4-40: Land Reclamation Act

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Ranma Tardis

Re: Why not use the Japanese marketplace approach.

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":pzflky88]Here's a thought. I'm not sure if I saw this in the movie Tampopo but a noodle house owner had a stall kind of in the courtyard of a giant skyscraper in Japan. The owners of the surrounding property could not buy her out and so built the skyscraper around her.

I think this approach would work. In practice there are very few people such as the farmers Ranma describes that won't take a huge buyout bid. Especially in SL, it's so easy to move buildings, create new land etc. Most would take the money and run and certainly the wacky holdouts would lend "character" to the locale.

What's the harm in that approach?[/quote:pzflky88]

I am not sure why you would call the lady who would not sell her noodle house "wacky"? Perhaps she is just one in a long line of noodle house operators. Things are not always as they seem. In Japan especially among women a business can be pass down through bonds of affection instead of blood relation. Perhaps her "apprentice" cook will run the noodle shop after her. If she "took the money and ran", there would be no shop. She would not look at herself as the owner of the shop but more like the caretaker of it. Many shops have been there for hundreds of years as well and running it is a tradition. In America the sense of tradition is not as strong. Then again American is really a very young country in the scheme of things.

Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2mvoizh2][quote="Ranma Tardis":2mvoizh2]
It is not "tar", I am showing how basic thoughts about goverment and how goverments interact with their citizens are very different. Is Japan any better than the western countries that do not have land rights as part of their consitution? Perhaps not, I like to say that Japan is not any better than any other country just different.[/quote:2mvoizh2]

Ah, but you were saying such was true of "The West", whereas not all countries go for that, and other non-Western countries are worse than even the United States is in it's most Wal-Mart accomodating moments; China comes to mind.

I don't mean to make you feel put-upon, so I apologize if I'm coming on too strong. I'm a fan of precision in speech... being a little too imprecise at times myself.[/quote:2mvoizh2]

It seems to me that money is more important in Europe and North America than tradition. Yes even in Japan things have changed to a certain extent but with the declining population people and tradition are becoming more important again.
China is well China and their story still has a lot left. Today the gap between the rich and poor is increasing and a lot of workers are taken advantage of. They would do their part and make the construction but not get fully paid for their labor. They might not get paid at all. Oh there is no one china when it comes to ethic groups. They do not even speak a single language. There are places in China where tradition is just as strong as Japan and perhaps stronger. It is a rather large country with a population of over a billion people.
It is hard to be precise in talking about tradition in Japan. Land ownership has long been a "right" and an obligation. Also change does happen but it is not what you would expect. Say a grocery store has been run for generations but the chains are forcing their way in the market. The owner of the store would convert it into a franchise of "Family Mart" and from now on generations will run that Family Mart Store. It may not be the same name but the basic essence of the store remains.

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Re: Why not use the Japanese marketplace approach.

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

[quote:14iudumk]I am not sure why you would call the lady who would not sell her noodle house "wacky"? Perhaps she is just one in a long line of noodle house operators. Things are not always as they seem. In Japan especially among women a business can be pass down through bonds of affection instead of blood relation. Perhaps her "apprentice" cook will run the noodle shop after her. If she "took the money and ran", there would be no shop. She would not look at herself as the owner of the shop but more like the caretaker of it. Many shops have been there for hundreds of years as well and running it is a tradition. In America the sense of tradition is not as strong. Then again American is really a very young country in the scheme of things.[/quote:14iudumk]

Sorry Ranma, it was a poor choice of words. Beyond even tradition, the noodle owner scenario makes economic sense if the land is appreciating and passed down to subsequent generations. There is not a great deal of tradition, as of yet, in SL because of it's a young world but I'm sure more will come with time.

Can anyone envision scenario where the CDS absolutely, positively *had* to reclaim someone's land (non-abadonment/non-punitive)?

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Why not use the Japanese marketplace approach.

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2xxedep1]
Can anyone envision scenario where the CDS absolutely, positively *had* to reclaim someone's land (non-abadonment/non-punitive)?[/quote:2xxedep1]

It's difficult for me to do so. As said, land in SL is mostly homogenous, and with teleporting even location is more an aesthetic choice than anything else.

I simply allow for the possibility.

Ranma Tardis

Re: Why not use the Japanese marketplace approach.

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":ook76rx6][quote:ook76rx6]I am not sure why you would call the lady who would not sell her noodle house "wacky"? Perhaps she is just one in a long line of noodle house operators. Things are not always as they seem. In Japan especially among women a business can be pass down through bonds of affection instead of blood relation. Perhaps her "apprentice" cook will run the noodle shop after her. If she "took the money and ran", there would be no shop. She would not look at herself as the owner of the shop but more like the caretaker of it. Many shops have been there for hundreds of years as well and running it is a tradition. In America the sense of tradition is not as strong. Then again American is really a very young country in the scheme of things.[/quote:ook76rx6]

Sorry Ranma, it was a poor choice of words. Beyond even tradition, the noodle owner scenario makes economic sense if the land is appreciating and passed down to subsequent generations. There is not a great deal of tradition, as of yet, in SL because of it's a young world but I'm sure more will come with time.

Can anyone envision scenario where the CDS absolutely, positively *had* to reclaim someone's land (non-abadonment/non-punitive)?[/quote:ook76rx6]

I disagree; land will always be worth something. However money can be come worthless overnight. The Yen use to have a value of the American dollar or British Pound. It was broken down into 100 parts like the dollar. However over the years its value has been lost. Also there are punishing taxes when people die in Japan except for land. So you are saying that the women should have closed her shop and lived off the money thus stopping the tradition of her soba shop?
About using the power to take away from others their property? Yes I can easily see it getting done, not by the current administration. I can see it being used to enrich people with no morals.

Last edited by Ranma Tardis on Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Sorry, I guess I'm unclear...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

I think I was being unclear. I'm apologizing for calling the noodle shop owner wacky. I am defending her choice to keep her land on economic as well as the aforementioned reasons of tradition. I'm saying that SL has less tradition than RL, but that may change in the future.

So I'm basically apologizing to you and agreeing with you. Just to be clear. :)

Could this be case of a solution without a problem? Could we table this until such a *must reclaim* situation came up?

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Ranma Tardis

Re: Sorry, I guess I'm unclear...

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":1gnbla8p]I think I was being unclear. I'm apologizing for calling the noodle shop owner wacky. I am defending her choice to keep her land on economic as well as the aforementioned reasons of tradition. I'm saying that SL has less tradition than RL, but that may change in the future.

So I'm basically apologizing to you and agreeing with you. Just to be clear. :)[/quote:1gnbla8p]

Not needed, we all can not have the same point of view. It works that way in Japan because of how things are set up in Japan. Oh there is also a farmer in the middle of Narita Airport tending his little field. Wonder who much it costs them to stabilize the surrounding land?
I just think that people in these times spend too much time and effort worrying about money instead of other more important things. As for SL, well this is the start and perhaps we are starting something much more permanent than you think :)

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

The provisions (and the compensations) of this law, shouldn't be applied when the RA overrides a waiver that is in effect? If, say, the building subject of the waiver has been yet built.

In fact the overriding would be an expropriation of a right.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Fernando Book":2z6ttbms]The provisions (and the compensations) of this law, shouldn't be applied when the RA overrides a waiver that is in effect? If, say, the building subject of the waiver has been yet built.

In fact the overriding would be an expropriation of a right.[/quote:2z6ttbms]

You haven't been reading Epstein, have you?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

Ashcroft wrote
[quote:1hlqzv0l]You haven't been reading Epstein, have you?[/quote:1hlqzv0l]

No, I haven't read [i:1hlqzv0l]Takings[/i:1hlqzv0l] (nor I have heard about Richard Epstein before you mentioned him).

But I'm not talking about eminent domain, but about juridical safety. If we have placed on the Chancellor the ability of granting waivers, then only the courts should revoke them.

If the RA overrides a waiver then I think that the building should be kept, but perhaps the owner could not make any change in it (in shape or in use) without returning the building to the Covenant compliance.[/quote]

User avatar
Moon Adamant
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 822
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Post by Moon Adamant »

Expropriation tools are needed when you are dealing with territorial matters.
Every state has them, actually to make sure that the citizens really do get a chance to negotiate a compensation, and that no citizen loses his/her propriety for no cause. Surely these are the positive focus of this bill.

I suggest that the bill can also add a clause for precaution:

[i:3onulru8]ED shall only be invoked to implement territorial plans or changes to territorial plans approved by the RA.[/i:3onulru8]

I also agree with Chicago when he says that the negociation should be clearly stated as one of the steps in the process, and agree also with Diderot's revision about compensation including the costs of moving of land content.

Brian Livingston
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:19 pm

Post by Brian Livingston »

Hi all:

I have read over everyone's posts and am currently working on revising this bill for resubmission to the RA. I'll be honest that I still feel that this is a neccesary policy to have established in our government. Although consensus building should always be the first step and no further actions should be taken until this has been exhausted, there might be a time when we have to retake land for the public good. It is important that we have a procedure in place that will deal with this eventuality and not one that is put in place hatily but after discussion and debate, much like we are havign now. Similarly, I would expect that any application for an eminentdomain taking would be met with similar debate within the R.A., again protecting both the landowner and the state.

As Moon said, this bill is not designed to take away the rights of the people, but rather to protect their proprety by providign for a structured procdeudre, compelte with checks and balances, as well as provisions for appeals.

--BL

Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”