Bill 4-28: Public Property Protection Bill

Bill 4-28: Public Property Protection Bill

To protect the consistency, quality, and historical value of
structures on shared public land owned by citizens, the Guild is
required to seek approval after a moratorium for all Modifications
(creation, deletion, replacement, or modification) to any Objects
(objects, scripts, textures, or terrain) sitting on public land. The
moratorium will be 7 days long and can be extended another 7 days at
the request of any citizen. During the moratorium, the proposed
Modifications to the Objects will be offered for review either in
writing (a description), in world (on display), or in forum
(photographs). At the end of the moratorium, the RA will vote on the
Modification to the Object. In the event of competing choices, the RA
will vote on the Modification to the Object and, if approved, select a
winning option.

Philosophy

The philosophy behind this law is that it seeks to protect the
consistency, quality, and historical value of the city's public space
and places authority for its maintenance in the hands of those who pay
for it, the citizens. Because irrevocable changes can be made so
quickly, the moratorium and approval process provides citizens
protection against rapid and potentially undesirable change.
Additionally, the moratorium can be used to display several competing
Objects to better involve citizens in the maintenance of public land.

Did I miss 4-28 and 4-29?

I'll amend that --thanks for the head's up

I wonder if you could speak to this idea of "Historical value" a bit more.

In SL most people are builders of some description or another. It seems to me that if we wish to attract people to Neualtenburg, to have it set up such that whatever was built by "the founders" is somehow "historical" and hence very hard or at least difficult to change seems to be the wrong way to go about it IMO.

A city is a growing changing thing in RL and even more-so in SL where the time frame is sort of "speeded up." Change is life and in SL things change very quickly indeed.

Are we saying that once settled, the walls will remain the same, that the streets will not be changed or laid out differently? Will the church always be *that* church and the Platz always have the same texture on it?

I like the way some elements of Neualtenburg remain constant, especially the general layout, theme and style, but to my mind individual builds are just individual builds. If we want to be a growing thriving community we must open ourselves up to change. I can think of several *excellent* builders (better than myself and better than anyone I have seen contribute to Nburg so far), join us recently.

Are we going to tell them that "sorry, the Government house, the school, the church, the Platz, the wall and all of Altenburg are untouchable." ??

"History is for the History books," if you ask me.

At the very least there needs to be a lot of work done on the definition of what constitutes a "historical build" before this bill can be passed. To me Bonds factory was a "historical build". My first store was a "historical build" and I love the way it has been repurposed as a house now. On the other hand, everything disappears eventually, much like Bonds factory did last night.

In RL, a typical approach is to designate certain structures as historical monuments or "city heritage." I would suggest working out a mechanism for that first. How are we to decide on what features are "historical" and cannot or must not be changed? Are we to vote every month or so on what the majority wants to keep or not keep?

And wouldn't it be better to focus on what elements of the City need to stay rather than individual builds? To me there should always be a church, and city walls and various other elements and they should always be medievally themed, but if a fantastic new builder arrives, I for one would love to see them make a superior church, wall,or other element.

you are free to try and convince the rest of the SC to veto the bill if it passes, Dianne.

Thats how the process works.

Altenburg is my property. Its a private parcel. Damn skippy its untouchable.

Under this bill, if some road prim is slightly askew, would the Guild need a 7-day moratorium, and wait for the RA to approve?

Look, I know I have been kind of mean to you lately and I am sorry about it, but I am quite serious here and being very civil I think. Could you answer the question, or comment further?

My feeling is that its better to institutionalise "elements" in the city like the walls and the church, not specific builds. Specific builds get old really fast.

I am not saying that the same person might not recreate the church each time it needs to be recreated, it's not an argument about who gets to do it.

I just think that to "freeze builds in time" like that goes against the whole spirit of SL doesn't it? You must see that as a builder yourself.

Why would you, as a builder, join a sim of people knowing that you could never significantly contribute to the builds in the sim?

My bill isnt "freezing" anything --it's designed to:

1) Have clear competition in replacing or modifying structures
a move which is designed to include MORE new builders --not less

2) allows the citizenry to have some input in the appearance of their surroundings, as opposed toforcing the appearance to be the reflective of the visions of one strong-minded group or individual.

3) The historic value of structures represents a "value" that should be considered, but the bill allows for change if the citizenry calls for it.


What it prevents is poorly thought out changes carried out by individuals with agendas not shared by the populace as a whole.


My bill is actually designed to be MORE attractive to a new builder as it offers a chance to compete in what have essentially become a no-bid contract affair.

That's not its intent. If you would like to amend the bill with wording to that effect, Id be only to happy to include it.

I'm not seeing the difference here -- I'm using the term "builds" to include what you are terming elements.

"builds" is the common reference in SL for anything built of prims.

I think by "elements", she meant motiffs, themes, style; rather than any particular arrangement of prims and textures.

I"m sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong though.

This is an excellent rewrite of N 3-10! It unambiguously protects all structures from modification without prior discussion. More than anything this bill satisfies me because it encourages communication before action, something which is absolutely critical in a group project.

In regards to straightening a single crooked prim, I would modify the bill to allow exceptions for trivial changes in object alignment. Further after passing it into law, I would keep amending the bill to allow for minor exceptions, such as very specifically defined holiday decorations. That way you avoid the problem of creating loopholes and loose interpretations that circumvent the true intent of the law.

~Ulrika~

Thnaks, I tried to write this is it's purest and simplest form so as to allow unforessen changes to it to be added, as new examples surfaced.

The intent isn't to prevent changes --its to prevent poor or unpopular implementation of changes.

Similarly it's to foster a more collaborative atmosphere regarding any changes.

I'd be pleased if you could help me with a rewrite to the bill that includes this trivial aspect --I've already extended that chance to Flyingroc --and even considered it myself but honestly couldn't figure out how to word that.

My favorite part was the moratorium that allowed citizens to check out the new designs ahead of time. It would be fun to compare several new wall options, including the one without a roof that has mentioned in the past.

Sure! The trick is, how do you say "holiday prims can be added and removed without approval" without someone replacing the entire city wall with a new "Christmas wall".

~Ulrika~