The Question of Land Cutting

Ok ummm just saw more of this and felt compelled to post. Please don't tie this to a set size because those groups who cut 144m along a roadside, 4m wide so they can extort the parcel owner they dumped the rest of the parcel to. That really annoys me. So please word the policy as "detrimental land cutting and excessive pricing".

Call this land cutting and when someone is simply managing their own land call that land division, cutting implying intent to be an A-hole.

Exactly why I proposed changing the term from "land cutting" to something else, like "Predatory Subdivision." Land cutting is too general a term to be applied to such a narrow definition.

If stopping people selling tiny plots, you need to work out what to do in the case where
someone *only* has a small plot.

eg. buy a 1024, break it into a 1008 and a 16, sell the 1008.

They then can't sell the 16.

I also don't think that solving it for tiny plots (16, 32, 64, maybe 12 will push the problem up into
the bigger parcels. Part of the problem with the 16's is that you can own a huge number of them
before land tier becomes particularly noticeable. Bigger parcels do start to cost a bit if you
have more than a handful, which I imagine would greatly reduce the practicality of holding on
to hundreds of extortion plots just for the very occasional one to sell.

Glad to see Linden at least thinking about how to solve the problem, and communicating
with us about it.

- Kelly S.

This was very much needed but sadly it has come a little late.. I myself will never again invest in mainland because of this issue and others, I think another thing to focus on next would to be checking up on PG regions to make sure that the community standards for PG regions are being followed.

However I am very happy to see you guys doing something about mainland!

This is a _policy_ issue, not a _technology_ one. Preventing the cutting of lots won't solve it, nor will disabling selling of 64m or smaller plots at more than market average price; cutters will simply move onto the next higher size. The net result is that nothing is accomplished.

This could be framed in the current CS terms on harassment. No change is needed; just change in interpretation. If you really want, make it a CS violation to sell _any_ sized plots using extortionate or harassing means. That would solve the problem.

Without reading all 25 pages of replies, this is my response to the question:

Yes, there is a reason for smaller plots. I own about 66% of the sim, and have reason for some smaller pieces. A few of my renters (I own a Market) use the cuts, as do I, for their parcel ad. When each parcel can only have one ad linked to it, by paying the $30/week...that is when we cut more pieces to use it for seperate purposes.

Limiting the price of the pieces of parcels, if they are for sale, seems to be a good idea, but, then, we are also forcing pricing, similar to iminent domain..."everyone on the sim wants that square, but, they don't want to buy it at the rate the person wants...let's claim it, and only pay what we want". There are several on the sim i refuse to pay what they want. I think a rate should be established, but i am not sure the "prevailing rate" is what is needed...mainly because the land rate is artificially high when a 16m is set at $5000. if that piece gets dropped to the ...let's say $5/sqm right now...then the rate drops that bit...and so on.

Land should be offered to adjoining first, then sim...but, who determines how long that should go...what if the person has decided that he needs the $L so he can leave...is he forced to wait a week for sale, because he has to wait for each person on the sim to respond? Sometimes i have had to wait up to 2 weeks (or never) for a response from some of my neighbors, and i am not on a busy sim...if there were a lot of owners on that sim...could make it difficult.

Maybe an automatic IM to owners of the sim, if a parcel on that sim comes up for sale (or in-world notification) could be worked into the system...maybe a 24 hour time, if it is a ...256 or lower (or 12, to allow someone on the sim to purchase first, but, wouldn't go more...then it becomes an infringement on the owner's rights to sell. Or...can have an automatic right to sell to Governor Linden for x amount of $L.

The definition of the activities "checkerboarding", "donutting", "cornering", "waffling", etc, have a specific meaning directly related to microplots, so it is redundant.

The overall point of the policy is to stop *harassment* and *extortion*. Does carving up a 4096sqm plot into 512s harass or extort anyone? If not, then it obviously does not fall afoul of the policy *OR* any of the examples.

The definition of "microparcel" doesn't need a specific number, but it is generally accepted that most plots below 256sqm contiguous area constitute a "microparcel", because of a number of factors, some technical, some ideological.

Point is, it doesn't even matter if it is a microparcel or not. If you are using land to harass and extort, THEN AND ONLY THEN would you fall afoul of the rules. That's the problem with taking those examples and making them absolutes with fixed parameters, and why they are meant as *examples*; people then worry that they are falling afoul of the parameters, even when they weren't meant to apply to normal landcutting/use activities. In fact, this problem occurred with the adfarming policy, making a normal and unobtrusive practice of land for sale signs on 256sqm+ plots into an illegal practice. It was stupid to apply it in such a way, but Jack painted himself into a corner over it with his need for "surgical precision" policy, so now we're stuck with the results.

Ferrets is predators, bub, and I live in a subdivision.

Did the potential buyer and seller meet up and arrange the deal before the land was cut?

If not, then it falls afoul of the rule.

Also, it isn't an "exception"; rather, a clarification, or a specification.

No, no, I agree, they need to specify a size. Otherwise we'll have a repeat of the situation where people selling 512 square meter parcels are getting signs returned as adfarmers.

I have more than 4 parcels on a single *property*.

If someone "checkerboarded" a sim into 512sqms with the intent to harass or extort, then I guess is should apply, no?

How many people do you know that carve sims into 512sqms do it to harass or extort?

Point is, "checkerboarding" has a specific meaning that is actually ANCIENT; from the days where there was PUBLIC land.

Examples weren't meant to be comprehensive; they were meant to be examples. If you want terms defined in the policy, fine, but there's nothing wrong with the example in itself.

Yes, and if a subdivision is created as a way to harass others or manipulate land value, the term works rather well... bub.

If what you're doing has a significantly negative impact on the Mainland as a whole *or* the enjoyment of others, we're going to take action to end that. There's your policy, clearly stated, not automated, enforceable by Linden Lab as you see fit in any situation.

You don't need our approval for this. Other successful estate owners don't beg their customers to buy into such concepts. Simply make it clear that renting land directly from Linden Lab involves this policy and attitude. All we've ever really wanted, from the time Loki was begging for waterway enforcement, was for you lot to take charge and maintain the Mainland in a sensible way.

Of course when I say "you lot," that's only included you since you became a Linden and, frankly, you're the only one that's ever successfully pursued and handled these issue. Now stop talking about this one and do it already yeah.

Jack wrote:

Land cutting is the deliberate chopping up of parcels into smaller pieces in an attempt to sell those pieces collectively for more than the value of the original parcel."

I hope this definition doesn't become the rule, because that's not land cutting. That's s description of being in the real estate business. Under this definition, if I buy a sim for US $400 from LindenLabs, divide it to 2 parcels, and put each for sale for US $250, I would be a "land cutter."

The problem with what Jack proposes is that it applies the punishment to the act of subdividing a parcel rather than considering the intent of the cutter.

* Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?

No. I believe that the sale of any parcel smaller than 512m2 should be monitored by LL. If the price/m2 of any such parcel when it sells is more than twice the current average price per m2 for land grid-wide on a given day, that transaction should be reviewed by LL. The review would include:
1) Determining how long ago the land was subdivided.
2) Determining if the property had been listed for sale and then withdrawn.
3) Reviewing the for-sale price history of the parcel.
4) Determining the size ratio of the parcel to the surrounding parcels, specifically to target doughnut holes.
5) Contacting the purchaser and notifying them that they have a fixed period of time to respond if they felt the price they paid was inordinate.

LindenLabs should consider all of these before intervening to reverse a sale, but in all cases, if the purchaser is happy with the transaction, the matter would be closed. Possible solutions to the issue would include reversing the transaction, refunding part of the paid price, or (in extreme repeated offenses) bans and suspensions.

* Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?

There are legitimate reasons why a business might want to small objects to a large number of sims that they do not otherwise have a presence in. There are also illegitimate ones. The later are already covered under SL's TOS

* With land that is already cut up, but still mostly owned by the resident that cut it, should we ask that the land be joined back together?

No, but the sale of those micro-parcels should be scrutinized as discussed above.

What if the seller owns a 32, has people contact him to buy some of it, then cuts the 16 and sells it?

Is there any legitimate reason for cutting land into small plots.

Yes, I have a store on my land and a club 600m up in the sky over the store, I need a separate landing zone set for both the store and the club so had to parition a 16m plot to coinside with my landing zone in the club in the sky.

This also allows me to put both the club and store in search under separate listings.
Apart from the small 16m square i can share the music in the club with the music in the store.

Of course if i ever sold the land it would be joined up as one again but I wouldnt really appreciate not being able to make small parcels on my land if i need to.

Maybe i dont understand the question correctly, but I would say that there is uses for small plots like if you just wanted to make one small corner of your property group owned so people from your group could set it as home?

However, I was wondering if maybe you could just have the prim count set to 0 if the plot is smaller than maybe 64m2? and then set a minimum size plot to be sold like 128m2? someone mentioned earlier that the people doing this would just move to the next sized plot, this is true but one of the really aggravating things right now, isnt just the cost, it's paying that much for something that really doesnt do anything for you other than consolidate your property/get rid of an eye sore. But, I dont think that people should be penalized just because they want more than for their land than what anyone else wants for theirs.

personally I think i should be allowed to cut up my land into as small of bits as I want, to use as i please, while I own it.. just I shouldnt be able to sell it like that. and SL should check that when i put a bit of land up for sale, that i have a big enough peice of adjoining land left in the sim to meet the minimum sell area.

as for the land that is already cut, I think sl should put out a 3 month warning that people need to sell it, then after that seize it and return it to linden land, that can only be bought if you own adjoining land that will meet the minimums..

oh and off subject, I think there should be a max size as well. its annoying to see half a sim of mainland for sell. when I just want a small plot

Oh, I had one other thought, what if you made a minimum size for tier pricing? so anything under 128m2 (non adjacent) counted as 128m2 for teir purposes? that should discourage them. So you would have a actual land owned - and a "billed for" amount, ofcourse LL would have to be able to see and count the plots i owned that were smaller than the minimum, but somehow i dont think that should be a problem. so for example say i owned 5 plots of land a 512(all adjacent) in one sim - 128 (but all adjacent though cut into 16m2 peices for my special needs) in another - and 48 in another (3 16s not adjacent) - then i would own 688 m2 but for teir/billing purposes it would count as 1024m2 (512+128+128+128+12?


(btw i chose 128m2 arbitrarily, just cause it -sounds- like the smallest useful plot, not because it is)

-Kris

Originally Posted by Burnman Bedlam
Exactly why I proposed changing the term from "land cutting" to something else, like "Predatory Subdivision."



So clearly the TOS should be amended to prohibit "Subdivision by Non-Mustelid Predators".

But seriously, folks:

Surely by now we've established that 'micro-parcels' in and of themselves are not the problem. As many have said, there are numerous legitimate reasons for 16m parcels to exist (for example, to keep a parcel at one of the tier limits, or to provide a Home for group members).

What has actually been a problem for Mainland Residents is the Checkerboards or Donut Holes.

And the Checkerboards and Donut Holes have NO legitimate purpose other than to persuade neighbors to pay for them.

So the obvious answer is to made it UNPROFITABLE to cut land into donut holes and checkerboards.

A simple way of accomplishing this WITHOUT imposing the dreaded precedent of Price Controls---or at least of imposing MARKET-linked controls:


Limit the per-meter price of any parcel of less than 65 square meters (i.e the 16s, 32s, 48s, and 64s) to the average highest per-meter price paid on, say, the top-priced 100 parcels over, say, 2560m (to discourage gaming the system) during the preceding 30 days.

(I choose 2560m because per-meter prices of parcels that size don't seem to differ markedly or consistently from prices of 512s and such. And how many people are rich enough to try to game the system by paying a huge price for 256,000 square meters? The losses they'd suffer would more than wipe out any potential profits from checkerboarding.)

This plan honors the market forces by tying the highest-price-that-can-be-charged to the prices that people have actually been willing to pay, recent to the proposed transaction.

Surely this would be inexpensive (relatively) to program.

And it would be automated--eliminating hundreds of person-hours of Linden employees, each month, who'd otherwise be required for dealing with a new policy of rules and regs and ARs.

(Presumably it would kick in if someone tried to set the price of a 16m at a price over that 30-day high. Of course LL would have to make the 30-day high available to us somewhere, and that is probably the only drawback to the plan---LL can surely calculate this with a fairly simple program, but disclosing it isn't really their style. Still, if doing it would save them thousands of dollars each month in employee costs, then they might find it worth doing.)

Keeping the price of a 16m, enforced automatically, at (say) L14/m---a whopping L224, or not even one US dollar---will eliminate the incentive to checkerboard or donut-hole. It simply won't be worth anyone's time or effort.



(I apologize if this has already been proposed--I haven't yet read all posts.)

I don't have time to read the entire thread...if I say what's already been said, please just view this post as a vote in the affirmative for views previously posted here.

It is not the act of cutting land, per se, that is bothersome, it is the act of cutting and then selling, right?

Reasons people NEED to be able cut land:
1) Subdividing of a large lot needing radical terraforming that would otherwise put hours of work on the package as a whole at risk.
2) Subdividing large lots permits the owner to allow for customized (and localized) audio and/or video streams into a large-lot build.
3) Management of rental units in large builds.
4) Management of commercial units in large builds.
5) Reasonable apportionments of use for group members using large lots bought for/managed by their group(s).

Reasonable (and achievable) alternatives (in some combination that might be workable) to totally banning creation of lots 64sqm (or whatever) and smaller:
1) Capping resale prices, as was blog-proposed
2) Restricting sale of lots below XX sqm for 7-28 days following cutting
3) Allow temporary (24, 48, 72, ?? hour) subdivisions of larger lots at which time the smaller lots would be auto-rejoined.

Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?
* Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?
* With land that is already cut up, but still mostly owned by the resident that cut it, should we ask that the land be joined back together?

NO land cutting should not be a violation. I despise big brother regulation if it be in government or second life.

MAKING A PROFIT is a legimate reason. You act like it is an a bad thing for people OTHER Then the linden's to make money.

/me Pulls out Communist Vision and Popcorn attachments.

No. But if someone sells such parcels in the corners of a sim, or even the center, this should not count as corner cutting or donut holing.