[b:2tgp9i49][u:2tgp9i49]A partial solution using group tools[/b:2tgp9i49][/u:2tgp9i49]
Speaking to Eloise Pasteur yesterday, it seems that, whilst it is possible to use scripts to control access/ban functions, it is not possible to use scripts to control object return functions, which means that there is no automated way to enforce renters' rights to decide exclusively what gets built on their land. The only solution that I can see is to enforce partly through group tools, and partly manually.
[b:2tgp9i49]A two teir franchulates system[/b:2tgp9i49]
The new group tools allow roles to be assigned to members very flexibly in relation to what they can do with group land. However, they do not allow different permissions for different bits of group land.
So, whilst it is possible to control land by having an estate-owner like figure being a member of a group with exclusive power to determine membership of the group, abandon land, split/join parcels, etc., and having the "owner" of the land (in the CDS sense) being a member of that group with power to set the name of the land, set the photograph, set ban and access lists, and all of that sort of thing, using that system, there would have to be a separate group for each parcel of CDS land.
The problem with that is that it would not (I imagine: somebody correct me if I am wrong) allow for bulk land discounts because the group would not own more than one parcel of land. Also, in order for us to retain control, the estate-owner-equivalent would have to be a member of [i:2tgp9i49]all[/i:2tgp9i49] of the groups, and would quickly run out of group allowances (at 25). We would therefore need a great many estate owners (or estate-owning alts) if we were to expand our citizenry that way. That would be possible, however: four EOs/alts could cover 100 citizens, and, in any event, with more citizens and land, we will [i:2tgp9i49]need[/i:2tgp9i49] more EOs because of the administrative costs.
However, if people want to have the discount of bulk land holding, then they will have to be pure renters. Using groups, we could at least stop people who are not citizens at all from building (etc.) on group land (in a similar way as described above, by having renting citizens of the province or borough in question members of a province or borough land group with a few powers in relation to the land of the whole province). Enforcement between citizens of the province or borough in qusetion would have to be manual, with a number of local planning enforcement officers employed by the locality (a member of the province or borough land group with power to return objects in the whole borough, but not to abandon land or buy or sell it, but possibly with the power to divide and combine parcels). If anybody built on somebody else's land, the planning enforcement officer could remove the build. Non-members of the group would have their objects returned automatically after a fixed period of time (I think that that can be done - correct me if I am wrong).
[b:2tgp9i49]Security[/b:2tgp9i49]
To prevent provinces and boroughs breaking away from the CDS, and taking our land with them, only officers of the national government, not local government officials, should be members of the provincial or borough land groups with the power to abandon, buy or sell land. Any officers with those powers should be (1) selected by the national government (Chancellor's office) as being of the highest degree of trustworthiness, and (2) have no direct interest in the provincial land. To prevent rogue EOs trying to make off with money, the same person should never have power in any one group (1) to sell land (in the LL sense of sell), and (2) to take money out of the group funds.
Local planning enforcement officers would be different to marshals of the peace, in that the former would deal primarily with planning violations (people building on other people's land, or people violating zoning rules), whereas marshals of the peace would deal primarily with general griefing.
[b:2tgp9i49]Some general thoughts on logistics[/b:2tgp9i49]
It might be that, in many situations, there would have to be a province-wide policy on which type of land ownership that local dwellers have: either the financially more advantageous pure renting, or the more flexible plot group allocation. It might be that, because of the extra national administrative overhead in the plot group allocation model, the pure renting model would be the default, with the plot group allocation model being an exception for people who particularly need the extra flexibility and can make a strong case for it, although that might have to be assessed by demand. Depending on just how high the administrative burden becomes, it might be that we have to charge a special tax for the group plot allocation model.
As to the relationship between boroughs and provinces, it might well be that a different land allocation model could be used in a borough to the main province, although, again, the land allocation model should probably be subject to national approval.
Even for the pure renting model, it might be worthwhile having a different group for each province (to aid planning enforcement by preventing citizens from one province building on somebody else's land in another province), although those who know more about land and groups than I do may know something that I do not about whether this is impractical.
In the pure rental allocation model, each parcel should have the name of the citizen who, as far as the CDS is concerned, "owns" the land as part of the description of the parcel to make it clear to everybody who owns what, and again to make enforcement easier.
As far as CDS law is concerned, there should be no real difference between the rights of those with title to land under either allocation model: the differenece should be purely technical.
Comments, further ideas and general feeback is appreciated 
