as a broadly based organization, and it send that message clearly to the fledgling CoC.

I would say that your post is, to say the least, a willful misreading of the bill mixed with a lot of (nothing going on here, please don't notice..) back-peddling on your part. You end up agreeing with several of my key points, and apply a lot of fuzzy thinking and personal insults to the others.

[cleopatraxigalia]

ok .. Jon.. my first thought is OMG..........another

paranoid tangential rampage

Jamie:
1. MT kindly saved the group name, to do that one needs two members/owners...... so --- that was all there was to it. He did it so the name was saved. I left the group and now Justice and MT are owners.. and the group can and will be given to whomever ...its not a plot.
( come on jon you know i can do better than that)

2. FWIW I and MT have NO aspirations to be involved in any way shape or form in the COC.. none. We dont want to run it. We dont want to belong to it, help ... nothing... nada.. we arent interested nor do we have the time. MT agreed to head the committee when he was in RA and the outcome is the result of MANY citizens input .... not just shop owners.. and it was well attended. IT was also discussed, and changed and then voted by the entire RA.

3. The toga shop has been gracefully moved off the main drag ....... we arent visible and an eye sore anymore. And we will gladly move it out of CDS if so requested. We have other stores that do better than that one and we will gladly remove it if the new COC requests. I mean who wants to look at tacky unauthentic togas worn by an ex rep?

ps jon:
you have nothing to fear but fear itself

[Jon Seattle]

3. The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate removal of the Chamber of Commerce as an approved organization able to carry out the role described in the bill.

I am changing this to the following:

3. The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate review of the Chamber of Commerce's charter by the RA. Any action taken by that organization in violation of it's charter will not be considered an official act under the Commerce Bill.

Is this strong? Well, you must realize that the Chamber of Commerce's action may well have cost a citizen their land and citizenship. If does not obey its own rules, this could cause very considerable damage.

[Jon Seattle]

New Guild Standards?

One point I want to emphasize, that my proposed bill does nothing other than impose the same standards already implemented by the New Guild. I think there is no good reason for this new organization, with more of an official function, not to live up to the same standards.

1. The New Guild does not have any quasi-governmental powers. As Justice pointed out at the RA meeting, the CoC does have such powers.

When the New Guild was proposed the Claude and the RA (majority DPU) made sure that the New Guild did not have a monopoly on building sims, but had to compete with any other organization or company. Unlike the CoC the New Guild has to offer the RA a better deal. The CoC has a monopoly in its defined role.

2. The New Guild was required to have its charter approved by the RA. The new CoC has no such requirement. In fact as far as I can tell there was no intention, prior to the posting of the Clarification bill, to have the CoC charter review occur before the law was slated to go into effect 1 August.

The New Guild is also required to send any changes back to the RA for approval. The CoC, as of now, does not. The New Guild is also required to follow its own charter. Right now have no established law that would make sure that the CoC will not ignore its charter, and do what it pleases.

3. The New Guild is open to all citizens. This CoC, it is clear, is open (for voting membership) to only a select group. Given the current posted CoC charter:

Full commercial members have voting rights on the activities and constitution of the Chamber and in the election of the leader. Associate members have no voting rights (by dint of their non commercial status)

That commercial vendors in CDS be offered full commercial member status of the Chamber. That other interested individuals be offered associate membership. Any full member who fails to maintain commercial activity for two consecutive months, following notice by the leader, shall be deemed to have become an associate member of the Chamber.

So most citizens will not have a right to voting membership, and someone who has voting rights may have them removed without review. Its not just that I really hope these aspects of the CoC charter will change, but I think, given its role, we ought to insist that a narrowly-based CoC with quasi-official powers is not okay.

[Jon Seattle]

Let me go though this step by step so that people understand how important it is that this be done right. Imagine you are a long term citizen with a residence in Colonia Nova on the Cardo, a zone that is designated residential and commercial in the Colonia Nova covenants. Lets say you bought that land without opening a business there. It was designed to be a nice space for homes. Imagine like other areas with this designation, the Chancellor decided on her or his own to zone it commercial only.

1. By law the Commerce Bill has already gone into effect as of the 1st of August. That means that just after the designation changes, your rent could double. I do hope it would double as of the 1st of September, but that would be up to the Chancellor to decide.

Now Jamie is agreeing to present the map of new Commercial-only spots to the RA, but the Commerce bill has no such requirement. Without the Clarification Bill passing any future Chancellor would be able to change a plot's designation at will by changing the plot meta-data.

2. The organization that advises the Chancellor if you should be able to keep your land without fines is the Chamber of Commerce. Its not clear if this organization exists or not as yet, but the intention is to give voting rights to commercial vendors only. So as a non-business owner you would not be allowed to have a say or a vote on your own fate. (http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php ... =15#p11722 ).

3. If your rent doubles and then quadruples as the law allows, and you cannot afford it you may have to leave the CDS and loose your citizenship.

4. The "Nice Guy" argument. Now Jamie, and MT are arguing that you should trust them, that they would not take you land. But remember we are making policy here, and these laws are going to be used and shape our community for a long time to come. What Jamie and MT are arguing is that we really should not trust all future CoC groups, no matter how they operate, no matter if they follow their own rules, etc. Especially with a group with the power to advise the CDS to take property and thereby effectively remove citizenship, we should be careful.

Jamie and MT have now backed down from implementing this without any RA review. That is step one. Now the CDS needs to either decide not to grab citizens' land (by potentially quadrupling rents), or if we decide we are really going to be imposing these fines on existing land owners, we need to make sure the group that has this power is correctly regulated.

[Jon Seattle]

Jon the land is already zoned, one of the actions of the commission was to walk the sites of CDS with Sudane the EO and note the differences in zoning ALREADY established by the Guild. Seems to me that we already have the zone list.

I have read all the covenants on all the sims, (including the proposed list for LA) and I don't see a list anywhere. The only plots that are designated as "commercial only" are the stalls in Colonia Nova. But if you have another list, please share it with us. I would be very interested.

3. The Chamber of Commerce under the legislation is required to follow an approved charter at all times and in all procedures. Any violation of the approved procedures will result in immediate removal of the Chamber of Commerce as an approved organization able to carry out the role described in the bill.

Again Jon, is the State to rule every part of CDS.....doesn't sound like democracy again!

Since the new CoC will be deciding on the fate of land owners, it would be a bad idea for it to operate in a way that violates its own operating rules. Otherwise we would be handing our rights over to a private organization that can alter itself to run any way it pleases. For example, part of the New Guild's contract with the CDS is that it remain democratic organization open to all citizens. Some day in the future it could decide to give up those rules, but then it would be giving up its designation as the "New Guild" NGO in the CDS.

By the way I happen to think a CoC is a very good idea, but having it become a kind of private court, considering and ruling on the fate of land owners without appeal, elections, or regulation, is a very bad idea. Frankly, the CoC would be much better off without this role.

Its funny to hear that being careful about the regulation of individuals and CDS business, pretty harsh, proposed in the Commerce Bill, is an increase in government. Government is supposed to serve citizens, not would-be regulators. "Free the regulators to do as they please!" would be a pretty disturbing slogan.

If you read the definition of commercial in the bill passed by the 8th RA you will see that commercial has a very broad definition in that bill. There would be no discrimination as suggested here.

Because the CoC is a separate unregulated organization (and not chartered by the RA) it can define "vendor" in any way it pleases and it can decide who is a voting member in any way it pleases. The membership of the CoC organization is not defined at all in the Commerce bill. So your argument is irrelevant. What mechanism is there in place to make sure the CoC uses the Bill's definition of commerce? None.

While we are discussing the definition, another important issue here is not commerce itself but where and when it takes place. I would claim that an architect with an office in the CDS is still a CDS business, even if the work that person does is on buildings and structures outside of the CDS. And a large project, as is typical of say, Beta Technologies, does not conclude in a single week as required by the bill:

That commerce, as defined, must occur on the commercial lots on a weekly basis and be demonstrable on request

So the architect, designer, consultant, non-profits that do not serve individual clients on a weekly basis or do not fit under your definition of "commerce" and are all not allowed to use CDS commercial property.

[Arria Perreault]

Imagine you are a long term citizen with a residence in Colonia Nova on the Cardo, a zone that is designated residential and commercial in the Colonia Nova covenants. Lets say you bought that land without opening a business there. It was designed to be a nice space for homes. Imagine like other areas with this designation, the Chancellor decided on her or his own to zone it commercial only.

This is theorical case has a face: mine. Yes, Arria has two plots in the zone C of Colonia Nova. In the convenant, they are designated as residential and commercial, but it is nowhere said that I have to open a shop. My interpretation is that I have the choice between both activities. I have a shop in one of them. I consider the other one as my residence. I have build the house and I have taken the inspiration in Herculaneum. I have design all textures which are inside after antic models. This is like a model house. Since I am in CDS (two years in fall), these two plots are the origin of my citizenship. They have make me eligible to be a RA member.
I don't want to see a mark on my plot without having the opportunity to discuss. I have these two plots since a long time and nobody, neither citizen nor chancellor has made any remarks. When I came in CDS, I have clearly said that I came to open a museum and to create exhibitions. I have created my first exhibition in one of these plots and nobody told me that I was wrong.
I am probably not the only one to be in this case. Maybe there are other people, who are your friends. As I have declared several times, CDS citizen have minimal rights. They can hardly contest decisions. If the Chancellor come to my houses and plant a mark on my plots, what can I do? SC, RA, CoC, Chanceloor himself ? Who can hear me. The only right that have citizen is to elect RA members. They have elected me and, in this particular case, I will work for them, to protect them.
Now let's think to our commercial activities. We can only have a long train economic activity. So no big trafic, not big turnover. We can only give the possibility to people to show what they can do and sell services, probably not paid in L$. We can give the possibility to people to try to open a shop. I hardly imagine our platz, forum as crowded malls. People must also know that it is possible to develop commercial activities and get trafic without being in a commercial area or in a mall, but using keywords for search engine and by paying to announce the plot.
I would like to say that our commercial activity is not so big that we have a crisis for it. We can be wise and pragmatic and decide for following easy rules (I still have to see how to change the texts...):

- commercial zones are zone where commercial activities are allowed, but not obligatory. In residential zones, commercial activity is forbidden to protect resident from trafic and any disagrements like automatic LM givers.
- people who will inscribe their plots as commercial at the Chancellor's office and become members of the CoC. When they stop their activity, they unsuscribe of both. When they sell the plot, the new owner can decide what kind of activity he/she will have.

There a point about CoC which is not clear for me: how CoC will finance its activities (like promotion events). I can imagine that members will have to pay some fee. Can someone answer to this question?

[Justice Soothsayer]

Justice Soothsayer takes a deep breath before jumping into the pool...

I think we can all agree on a lot of principles if we all take a deep breath. Some of them are:

1. Commerce can be good. Commerce brings people to our sims, and they may become citizens as well as customers. And it doesn’t hurt that our citizens could make some money in the process.

2. We should define commerce broadly, and not limit the conversation to for-profit activities.

3. We don’t have much commerce, though we do have plenty of land zoned for it. I haven’t checked for myself, but I understand that the only land zoned exclusively for commerce is the stalls at the Colonia Nova harbour. In my own case, I acquired a property north of the Forum in CN with the goal of starting an art gallery that would sell Roman-themed works, but other activities interfered and I sold about L$500 worth before selling the property. Now it is being used as a residence. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

4. Arria, MT, Jamie, Jon, ThePrincess [to use alphabetical order], and all involved in these discussions are people of good will. They all want to see a more vibrant commercial life in CDS, though they may disagree about how to achieve that aim.

5. NGOs such as MoCA, New Guild, the Monastery, etc. have been good for CDS. NGOs that have the imprimatur of being officially recognized by the CDS government have charters that have been approved by the RA. Recognition can confer some benefit, such as temporary shared use of CDS prims, such as Sudane recently suggested the Monastery might be able to do if it were to mount an exhibition. Arria has also suggested that another possible benefit to being an NGO could be the use of void sims (which can only be acquired by the owner of a full sim).

6. Like-minded people with commercial interests could voluntarily band together and form a Chamber of Commerce.

[here is where it gets a little more controversial]

7. The Chamber of Commerce contemplated by the last RA’s commerce bill should have a charter approved by the RA. Its powers under the commerce bill are only "advisory" to the Chancellor, but it does have a semi-official capacity in providing that advice and in speaking for the commercial interests of CDS generally.

8. The Chancellor should identify all land that is subject to the commerce bill’s provision for doubled (and re-doubled) rents for commercially zoned land not being used for commercial purposes [broadly defining ‘commerce’], and such designations should be reviewed by the RA.

9. The fining of landowners who have commercially zoned land not used for commerce is not a particularly good idea. Carrots usually work better than sticks. Perhaps we should instead consider incentives to encourage commerce. Consider, for example, a CDS Vending Device that records sales and provides a modest subsidy to each seller (subject to a specified limit). Better and more technically adept minds than mine may be able to come up with other solutions. Let’s brainstorm a bit.

[Claude Desmoulins]

A couple of comments here.

In addition to the CN stalls that Jon mentioned, there are the private parcels adjacent to the NFS Platz (per NL 5-2) which are purely commercial lots.

The only text of the commerce act passed in June that I can find is in a thread at: http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php ... =15#p11378 The text here says, in part :

the following remedies can be applied

(my emphasis)

In the same post MT writes:

It was noted that as at 23rd February 2008:

in NFS there are 13 commercial lots with 2 not used and 1 provided for all citizens

This would imply a definition of commercial plot narrower than the covenant provisions which allow dual use for all parcels intra muros in NFS. Surely there are more than 13 private lots inside the walls.

[Desmond Shang]

Ya know, one halfway decent clothier can make enough $L to float the entire CDS national tier right now, and still make money. A top sculpt designer can pay all of Caledon's tier right now and still make money. Not kidding.

I think a chamber of commerce might be cool. But just saying, it might be rather tough to motivate people, or generate commerce with such a thing. I've found that people often fight like cats when "working" with their competitors, even if the competition is sort of tangential.

Got a crazy idea for all you rich, too-busy-to-do-much commercial plot owners. Bring in some starving artists. Srsly!

True story: I met a noob once who didn't have any in-theme clothes; we got talking, he seemed like a decent chap and I set him up for the cost of a Starbucks coffee. Nowadays his inworld business is one of the ones that could pay the entire CDS tier with ease, he's got lots of Caledon land and he draws people like crazy to the area.

Not terribly democratic of me, to be sure. But if you want to light off your commercial sector, I just don't see committees and fines doing the job; if anything you'll drive off the too busy and the reluctant. And all your plots will start flipping to residential. You'd do better raiding a sandbox for broke noob artists, taking a chance and turning them loose. Imagine what just ten handpicked individuals could do, given a chance and 90 days use of a shop for free.

Hopefully this post will be taken as the positive input it is meant to be.