The Question of Land Cutting

Yes!

No!

Yes!
And when one person or group buy, say 1024m2, cuts off 16m2 in each corner, set the corners for sale at a sky high price, while the remaining 960m2 is set for sale at a fair price, that should be considered land cutting!

16m2 land should be non-saleable.
16m2 land cuttings for negative purposes (adfarms, craters, other despoiling) should be AR'able.

In principle, land cutting should be a violation.
Listening/film booths and some quirky evolutionary script experiments are among the very few reasonable uses for 16m2 land cuts, and the latter is probably better confined to islands.
Cut land should be reunited whenever possible.

Good luck with this LL, we're counting on you.

Until the game functions no one else will

Reasons for cutting land into small parcels:

*multiple parcel media streams
*creating a dedicated landing point (no TP to the rest of the land, just a small landing parcel)
*metrics (you can make different sub-parcels and see which get more traffic)
*script testing (particularly for testing scripts related to different land permissions or performance of scripted objects that cross parcel borders)
*selling a few extra prims to a neighbor
*let someone else use it without giving them rights on your whole parcel or a group role to avoid autoreturn (they can set up a vendor there, for example)
*access control (small parcel as a lobby/landing point with the rest of the parcel's access controlled by script or parcel-based access fee)
*rentals (for billboards, small kiosks and shops like those at Linden's Luna Oaks Galleria)
*placement of a landmark giver at a former shop location (sell off the rest of the land, keep the original landing point for the LM giver)

I have done all of these things, and if they will no longer be allowed on the mainland I might finally get over my emotional attachment to my mainland parcel and sell it off. Please don't tinker with its sale value . . . it cost me a lot back in the day, and I have added many improvements I would sell with the parcel. I have had offers higher than the going rate in the area from people who wanted me to sell content with land, and doing this manually would not be very practical (selling each tree and rock individually -- argh!).

we own most of the sim in Black lion... except for the ad squares on the outside of our walls, and three very very annoying little sections in the middle. One is for sale at over 1000L, one has some kind of server on it, and the other is not for sale, but owned by Primlands.

it's REALLY annoying to be on MY land and not be able to rez stuff because some profiteer has a 16m square in the middle. We want to buy as much of the sim as we can afford, down the line when our finances can handle it, but balked at the ad square prices!!!

Please offer these squares to the land owners adjacent, for 10L a plot. And if they obviously are owned by people out to make a profit in ad squares, get rid of the current owner.


And yes, I don't think if a owner has their land cut up, INSIDE their boundaries, it's something to be concerned with. We do it for our market, because I watch the prims people leave. But yes, making them unsalable is a good idea.. but the question of tiering down is also a good one.

Now that adfarms are gone there is a litter of 16m plots throughout the grid most costing easily 5x or more sensible values. I fully agree that something needs to be done with land cutters... the only problem i can see is the 'size issue' ok it could be reasonable to limit public land sales.. I can see that working out because who buys 64m other than an ad place or neighbours? Make a 128 limit for land sales maybe? but then that will effect owners of small parcels who wish to sell. IMO I like the idea of price guildlines for under a certain amount (be nice to have it for all but that screws up the retail industry ) But there are still a lot of issues here regarding legal and illegal land sales and what separates them.

I use small parcels for better landscaping, i.e. creating a proper basement and such.

I really like this idea Crap Thanks for sharing it!
And how about possibly having a small attractive ornament type plant(er) that would mesh with the environment, that could link residents to any of LL's website's for support, or service until the adjacent owner of the said micro parcel decides to add it to their tier; given that LL would give the legitimate adjacent parcel owners first dibs?

1 yes, however my suggestion would be to have no smaller parcels than 512m.
2 yes, because we can only stream 1 video per parcel; this should be solved, and then my answer would be 'no'.
3 yes when smaller than 512m.

1) Not the cutting of land per-se, but the selling of small parcels for above-market value.

2) users who wish to own a space to host something like a XStreetSL server box or vendor server box, without owning further land. Also the ability to make a small pportion of your land have different properties - ie ability for group members to set home there, or to allow a small rezzing space in a store that is otherwise no-build.

3) Only if it is set for sale.

The issue is not the existance of small parcels, but that they are set for sale at inflated prices, and with banlines or ugly structures on them to force neighbours to buy in order to remove the eyesore. I would like to see small parcels permitted to exist, but below a certain size, may not be sold at above market value. Or maybe cap their sale at some value BELOW market value, to discourage the practise of using them for anything but legitimate use.

I would also think it very important that banlines not be permitted on any parcel (of any size, really, set for sale. There is no legitimate reason I can think of for this practise.

Considering there might be legitimate reasons for the 16m plots to exist, I don't think they can be easily eliminated. However, i think there should be steps that can be taken on such plots that are a blight or perhaps even harassment to adjacent land owners.

Meanwhile, there are other things Linden Labs could do to improve mainland. Thinking specifically of Pandora where i have property:

* Fix the linden roads that disappeared during a data base issue a while back
* Remove the cages and other misc. abandoned prims and builds that are rezzed on a plot of linden owned land with building open
* Remove the floating debris high over the sim that includes cages, a penis (in a PG sim), and several prims with a "dancing Hitler" depicted on the side

If i were to secure land in a private sim, the sim owner would generally help with such matters. It would make a lot of sense for Linden Labs to assign a Linden to some form of upkeep on the mainland sims -- even if such role was limited to maintaining the infrastructure, monitoring accumulated clutter and being aware of how land use might be effecting the land owners neighbors.

Why does LL really care why ppl have small parcels or not. The owner is still paying their monthly fee's to LL. Isn't LL worried about potentially alienating these folks and thus having less income as a result?

When we start policing what ppl do with land they bought and pay for; we run the risk of allowing LL to further police the grid.

Cleansing the grid; sucks creativity from the grid.

"Good luck with that"

I think the only regulation should be for when the contents of a parcel in some way affect another parcel (e.g. ad farms). Possibly a few zoning covenants to allow the creation of mainland themes without having to own a seperate sim (e.g. city zones, residential zones with cap on height, etc.)

But generally, I'm for as little regulation as possible - let the market decide what goes and what doesn't. Don't like a particular parcel or setting? then don't buy it! Small parcels also allow purchasing and joining in creative ways. Deal with stuff via consumer pressure, but don't over-regulate SL - less regulation is why a lot of us are here in the first place.

I'm glad you are asking the forums.

Here was my personal view when searching for a 512 parcel to buy as part of my premium membership.

I *wanted* a place that was mostly or all residential and yet, small 512 lots. This was because I didn't want to be engulfed by lag every time I went home to change clothes; and I didn't want my little eyesore low prim house to bother anybody.

Think of it as the SL version of a trailer park or low income housing. *It needs to exist and it needs to be zoned.*

Someone cutting a parcel into 512s to sell, isn't necessarily doing so to turn a quick profit. That's my view.

I'm sure some do, though. While looking for a parcel to buy, I noticed the same two or three 'land baron' names coming up again and again.

The person I bought the 512 parcel from *was not* such a person. In fact he built me an entire low prim house and skybox to order, for free, as part of the sale, and was highly patient with one or two picky requests I had. I think that he did care about who he sold to, and how the place looked when he was done.

Please do not assume all who sell a 512 are guilty, (I'm not saying you *are* assuming, or wish to; that's obvious in that you've asked for our feedback and thank you) and please, do not neglect what many see as a big need for 'zoning' in Second Life.

Making sims either residential OR commercial would be one possiblity, although, should I ever buy my own Sim, I had toyed with the idea of placing a small vendor on my 512 lot, as I wish to create low cost high quality items of my own one day, hopefully.

Also sometimes people don't know any better; it may seem to them that dividing a parcel into small lots would help hte highest number of Linden dollar-strapped Second Life players. They could actually be diong it for a *good* reason.

I'd rather live on my own parcel however tiny than rent in a high rise 'apartment building' built on one larger lot. Think how many people would be actually living on THAT lot and the lag of it all.

But please give people benefit of the doubt okay.

Hope this helps.

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

For extortion, sure. But call it what it is. Land cutting in and of itself is not the problem. Extortion and wilful destruction of land value is.



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

Many are listed above. Basically turn this on its head: when *should* cutting be considered problematic? Extortion, sure. Spite and interference, sure. Destruction of value, sure.



>>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?

Depends on the situation. Playing with land is part of ownership, isn't it? Where is the line drawn? I'd say no - they paid for it, let 'em play if it's innocent.



>>Finally, it has also been suggested that parcels of 64m or smaller have their sale value clamped to be no higher than the current average price per meter. This would obviously involve development work so wouldn’t be something we could deliver quickly, but I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Won't help at all. Policy will be evaded by going to size n + 1.







Recommendation:


a) Make examples out of the top 10 people brutally trashing the mainland with extortion via land cutting. Do it again in 60 days. Cheap, fast, effective, message sent. The problem will rapidly fall away and you won't waste tons of mindless time on ridiculous edge cases.


b) For people with say, a legitimate 16m parcel in a region for whatever purpose, not bothering anyone - leave 'em alone.

This issue doesn't affect me, so I don't really have an opinion about it. I do have a question of the folks here, though. There have been many comments about "extortion" regarding these mini-parcels. Can someone explain to me how that extortion works? I know that some people charge ridiculous prices for these parcels; is that it?

Not trying to start a flamewar here. I'm just a bit befuddled (as usual!).

My mainland home sim has about a dozen empty 16m2 parcels, left over from the land cutting days and for sale at anywhere from L$1000 to L$10,000.

They're just sitting there for sale and I assume they'll sit there forever unless the owners default or somebody pays L$ thru their nose or Jack takes them back.

Would you consider these legitimate?

Land Cutting (aka land extortion) needs to be clamped for sure. The devil is in the details though - how will Linden enforce it? If you plan to enforce by policy only, than you need to also restrict use of the small plots to prevent them from being used as extortion eyesores - restrict all builds on small plots to Linden plants or other objects must be a min of 300m up.

ALSO, if you really want to stop extortion and encourage people to combine land instead of cutting, they need to cap the prices on small plots. That's the only sure way to kill the extortion business.

Yes they overcharge for the 16m parcel.
They also;
Add blaring full bright "FOR SALE" signs
They also have been known to add objects that infringe on other ppl's property. Thus; "buy this lot to get rid of my objects."

Those ppl IMO should not do what they do in the name of free speech and free enterprise.

But they do.

As much of an eye sore they are; the only harm they do is to lower surrounding property values; and theirs as well.

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

No.


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

It depends on how you end up defining "land cutting". Say I buy a 8,192m2 parcel, end up only using 2,048m2 of it, and want to sell the rest. Would this policy then preclude me from cutting the remainder into three 2,048 parcels and selling them? Would I only be able to do so if they're sold at a loss? Would I have to sell it as one 6,144m2 parcel? I realize this scenario isn't necessarily what you're trying to combat, but depending on how the policy is worded it could be affected.


* 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.

--

I've sold parcels only to have them immediately cut and resold at a larger total price than what I was paid. But I don't see anything wrong with that: the person who purchased the land from me knew better than I what the market would bear or had more time & tier to wait to get the price he/she wanted (vs. me wanting a quick exit) or was just a better salesman than I.

What if you were to make the smallest saleable parcel something larger (256? 512?) with an announced implementation date? Meaning owners of all those 16m2 parcels who are just looking for outsized profit now have motivation to sell, as 4/6/whatever weeks from now they won't be able to sell them. Let the market price them down... if it's the day before the policy is implemented I don't think anyone is going to be selling soon-to-be-valueless 16m2 parcels for L$1,500 or something equally crazy. (This is just something off the top of my head... admittedly haven't thought much about it.)

Perhaps LL could contract with people who buy sims that if they chop it up into 512 lots to resell within a certain time period (most that are mentioned as 'a problem' will do this quickly, yes?) then they will be charged a surcharge by LL or something like that.

Or perhaps only allow reselling into X number of smaller lots, on certain sims that are priced accordingly (lower or higher as LL wishes; by the alarm in the question I'm thinking they will probably set such sims higher priced, if this change is made?). But that does also impact those who wish to make a little neighborhood of 'starter homes.'

The guy who sold me my lot was charging more than some others, but the Sim also was more aesthetically appealing. One medium sized shop, one interesting medium sized lot and a lot of smaller lots that all but one hold houses. One person next to me has a small vendor on their lot selling quality items. The rest of the small lots hold houses of various types and it's kind of charming, in my opinion.

I like my weird little neighborhood.

Linden Lab compulsory purchase all smaller parcels currently for sale.

Ban sales of smaller parcels.

Anyone else using a smaller parcel after they've been banned will have to abandon them if they want to be rid of the parcel, at which point Linden Lab offer them to the neighbours on the proviso they join them to their existing parcel and don't sell the parcel with any cuts in it.

I look forward to the 14,999L donut holes & corners being gone from mainland.

Then the real healing can happen.

Hi Jack,

In response to your blog post questions:

1. Yes, I agree land cutting should be deemed a violation but only if multiple 16 sq.m parcels owned by the same resident and/or group, in the same sim are set for sale.
2. No, there are no other legitimate reasons for land cutting when considering/setting the policy providing the land is not for sale.
3. Yes, land cutters should join the 16 sq.m parcels in preparation for sale.

In regards to the </= 64 sq.m parcels value being clamped, this would be one of the most beneficial and responsive actions to reduce the land cutting sector and improve the Mainland experience.

But as an alternative to additional development, wouldn’t it be easier to mark all Mainland sims at a resell price of L$1 per sq.m and include within the policy that all land </= 64 sq.m (for example) is sold for a maximum of L$1 per sq.m only?

The above action (IMHO) would deliver numerous benefits and be very effective.

In addition, for prosperity and as part of SL history, can the LDPW please create a Mainland land cutting and ad farm build (obviously within LL owned sim)? To be honest, I think I’ll miss seeing the chaos that is Mainland.

Regards,
Spence

Not really land extortioners will just start selling larger parcels at higher prices. Count on it.