Changing the sale price of CDS land

[Patroklus Murakami]

Gosh, what a bunch of tender flowers we are raising in the CDS these days - and such hypocrites! The attacks mounted in the last RA meeting came from our Chancellor not from the people asking legitimate questions of the Government on a matter of public policy. Gwyn made a statement disagreeing with the policy of changing the sale price of CDS land and what response did she get?

Jamie Palisades chuckles,. Election season started? Does the distinguished Senator from the I-am-the-SC-all-by-myself faction still have those "return to democracy" signs handy? ... SUBSTANTIVELY, I didn't hear any *legislative* proposals under all that politics, Gwyn .. except maybe "this is not my idea so let's not do it"...

Snarky, sarcastic and uncalled-for. If anyone is responsible for lowering the tone in the last RA meeting it is the Executive - both for snarky comments like the one above and also for failing to answer citizens' questions. The tone adopted both in this other thread discussing the land sale method and in this one and the RA meeting has been to put down any suggestion which contradicts the Executive's proposal. No quarter given, no discussion, no possibility of compromise. It really suppresses policy discussion in the CDS, especially when combined with this 'Miss Manners' routine whenever anyone dares to voice a different opinion. We are already in the 'bad old days' - they started with the suppression of any discussion about the Al Andalus merger because it was 'offensive' and now we get skirts lifted and pearls clutched in horror whenever anyone says 'I don't agree with you'. If you carry on like this, I'm going to set Prokofy on ya, see if I don't!

The case for this land sale policy just has not been convincingly made because the Exec dodges the important questions. Why is it necessary? The spectre of empty lots, failing to bring in tier has been raised but... then we are told this applies to hardly any land in the CDS at all. So the argument that we need to do this or the sky will fall in is fake. Or could we see some numbers to explain why this move is necessary?

I appreciate Jamie's comment that we need to consider the additional burden any land sale process places on our volunteer Government staff. That's a serious point and I agree that an auction method with high overheads would place too great a burden on the Executive. It may be possible to devise something which requires less personal time though if we feel it is worth pursuing.

Taken together, this proposal on land prices and the land sale method seem overly complicated. I appreciate that Rose and Jamie have spent 'months' developing them but it seems this was done without much external input and certainly not from people representing all shades of political affiliation in the CDS. I think there is a bigger problem with policy being made in that way but, on this issue, it's led to a 'solution' which many of us are opposed to. We need to adopt a more cooperative, consensus-based approach and I'm grateful to Cindy for chairing the last RA meeting in a way which allowed views to be expressed without stifling debate and rushing to a vote.

Here's a further, simple suggestion for dealing with our current land glut:
1. When land is held by the Government or abandoned to it, it goes on the map straight away at the 'list price' and it appears as yellow on the map.
2. If it does not sell the Executive is empowered to get what they can for it. They should aim to maximise the return for the CDS.
3. CDS land must never be sold by the CDS for L$0 or less under any circumstances.

Now I'm sure that won't insulate the Exec from accusations of favouritism - nothing can - but at least it would be easy to administer and simple to understand. The method for dealing with sale of new land in new sims and the situation where land is short can be developed in slower time with community involvement so we get a good process with buy-in.

[Jamie Palisades]

Let's try to remember that, in the worst land market since CDS was founded, we have a responsibility to take sound steps likely to promote our continuation. And yet I have to pitchfork through mounds of rule games and snark, again, before we can get to any actual issues.

A god-awful meeting; flashbacks to the Bad Old Days. Pat, your last response brings to mind the tone of many old duels before my time. Some of those people reacted to mean-spirited gameplaying from the RA or LRA, by fleeing ... or being driven out. My preference is to stay and stand up for myself. I think it's a better response, and disincentivizes bullying and mindless obstructionism. Yes, I got mad, as I said before! In response to yet another round of bombastic, solution-free invective.

Not going to play the meeting-quotes game. Just look at your own post-meeting "nyah nyah" Forum post, fired at my back after I left. Normally, one doesn't attack a colleague for failing to answer -- to a question thrown out immediately before howling for adjournment. A tip: if you want an answer, don't close down the meeting :) I believe I have fully answered all of your substantive points, since then, in these forums.

The postponement was fine. But I was not fine with the unrelenting, ultra-conservative nay-saying and rule gamesmanship. It just makes me sick at heart. If you saw the OLD Al-Andalus meetings ... or have ever worked in a well-moderated open source software project ... you'd see how people can disagree and come to consensus in a communitarian, inclusive atmosphere, which even processes strong differences -- but without turning snarky or derisive. It only takes a couple of jerks, not even a majority, to convince newbie spectators that the RA and thus CDS is a snake pit.

What do you have to offer CDS? Personally I do not find it stimulating or exhilarating, when a community's attempt at self-governance descends ... or falls back into ... snarky nyah-nyah-nyah. Do you? Democracy does not require the Code Duello. We don't have to ape some Parliaments, who yell at each other across a bench, like rowdy drunks. It's unworthy of us. In a volunteer, multi-language, multi-ethnic virtual space, a bunch of entrenched people who mug newcomers and their ideas, by trying to beat them to death verbally with their big fat brains, do not an attractive community make. And yes, my patience with that has worn raw.

We just drive each other nuts, eh? I can certainly explain why, from my point of view. I've tried, for several terms now in CDS, to make common purpose across the divisions intrinsic in your beloved faction system, where people are incentivized to oppose each other just for sport. I keep appointing to office, and supporting the initiatives, of people and factions who constantly oppose me. (Maybe I'm not too smart that way.) And even to make even RA meetings a productive exchange ... not a derisive debating society. But what do I do, when one group of agile, bright, skilled former leaders seems to want ONLY the latter? Think about it .. who mugged Ulrika .. and Ashcroft .. and Manen .. and Alexicon? Did some of them need it? Maybe. Would less carnivorous or ego-driven leaders have found some less antagonistic solutions? Almost certainly. One thing of which I'm proud of, in my faction SP, is that we are not The Party of Pogrom. You snark away about "what a bunch of tender flowers". Have you ever run a volunteer organization? This is not the Civil Service. Here, if you make people uncomfortable or feel unwelcome or inferior, they leave. That's not a path that leads to growth or inclusion. It's economic death by attrition.

Our chief exports in CDS should not be bloviated debate rhetoric and public lynchings. In 2007, they were. Must we go back there? Can we not have the benefit of any constructive creativity, from you talented people? What are you willing to contribute, pro-actively, to make this work?

A compromise? Thank you for proposing something specific, at the end of your last message. A concrete response is much easier to address than rhetorical smoke. I chatted with your faction-mate Gwyneth, long after the last meeting, to find some way to compromise, by reallocating some part of an original multi-month payment. As I've posted. Her calm, constructive chat, in private, contrasted sharply with the bombastic and substance-free opposition in the public meeting.

Now, you propose that we pass a law prohibiting any sale for zero ... even the worst, least attractive land that we can't sell. Apparently your rhetorical concern about depressing the private land market is gone, because a sale for L$1 would be fine ... but L$0 is not. How odd. I still have not heard a single substantiated reason why.
Most importantly, though -- to achieve some resolution -- I don't know if that view is consistent with, and satisfied by, the revised alternative [[bracketed paragraph 2]] that I posted, after trying to find something that addressed Gwyneth's issues.

In any case, let's have the RA vote on this, and be done, please. JP

[Patroklus Murakami]

Well, in the 'bad old days' of which you speak it is true that snark and game playing were the order of the day. The old 'Neualtenburg' forums were often a bear pit (though the Kendra-Ulrika tag team work on griefing intruders was often amusing to watch from afar) and the debate on this forum has often got heated, personal and nasty. I think we generally do things better these days and I give credit to Jamie, Rose, Cindy and a number of other leaders for setting a much better tone. It is true that we are a volunteer group and nasty personal attacks just put people off and they leave.

But I think where we are going wrong at the moment is in interpreting any questioning, any dissent as some kind of personal attack. People have raised questions and concerns about the land sale process and pricing policy in a mature and reasonable fashion and presented views and arguments in these forum threads and the last RA meeting. I'm afraid I don't rate the response to this very highly. It has largely been stubborn and unwilling to accept that people have legitimate concerns. Every note of dissent is being treated as some kind of mortal attack. It's ridiculous and it's not healthy. We saw this in the discussions around the Al-Andalus merger too. Everyone who had the temerity to ask a question was jumped on from a great height and denounced by the elite. Every question was 'offensive' and even the RA was intimidated into keeping quiet for fear of wrecking the merger.

The strong message I'm getting from that experience and this is "Do not question your elders and betters. The Executive know best so just keep quiet and let us get on with it". That's just not the way things work in a democracy. It's not healthy to suppress free debate in this way.

I agree that I'm by no means perfect. I'm trying (very hard) to behave in a mature fashion and avoid snark and name-calling. I think some other people writing in this thread need to take a long look in a mirror and work on their own imperfections.

Oh, and the RA should definitely vote on this and get the issue resolved. But, could we not play games and deliberately misinterpret proposals? I'm not saying 'L$1 is fine'. Read my post. I'm saying the Exec should maximise the return to the CDS. I'm saying I trust you to do that. If L$1 is all you can get well, yes I would be fine with that. Just don't go setting it all for sale at L$1 as the first option

Here's another thought experiment - if selling land off for L$0 is fine, why not sell it for a negative amount? Why not pay people to buy CDS land (effectively by giving them a month free or something of the sort)? Once you have broken the zero barrier it's the next logical step. Then think about what buying in new citizens (who are also voters) means when we have, for better or worse, a faction-based political system. This is why some of us would like the opportunity to think about these kind of changes and debate them before they are made. We generally get better policy-making that way.

[Pip Torok]

Hallo all,

I'd like to get away from name-callers calling each other "name-callers", try to bring the temperature down, and simply state aspects of this issue we need re-reminding of:

--- Whatever the RA enacts, it can repeal, in short order.

--- Jamie's amendment of the original Bill is meant to strengthen that Bill (and, in my opinion, it does) The buyer will need to come up with Tier as well as the initial price, zero or whatever. Those fixated on the word "zero" \<shock!, horror!\> might like to reflect on the possibility that, with tier, _the buyer might not see it as zero_ at all. Anything but.

--- One sad feature of the whole of SL is that there are not many buyers out there. We may well not see any visible result of our passing this amended Bill. Notice I say _visible_. Once we have voted it in or out, we'll never know what the other course would have been.

--- We are certainly overpriced, as Keira has pointed out. But then, there is the counterargument that what you're buying is a "product" very much a cut above the average, for reasons we're all proudly aware of. Will the buyer consider it worth while?
Many won't, but many, I believe, will. I recently chatted with avis from the Open University on another subject (Prokofy Neva's charming comment on them) and I get the clear impression that they would.

--- Money. Yes, CDS is most definitely not about money, or making more of it for its own sake. But I'm reminded by Dorothy Parker's bitter "Song for the First of the Month" ....

Hoard no pelf, lest moth and rust
Do their work and leave you flat.
Money? It is less than dust --
Laugh the landlord off with that!

Need I say more?

So I'm voting for the amended Bill unless I hear anything in the debate to change my mind.

Pip Torok

[Rose Springvale]

i'd like to state publicly that there is no agreement among us regarding an amended bill. I think if you read Jamie's post, he has offered language which even he doesn't think necessary for the community to have an alternative to discuss. I am aware that many have you have been told .. not by the Chancellor... that there is agreement for this "amendment".

I am very much opposed to this amendment and ask you all to vote in favor of the original language, without amendment. There is NO economic difference in these two drafts. But you are creating an administrative nightmare. And making the job of the people actually selling land even harder than it is.

Consider what you would be asking me to do here. First, find the people insterested in land. That's my job and i dont' mind doing it at all. Then .. explain that CDS is a democracy, we vote, we have meetings, etc etc. Also part of the job which i've accepted.

NOW>.. i get to explain...." oh by the way. the purchase price for this land is equal to one month rent. and then you have to pay rent for that month, at half the rate. and then pay rent for another month at half the rate, and then your rent goes up to the amount you paid for the purchase price."

Then.. .if you can ladies and gentlemen... please remember when you were a newbie. Buying land was already confusing... and many of us thought if we bought the land we didnt' have to pay tier. I can't tell you how many people still think that... so yes, we explain SL land to newbies. Then we have the issue of people who do not speak english as a first language. Imagine trying to explain THIS scenario to someone who speaks NO english, but who sill would make great citizens. Those of you who've helped me with the Coptics... can you see my problem?

Then realize that we are trying very hard to make the system not only easy to understand, but LOW maintenance.. the only way we can "automate" this scenario is actually MANUALLY changing tier boxes every month! We increase the work threefold instead of decreasing the load on volunteers.

What this 'amendment" does is add more complexity to a system that is already complex. We don't need that. We need to be the community who opens arms, creates opportunities and has real reasons for the laws we enact... And those reasons should never include compromising language to appease people who are arguing semantics.

Please. if you feel the need to allocate something to purchase price, make it 1L and make it in addition to tier. Don't mess around with tier levels.

Finally, to the RA members... i would ask you to determine from the Chancellor if he has agreed to this change, because my understanding is that he has not, yet certain parties have gone around the grid misrepresenting that fact and trying to confuse you.

[Pip Torok]

Rose, what happened?

Six days ago, last Monday the 16th, you wrote:

<quote>
While I think the participation of the community on this issue is great, it is kind of like raising a child. Everyone has an idea of the best way to do it. No one agrees completely on the details, and the final decision is left to the parents, with the state looking over their shoulder to make sure they don't do anything egregious.

We all seem to agree that there is a problem. Jamie proposed one solution. He proposed it on a trial basis to apply to a small percentage of the land in our projects. We've done the background research, we've listened to our constituents, we've considered the possibilities. We can spend the next two years tweaking the proposal, or we can just try something, and decide what doesn't work or does work when we have data to apply to our own community.

Someone compared this situation to the health care plans in the US and the current ongoing debate. This may not be a perfect plan, but it is better than what we have now. If each member of the RA wants to add his or her own touch to the program, we will be in debate for a very long time. And nothing will happen THIS term. Is that the legacy the 12th RA wants?

You elected a qualified Chancellor, presumably because you trust him. He has done a good job of leading our community through controversial issues, and for the most part, even those of us who disagreed with his proposals at the time, must, however grudgingly, agree that he was right. He may NOT always be, but I think he has the track record to deserve the support of the RA.

I urge you to continue the discussions, but let's pass THIS proposal now. Watch what happens... maybe nothing! Your Chancellor may well have changes to recommend, too. Then when you are all satisfied that your particular version of the plan is BETTER, repeal it and pass another.
<end quote>

and a summary could well be "I urge you to continue the discussions, but let's pass THIS proposal now".

What facts have changed since you wrote that?

For today, you write ....

i'd like to state publicly that there is no agreement among us regarding an amended bill. I think if you read Jamie's post, he has offered language which even he doesn't think necessary for the community to have an alternative to discuss. I am aware that many have you have been told .. not by the Chancellor... that there is agreement for this "amendment".

I am very much opposed to this amendment and ask you all to vote in favor of the original language, without amendment. There is NO economic difference in these two drafts. But you are creating an administrative nightmare. And making the job of the people actually selling land even harder than it is.

Consider what you would be asking me to do here. First, find the people insterested in land. That's my job and i dont' mind doing it at all. Then .. explain that CDS is a democracy, we vote, we have meetings, etc etc. Also part of the job which i've accepted.

NOW>.. i get to explain...." oh by the way. the purchase price for this land is equal to one month rent. and then you have to pay rent for that month, at half the rate. and then pay rent for another month at half the rate, and then your rent goes up to the amount you paid for the purchase price."

Then.. .if you can ladies and gentlemen... please remember when you were a newbie. Buying land was already confusing... and many of us thought if we bought the land we didnt' have to pay tier. I can't tell you how many people still think that... so yes, we explain SL land to newbies. Then we have the issue of people who do not speak english as a first language. Imagine trying to explain THIS scenario to someone who speaks NO english, but who sill would make great citizens. Those of you who've helped me with the Coptics... can you see my problem?

Then realize that we are trying very hard to make the system not only easy to understand, but LOW maintenance.. the only way we can "automate" this scenario is actually MANUALLY changing tier boxes every month! We increase the work threefold instead of decreasing the load on volunteers.

What this 'amendment" does is add more complexity to a system that is already complex. We don't need that. We need to be the community who opens arms, creates opportunities and has real reasons for the laws we enact... And those reasons should never include compromising language to appease people who are arguing semantics.

Please. if you feel the need to allocate something to purchase price, make it 1L and make it in addition to tier. Don't mess around with tier levels.

Finally, to the RA members... i would ask you to determine from the Chancellor if he has agreed to this change, because my understanding is that he has not, yet certain parties have gone around the grid misrepresenting that fact and trying to confuse you.

As I said, what happened to make you make this total about-turn, Rose?

Pip Torok

[Rose Springvale]

i have not changed pip... i'm saying that there has been a representation made to RA members that a compromise was reached between the Chancellor and other RA members. The implication is that his alternative language in this post represents that compromise.

My point is that both the Chancellor and I still stand by the original proposal as the best before us at this time. I would love to see the RA continue discussions, but i'd also like to see us do SOMETHING.

I'm simply asking for mercy from you all. As the person charged with selling land, it is MY job you make harder by changing the language from the original proposal to this "compromise."

I'm urging you to adopt the proposal as stated, and not amend it this way. That's all.

here is the language in jamie's post that purports to 'agree' to the additional language.

My suggestion to those who think that there's a Constitutional issue is to amend the bill so that a portion of the up-front payment is allocated to price instead of rent. CDS cash flow would be indifferent to that -- and so am I. Seems an unnecessary waste of time though. If that's what the RA wants, though, please see the [[double-bracketed alternative language]] in the bill below.

He is focussing on the monetary issues, responding to the RA queries. Even he doesn't see it as necessary, and the effect on the ACTUAL transaction, while it doesn't change for CDS, DOES change at my level.

I really am a volunteer.

[Rose Springvale]

Let me be clear... i do NOT wish to stifle discussion on the sale of land in CDS. I'd like to see us buy a new sim! But really... how do we sell the land? if we set it to yellow map sales... we need to be able to tell the wandering buyer "here is the tier" ... not here is the tier for two months, and then it goes up.

If we set to vendor sales... same thing. Every change requires someone to MAKE the change, or it has to all be handled by a person.

We need to be able to say for each parcel of land "this is the price, this is the tier" Then we can automate any way you see fit. We can change the price monthly if you want, but remember that means someone has to either rescript vendors, or reset land for sale, or change the website. Every time we touch it, there is room for error.

PLEASE continue the discussions. What we sell our future land for is a really important thing to discuss, to determine just WHAT CDS wants to be. The Al Andalus side is non profit, and has to stay that way. I think break even is the goal there. The CDS side? is it really to have thousands of dollars in reserve? These questions need to be answered at the RA level. And when you know WHAT you want CDS to be, then you hand that information over to the exec to figure out ways to make it happen.

It is the tinkering with details that drives me crazy... my point all along has been this. If there are 13 members of the RA, chances are good there will be 13 people with ideas of how best to sell land. But there is only one Chancellor whose job is to actually do it.

[Pip Torok]

Thanks for your reply, Rose.

As members of the RA, we are free to choose which motion to discuss,then to discuss it, then to vote upon it.

Who proposes it,
who amends it,
whether or not it's some sort of a compromise,
who originally formulated it,
with or without whose agreement or knowledge it is put forward ...
is, with respect, not what the RA will (or in my opinion should) be looking at.

What we will look at is what it _says_, then we will discuss its content, relevance and suitability, then we will vote upon it.

And if you see this approach as purely issue-based, without regard to personalities, then you'd be right.

Pip Torok

[Rose Springvale]

I see. thanks for clarifying that for me Pip.

[Jamie Palisades]

I very much appreciate Rose's defense of a plan that I thought --- silly me -- was a simple proposal. Still, Pip's entirely right about the way to approach issues. The RA ought to vote on the merit and practicality of an idea, not as a personality contest. And whoever they select as the executive branch, and agrees to serve, should implement it.

Again, I made a price proposal only. Some of the other opposing methods being tossed around would impose process changes and lots of new administrative steps, too. Who's going to volunteer the time to implement them?

I do wish people were more sensitive to the impracticality of complex systems. Setting all land for a fixed list price on the automatic LL "yellow map" system is simple. Selling it through a portal for L$0, or L$1 or whatever, is simple. Conducting auctions, or administering a sliding reducing scale of prices, is not simple. Rose and I are on exactly the same page, and weary, of the ludicrousness of people who may barely spend time in SL or CDS, but still blithely propose complex, time-intensive methods that spend someone else's time like water. CDS is not anyone's profession. If something can't be done easily or automated simply, we ought not do it.

Regards JP

[Cindy Ecksol]

I've spoken with a number of RA members about the land pricing issues, and after reading today's postings it looks like I need to make very clear what my position is on the proposal that the RA will be discussing tomorrow. More important, I'd like to explain how I decided on my position, and I hope that explanation may help others sort through the flaming rhetoric that we like to toss around and get to the heart of the matter.

First, let's understand that ALL we're discussing is the question of what the PRICE should be for land reposessed by CDS and resold. In particular, we're not discussing whether or not an auction process would be a good thing to implement. We previously had a discussion of the land sale PROCESS, and as far as I know, what was presented and discussed in RA last month is what is supposed to be currently in force. No other proposal is on the table. Here's the most current reference I have: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... ess#p13928 . Somehow after the last RA meeting the yellow squares on the map suddenly reappeared, and I have not had a chance to talk with Jamie and Rose about why this happened. But I'm assuming that this is a temporary issue, and that it will be straightened out shortly.

**[EDIT] Rose has enlightened me on this: I was mistaken in thinking that we would be using the drawing process over the long term. The only process we have right now is the "yellow map" process, and prices are set to the statutory price. Thanks for clarifying, Rose. [END EDIT]

So we know how the process works, and that it assumes that CDS will sell repossessed parcels at the statutory price. Statutory prices are set by the RA. Right now I think that everyone agrees that the statutory prices are too high, WAY out of line with parcel pricing anywhere else in SL whether priced per prim or per square meter. What we will try to decide tomorrow is whether we should reprice parcels to $0L or to the equivalent of one month of tier.

The Chancellor's original proposal was to price the parcels in question at $0L. This may be sensible in the current environment: LL started giving away parcels a while back, and private estates have followed suit. Just use "Search" and check the "Land Sales" tab and you'll see a lot of parcels, large and small, listed for $0L. But that's not the whole story. Parcels still have a value -- as Rose commented in another thread (http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 619#p13986), LL is still charging $705 USD for a sim, and even in the secondary market a sim can't be bought for $0. And in established communities like CDS, people aren't just buying a parcel. In our case, the parcels have value as a participation in our experiment in virtual democracy. If you want to be part of that, you are probably willing to pay something more than zero for the privilege. I can actually attest to that personally, as can Jimmie: he was not willing to pay me the statutory price for my small house in AM, but he WAS willing to pay a bit more than one month's tier. I'll leave it to him to explain why he was willing to do that, but I expect that he is not the only one.

So parcels in CDS really do not have "zero" value. In talking with Gwyn, Sonja, Arria and others who were strongly opposed to the $0L pricing proposed by the Chancellor, the main objection was that if we approved a statutory price of $0L, we would be devaluing not just the currently unsold parcels, but every parcel in every sim that is part of CDS. Not only would we be in one sense "taking" value from current parcel owners, we would be indicating that there was really nothing special about CDS that might incline people to be willing to buy in in the same way that one might buy into a food cooperative or a credit union where everyone owns a share and has a vote on critical issues.

After last week's meeting, Jamie and Gwyn discussed their respective positions at length. And as Gwyn commented to me the next day, it was surprisingly easy for them to find a potential solution that could address the concerns of those who believe that even in the current market, the value of a CDS parcel is not $0L. Here's Jamie's account of their discussion and his proposed amendment: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =15#p13976

Jamie does a good job of making the case for the original $0L proposal, so I won't do it here. And I certainly understand from his posting that he would prefer that the RA approve it that way. But he also makes it clear that while he considers amending the proposal unnecessary, he would not object.

So what exactly is the proposal? It works like this. As I outlined above, notice would be posted of parcels for sale. They would be listed at $0L, and the winner of a parcel would pay (as in Jamie's original proposal) 2 months of tier in advance. When Sudane does the bookkeeping, one month of tier would go on the books as "purchase price." The other would be credited as two months of tier paid at a 50% discount.

That's it, period. You'll all note (as I did after I started looking at the suggested amendment) that there is NO difference between the original proposal and the amended proposal in terms of how we advertise, economic impact on CDS when the parcel is sold, or economic impact on the buyer. The buyer sees a parcel available for $0L, pays two months of tier in advance when he/she takes possession, and after those two months pays tier at the normal rate. The ONLY difference is psychological: the buyer and all other CDS parcel owners understand that the statutory value of that parcel is actually one month of tier. When this idea was first floated past me early last week, I did a little number crunching to see where various parcels might stand. Here's a sample:

Code: Select all

Sim	m2	Prims Tier	 L$/m2	L$/prim
AM	 512	234	$2,620	$5.12	$11.20
AM	1024	469	$5,241	$5.12	$11.17
CN	 816	187	$2,264	$2.77	$12.11
CN	2528	581	$6,472	$2.56	$11.14
LA	 512	234	$2,227	$4.35	$9.52
LA	1024	469	$4,455	$4.35	$9.50
NFS	320	 74	$  751	$2.35	$10.15
NFS	464	107	$1,094	$2.36	$10.22
NFS  1584	364	$2,800	$1.77	$7.69

I haven't done any serious analysis of non-CDS parcels to see how the L$/prim stack up, but the L$2 to L$5 per square meter is right in line with what seems to be going on with resales in desirable areas of SL based on the checking that I've done. And since our major problem with the current statutory pricing was that our prices were far in excess of the L$/m2 being charged elsewhere, it seems to me that resetting in the way that Jamie suggested would be a good way to resolve that problem.

So in summary, I support Jamie's proposed amendment for the following reasons:

1. It is economically equivalent to pricing land at $0L and just charging the full amount of tier with no discount.
2. It addresses the economic fact that land prices in SL have declined, and resets those prices to market rather than devaluing all parcels in CDS to $0L.
3. It ensures that new residents will be committed to CDS for at least two months. That may be true of the original proposal also, but I think that the psychological impact of setting a market value on a parcel may discourage the "land flipping" that some fear and encourage bonding with the community.
4. It is a proposal that everyone can live with even if not everyone thinks it is perfect.

That last is a big thing for me, really the most important thing about this whole discussion. As an Al Andalus resident, I really enjoyed the process of making decisions by consensus. It's not the most efficient and sometimes not the most logical, but it did have the virtue of allowing everyone to feel as though their concerns had been clearly heard and respected by everyone else before a final decision was made. As an observer and participant in the contact sport that is CDS politics, I have noted that the stronger faction or coalition often gets its own way despite strident concerns voiced by others. And those concerns don't go away when a decision is rammed through -- they go underground and fester and eventually surface in a skirmish over another issue. I think it's about time our little experiment in virtual democracy moved beyond the idea of politics as a contact sport and towards learning to build consensus on contentious issues within the framework of our contention-driven system. It's not something that most of us are conditioned to do naturally, but in talking with RA members this week, I'm hopeful that I'm not the only one who would like to see if we can learn how here in CDS.

Cindy