CDS Discussion

Lilith Ivory wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:08 pm

So pretty please let´s not make our SL and selling land in CDS more difficult as it is already.

In my opinion we should:

• define commercial as "really trying to sell something"

• change most covenants so both commercial and residential are allowed. With exceptions for downtown NFS and CN where the 1th floor has to be commercial or looking like being commercial and perhaps Monastery and Friedsee as to my knowing LL does not allow real commerce on a homestead.

I really don´t see why a citizen should not be allowed to put some vendors inside of a house that looks good and is build in alliance with our covenants.

A practical solution that gives more freedom instead of taking it away. I like it.

Ok so just my thought and opinion, But what if defining commercial is defined as a location selling a product for purpose of making a profit and being limited to area's that are already defined as commercial, Now as for all that has been listed as having variances, By my thoughts anyways all sound more like a common or social area of some kind, So why not add in a law or something to allow for a social type place to be allowed within each of the area's of CDS within reason of location, theme and any other factors that would determine if it fits within the area it is potentially being looked at being located? That is my thoughts anyways.

My only concern in this discussion is that we find a way to allow the places Sudane mentioned (like her taverna in Monastery) that looks commercial but actually only offers a nice "commercial look-alike" surrounding to enjoy.

I have had several "fake businesses" during the years without any objections from the LUC, nor from any Chancellor, and was never granted any "variance".

I seem to be the only one who interpreted things differently in the latest RA meeting. I really thought we were trying to soften and extend the concept of commercial to include, and thereby admit, the places that only look commercial- because we want them.

But I am much inclined to change the covenants to allow a mix of residential and commercial in all the sims. We often see small business deep in the RL countryside that try their luck...

Em Warden

I seem to be the only one who interpreted things differently in the latest RA meeting. I really thought we were trying to soften and extend the concept of commercial to include, and thereby admit, the places that only look commercial- because we want them.

But I am much inclined to change the covenants to allow a mix of residential and commercial in all the sims. We often see small business deep in the RL countryside that try their luck...

For purposes of selling land and not complicating what a new citizen has to consider, I agree with Em's view of softening.
And I agree that "businesses" of exactly the type we have already are present in the our countryside. (I haven't done a full inspection, but everything that has been named as potentially problematic are, indeed, the social spaces that MadMaxSoulLover has mentioned.)

A number of proposals have been put forward, but I will drag out my view again. I honestly think the urban/countryside distinction is a good route to go. Perhaps saying that commercial, or places that "look" commercial are allowed IF they are appropriate to their setting, urban or countryside. The covenants will take care of a lot of the "appropriateness" issue, thus limiting the amount of revision required re: commercial.

Right, you have won me over. Urban vs. rural, instead of residential vs. commercial. I'm glad we had this discussion so that we can all be on the same page.

Cathy's dollar and thirty three cents.

I have been most impressed with the CDS's use of the word "plausible." There is something to be said for a SLife which provides the mechanisms for a psychedelic environment, but that is the antithesis of the CDS philosophy. So, I am comfortable in these estates as a "human" style avatar in a humane environment.

But, many of us want to do more then have a nest into which we can invite a few friends. I know, for instance, that Widget ran into problems with her conferences and whether or not they were "commercial." Of course they weren't residential, but she could certainly argue that they weren't commercial. In RL we have an additional zone, industrial, but they are less appropriate for churches, playgrounds, youth centers and what ever else you could think of that wasn't a house, store, or factory: Railroad station? fishing pier?(what if you sold worms? Or, .....?

I think that appropriate and plausible work, but am not sure how you legislate something so subjective. If we want to ask that the visuals of some construction "fit" with the decor of a neighborhood, how do we determine what "fit," appropriate, and plausible are? Perhaps Kyoko's urban/rural definitions give the best solution. We need some zoning laws so citizens, or prospective citizens can have an adequate idea, in advance, about what can be, or can't be, done. But, it doesn't make sense to ink the LUC into a corner.

Cathy Sabre wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:45 pm

I think that appropriate and plausible work, but am not sure how you legislate something so subjective.

Welcome to the CDS (forum)

I think the big, big thing to look at would be impact -although we don't have much of a problem with that.

You can have a club on a residential parcel that draws in a lot of people and lag -say, for instance, a lodge style build. It would look just like a residence; but have the drawbacks (crowding, lag) of a commercial build.

I don't like this whole cut-in-stone black-and-white thing; I think it ought to be dealt with
on a case by case basis
as the need arises
with an eye more towards resource usage than on appearances.

We're a group of 64 people -20, 25 really (if you consider the folks that are active and involved) ...in many ways the governmental red tape is overkill for the number of folks we're dealing with.

And this is a great example of that -on top of policing theme (which I agree with and applaud) we're talking about policing usage too.

I say that until parcels are using up resources (causing lag etc) let it lie -and once they are, police that, not wether it's commercial or residential, urban or rural.

I remember 2005 and the horrible eye-sores of malls that would lag you out, I always felt like the covenant (with the residential/commercial zoning divides) was written at least in part as a reaction to that (as well, of course, as being a part of a model virtual government).

I don't feel that's what ought to be the primary consideration -excessive usage ought to be. (detirmining what that means and how to enforce that will give us more than enough work anyway!)

So here it is in my-two-cents.... well, three

1. If we could read each others minds or talk with everyone involved, then respect our findings: We wouldn't need laws.*

2. Since that is impossible, whatever statutes we create -- in an attempt to limit bloody noses -- should codify what people want to do, not what politicians want them to do.

3. (To paraphrase my CDS mentors) Excessive statutes bring diminishing returns, while the ones we need to have should be: Obvious; Useful; Easy/fun to follow, and enforced, if not.

* In an attempt to solve that deficit (and on-topic), we make zoning regulations, to balance the right of a particular citizen to build what she wants, with the right of all citizens to live in as gorgeous an environment as possible.

Why have covenants if they aren’t enforced? I know of at least one residential property which is significantly higher than 20m and if it ‘fits’ in is highly questionable. An agreed exception I assume. If there are so many exceptions enforcing more strict rules on ‘new’ residents seems decidedly unfair.

richie deschanel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:10 am

Why have covenants if they aren’t enforced? I know of at least one residential property which is significantly higher than 20m and if it ‘fits’ in is highly questionable. An agreed exception I assume. If there are so many exceptions enforcing more strict rules on ‘new’ residents seems decidedly unfair.

The building you are referring to was unfortunately not dealt with by the Chancellor of the day, within the time frames of the law, and so it became grandfathered. This serves as an example of why the LUC and the Chancellor need to keep up with approvals of buildings, but it also illustrates the difficulty. There are constant changes to buildings in the CDS, and although citizens are supposed to notify the LUC and/or the Chancellor when they put down a new building so that it can be approved (or not), they almost never do. Likely they don't even know they are supposed to. Thus it requires constant vigilance by the LUC and the Chancellor to be on the lookout. When an unsuitable building is put down, it is up to the Chancellor to discuss with the owner. Sometimes this is a difficult thing to do for various reasons, and a building slides through. Covenants should be enforced, citizens should notify the LUC or Chancellor when they put down a new building, and so on. Most people do the best they can but it is a lot to ask of the officers of the CDS who are unpaid volunteers who already put in many hours working for the benefit of the citizens.

So, my point being, that enforcing the rules on new residents is not unfair, it is a part of the ongoing process of governance and keeping the regions as attractive as can be under our laws.

But the land is effectively rented so maybe the ‘grandfathering’ law should be changed where an unauthorised build has such a negative impact on the whole - you only need to look at a picture of the city from a distance to see what I mean. I work in RL government and compulsory purchase powers do exist.

richie deschanel wrote: ↑Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:40 am

But the land is effectively rented so maybe the ‘grandfathering’ law should be changed where an unauthorised build has such a negative impact on the whole - you only need to look at a picture of the city from a distance to see what I mean. I work in RL government and compulsory purchase powers do exist.

As I said....

The building you are referring to was unfortunately not dealt with by the Chancellor of the day, within the time frames of the law, and so it became grandfathered.

As I have previously said laws can be changed if it benefits the whole.

Yes, laws can be changed, but this wasn't about the law, it was about the administration of it and what would be fair now. Personally, I don't think it would be fair to make someone remove a building, no matter how unsuitable, if it has been grandfathered for years. That's not how the CDS has done things and it would seem pretty heavy-handed to me. This does illustrate how the laws need not only to make sense and be fair but to be realistic to administer by all the volunteers that make up all levels of government.

I agree with Rosie, and I definitely am no fan of the building in question. However, to go back after all this time and tell someone they can no longer have the building that they have been allowed to have for literally YEARS is perilously close to eminent domain, at least in how heavy-handed it is. (Yes, I know, no one said "take the parcel", but taking one's home is very close to the same, at least in effect.)

If the sight of the building really annoys you, the simple answer is to derender it.