Group Citizenship

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
FernLeissa
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:10 am

Group Citizenship

Post by FernLeissa »

Group citizenship was an issue that came up regularly during the re-thinking and re-writing of the covenants; both on the forum and in-world. There was concern both over using group membership to "stuff the ballot box" and to hide individual land acquisitions that exceeded covenant limits. Others saw dis-allowing group membership as introducing an unfair barrier to CDS citizenship or as unnecessarily complicating the citizenship process of partners living on the same piece of virtual property.

A number of people suggested solutions to the problem. Some of that discussion can be seen in the Covenant meeting transcripts posted to this forum. I do not honestly remember all of the solutions suggested as I was focused on re-writing the covenant and therefore looked closely only at those that I though I might be able to incorporate into the covenant rewrite.

As far as Group citizenship/ownership goes, I came to the conclusion that this was not an issue that could be effectively addressed with a covenant rewrite, so I'm suggesting that we take up discussion of the topic with the idea that any changes people want to see will have to be introduced as new legislation; as an amendment to our existing law.

Soro posted an interesting suggestion about managing Group citizenship, which I am quoting here:

I am still concerned about the use of partnerships to "spread" the vote. I again urge a limit on the number of persons in an owning partnership who vote. The number of individual partners who vote should be in a ratio to the property's equivalent minimum lot size, in that Property's zone. Example: A Lot is 512 Sq./m. and the Minimum size Lot is 256 Sq./m. Therefore a 512 sq./m lot = can have 2 votes per partnership. It a Lot size 1024 -- then 4 votes, but not more votes than the number of individuals in the partnership.

I'm also pasting in the text of NL 5-9 Group Land Ownership Act

This extends the option of land ownership in Neufreistadt to couples and groups of citizens. Among others, this allows joint ownership of land by people in committed relationships, social, educational, and religious organizations.

1. Plots of land in Neufreistadt may be owned by couples or groups of citizens. All members must be citizens before joining the group.

2. Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the territories administered by the CDS, and by agreeing to comply with the laws and covenants of the community. The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar, may hold land either through individual ownership (in which their name is displayed on the "About Land" page of their parcel), or through membership in a group (in which the group name is displayed as "owner" on the "About Land" page of their parcel). The group shall own, compliant with the covenants regarding maximum ownership by any single citizen, at least 128 sq meters of land for each individual whose citizenship is qualified by that land.

3. Furthermore, each citizen shall be required to pay their monthly fee for land ownership, in person, each month, at the sim location established for this purpose. Individual owners shall pay the entire cost of their parcels in this manner. Group members shall allocate among themselves each member's share of the fee for land owned by their group, with the minimum amount of L$100 allocated to any one person. A group representative shall provide to the Treasurer, in a timely fashion, the list of citizen members, and their respective allocations.

4. In the course of time, should it happen that an individual does not pay their monthly fee (according to schedules established by the Chancellor and the Treasurer), that person shall be liable to lose their citizenship. Should that citizen be a citizen by virtue of membership in a land owning group, other group members will NOT risk losing their parcel and thus their citizenship. Rather, at the point that the Chancellor/Treasurer shall determine that person to be delinquent, and thus ineligible for further citizenship, the remaining members of that group shall be required to re-allocate their monthly amounts in order that 100% of the monthly fee be paid. If the resulting reduction in membership should cause the group to exceed its maximum land-owning allowance (as per the covenants), the group will be required to divest excess land.

5. If the citizen leaves a land holding group they have two months to reestablish their holdings to meet the above criteria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
passed October 7, 2006 and amended by NL 7-7 21 October 2007[/color]

AND NL 7-7 Amendment to NL 5-9 Group Land Ownership Act
Amendment to NL5-9 Group Land Ownership Act

]Replace 2 with the following and renumber:

Residents of SL receive citizenship in the CDS by owning land in one of the territories administered by the CDS, and by agreeing to comply with the laws and covenants of the community. The citizen, who shall be a RL person presenting themself as a single SL avatar, may hold land either through individual ownership (in which their name is displayed on the "About Land" page of their parcel), or through membership in a group (in which the group name is displayed as "owner" on the "About Land" page of their parcel). The group shall own, compliant with the covenants regarding maximum ownership by any single citizen, at least 128 sq meters of land for each individual whose citizenship is qualified by that land.

Furthermore, each citizen shall be required to pay their monthly fee for land ownership, in person, each month, at the sim location established for this purpose. Individual owners shall pay the entire cost of their parcels in this manner. Group members shall allocate among themselves each member's share of the fee for land owned by their group, with the minimum amount of L$100 allocated to any one person. A group representative shall provide to the Treasurer, in a timely fashion, the list of citizen members, and their respective allocations.

In the course of time, should it happen that an individual does not pay their monthly fee (according to schedules established by the Chancellor and the Treasurer), that person shall be liable to lose their citizenship. Should that citizen be a citizen by virtue of membership in a land owning group, other group members will NOT risk losing their parcel and thus their citizenship. Rather, at the point that the Chancellor/Treasurer shall determine that person to be delinquent, and thus ineligible for further citizenship, the remaining members of that group shall be required to re-allocate their monthly amounts in order that 100% of the monthly fee be paid. If the resulting reduction in membership should cause the group to exceed its maximum land-owning allowance (as per the covenants), the group will be required to divest excess land[/color].

Voter fraud is a serious issue for a democracy, so lets talk about it.

Fern

FernLeissa
Rose Springvale
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:29 am

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Rose Springvale »

With all due respect, this issue was explored at length by the 13th RA, in a commission chaired by current RA member Aria Perreault. You may want to consider the posts here:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3089

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3112

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3197

Rose Springvale
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:29 am

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Rose Springvale »

also, voter fraud has been the red flag waved every few terms in CDS. I agree it is a serious problem, but one not experienced, nor likely to be experienced, in this project. We can't get enough people to actually run for office... how would stuffing ballot boxes help? When we start getting more than 50% of the eligible population actually voting, this might be an interesting topic. Until then, it seems like drama without substance.

Why not focus instead on getting people TO vote?

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2072
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Rosie Gray »

I'd have to agree that this is a moot point with the current citizenship. So, we can move on with the proposed covenant changes as they are, and those who want to continue exploring this topic can do so as Fern has set up for us here. In theory it COULD be a serious issue, but in my mind the more serious issue now is retaining and growing the citizenship.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Beathan »

I strongly agree with the views expressed by the Roses. I see no reason to legislate a solution to a problem that we are not experiencing and will not likely experience inthe foreseeable future. I also think that we will see an uptick in fair and good faith scrambling for offices before we see any systematic election fraud -- and if we ever have such a change (which would be good in itself) we can address the implications and potential problems at that point. I am sure we won't miss the opportunity to address the problem if it ever becomes real.

Until then, I think we should focus on building a community of people, even if those people don't own buildings in our community.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Chancellor
Chancellor
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Contact:

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

I agree that his issue has been resolved. I do call attention to CDSL 13-10. This is the current law governing citizenship and introduced the concept of citizenship via sponsorship. Also, it specifically cancelled NL 5-9, which had limited group citizenship to group members who had citizen in their own right prior to joining the group.

Citizen
FernLeissa
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:10 am

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by FernLeissa »

Thank you Rose and Tor for the links and info clarifying the current status of Group citizenship.

This is a little off topic, but do we have the necessary defining variables re citizenship and group citizenship in the CDSL 13-10 Citizenship bill to move NL 5-9 and NL 7-7 to Repealed Code or Archaic Code?

Any explanation about what's going on here and why would be most welcome :D

Fern

FernLeissa
User avatar
Tor Karlsvalt
Chancellor
Chancellor
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:56 am
Contact:

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Tor Karlsvalt »

Hi Fern,

I am not too sure about the protocol regarding when laws are moved to the repealed or archaic section of the list of laws. However, in my short experience it has been done by the Archivist. Last term that was Cindy Ecksol. As far as I know, the current RA has not named an Archivist.

I suppose the RA should address the issue of organizing the laws, either by directing the LRA or Archivist to make changes or by having an Archivist look at the issue and make recommendations to the RA.

The budget recently passed does include a monthly stipend for an RA Archivist.

Tor

Citizen
User avatar
Arria Perreault
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:14 pm

Re: Group Citizenship

Post by Arria Perreault »

The current RA has named Sonja Strom as Archivist. We will make sure that the code of law is updated.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”