The talk was several hours after the last RA meeting, where many people were still around... and no, I didn't keep a transcript (I didn't ask permission!). That post was mostly the notes I took from what was said. The biggest contributor to the list was Stui.
And Rose, I already know your opinion 
Better than that, you have already posted often what issues you have, and made them public. But I was interested to hear what other AA residents say, and what concerns they had; some don't speak on the forums and were given little opportunity (or even no opportunity at all) to speak on the RA. Still, their issues are also important, don't you think? If they're based on factual data, or merely the perception they have of how things are being handled, is pretty irrelevant. A concern is a concern. Factual data will just help us to patiently explain to the concerned citizen why their assumptions are wrong and why they shouldn't worry.
Or did you mean that we should only refer to you regarding any issues that concern Al Andalus? If so, I apologise in advance, because that was not made clear to me — but I'm also allowed to disagree! I think that all AA residents have the right to speak for themselves! At least during the "transition phase", the freedom of expression of AA residents has not be revoked!
Granted, I'm not perfect and I might have understood some things wrongly. But that's why we're discussing things here: to understand which are valid concerns; which are misinterpretations of concerns that actually don't exist; which ones are just misconceptions based on my wrong assumptions. However, the first two cases have to be addressed (the last one doesn't ). I wish to list all concerns, factual or otherwise; and listen to all citizens, not just the ones that someone deems to be worthy of listening to. By patiently going through that list (and hopefully add to it!) I hope that we can at long last figure out what needs to be done to make sure that the AA residents are happy about their situation. If they're being fed false assumptions and fearing things that actually don't exist, our role is to explain the facts, but never to suppress their right to express their fears, rational or otherwise.
So, after rewriting the post I had lost, answering to your six points:
1. I'm glad it was sorted out that the Mosque and other religious structures in AA are open to the public and free to visit without restrictions, and that anyone can use those buildings! Again, thanks for the clarification. It definitely contradicts what has been told to me.
2. Sorry about the confusion of the CDS flag vs. the Spanish flag. This is a case where I might gotten my notes wrong. I quoted "citizens are worried because some buildings show flags that are not appropriate for the cultural and historical background of the building". After a short jump around AA, I found the three flags — AA, CDS, and the Spanish flag — to be floated in some buildings (not all together!). I wrongly assumed that the target of the complains was any non-AA flag floated in AA.
3. and 4. You're quite right. We need a list and a clarification of who posts the available plots, and who is able to request permission to sell them. By default, this role will fall upon the Executive, but it might be best to make double-sure at the next RA meeting. On the last Town Hall, a group was suggesting that Sacromonte would use the similar status as the Monastery in the 'old CDS', and that the New Guild is charged with the planning of this. It's worth discussing it at the RA level, as the RA is supposed to agree with theme expansions/changes via recommendations made by the New Guild, and executed by the Executive.
5. Rose, remember, you have all the facts, and I'm sure that you have sent them to "CDS officials". But we don't have any of those numbers. We just have the financial reports, and no reason to believe they're not accurate. The "confusion" is just because the information listed there doesn't validate the claim that the AA sims are paying for the old CDS tier; nevertheless, this is a popular opinion, often expressed in public. In fact, only in the month of October did the tier collection from the AA sims surpass the collection in the rest of the CDS by about 10%. Tier collection in the AA sims can be as low as just L$2000 in a month due to pre-payments, so it's hardly possible to understand, before July 2010, if AA pays for itself or not. I'm confident that it does, e.g. that after a year, all the maths add up correctly and we can indeed satisfy ourselves by proving that it worked out fine. The "confusion" is just that we cannot make such claims now.
6.
Rose Springvale wrote:The details of VDI were set out in the merger agreement, which also sets out the respective rights and obligations of both sides of this transaction. [...] The merger agreement provides that CDS has the right to name some directors, but you all treat it like its some monster.
Yes, well, the problem is that on the last draft of the merger agreement that I found, as well as on the subsequent RA meeting of May 31, 2009, the non-profit is never mentioned by name or by composition. The relationship between the non profit, your own self, and its role in the agreement was not made public AFAIK, although a link might be dangling somewhere, I just can't find it. I'd love if someone could send a link to me, please. In any case, that doesn't worry me overmuch.
Looking back at the conversations I had, if I were paranoid, I would almost think that people were deliberately misleading me to make a fool of myself in public But I was never paranoid, so I prefer to believe that a lot of AA residents are actually stating their fears upon irrational beliefs that have little to do with the facts. Nevertheless, since AA residents will vote in July to stay or to leave the CDS, it's important that at least they base their vote on factual data. However, it's also important to document and bring to the public discussion what their irrational fears are, so that we can know what they think, and at the very least point them to the facts.
