Bill 4-26: Guild Construction Authority

I. Overview

The Guild shall be free to make modification to public city structures provided those modifications don't significantly alter the theme and layout of the city or adversely affect the performance of the sim.


II. Details

A. What may be altered

The Guild is authorized to make alterations, including replacement of all public city structures, so long as those modifications don't significantly alter the theme and layout of the city or adversely affect the performance of the sim.

Public city structures include, but is not limited to:

The Marktplatz
All roads and objects on those roads
The City wall
The Rathaus

Any alteration project that requires a budget from the RA is encouraged to be started only after the budget is approved. While the Guild may commence with projects before RA approval for a budget, it should be cognizant that a budget for the project may not be approved.

B. What may not be altered

No structure on privately-owned land that abides by its covenant may be altered by the guild. No modifications may significantly alter the theme and layout of the city or adversely affect the performance of the sim.

C. Definition of "layout"

In this document, "layout" is taken to mean the arrangement of city streets, bridges, walls, buildings, and other structures. It also includes the rough size and shape of these structures.

D. Relation to NL 3-10 (Construction Authority Act)

This bill supercedes NL 3-10. NL 3-10 will be considered void upon enactment of this bill.


III Notes

A. Why this bill is needed

There has been recent confusion on the interpretation of NL 3-10 (Construction Authority Act). Thus, there is a need for a clear document on what may and may not be altered by the Guild. There is also need for a fresh authorization to the Guild, so it can move forward on city alterations with a clear mandate.

B. What this bill is not

This bill does not give any opinion on whether recent Guild actions are legal under NL 3-10 or not.

Kudos!! Well done!

Great initiative, FR! I can't help but be impressed when I see the constructive attitude displayed by Neualtenburgers in seeking to overcome these difficult times!

I support your bill wholeheartedly albeit with two reservations (if that's possible, logically):

- I don't think the Guild should be empowered to initiate any construction work requiring a budget without it having been budgeted by the RA in advance.

- We should extend the list of structures considered city structures to make it all-encompassing and remove the "not limited to" clause.

My concern here is that we may in the future construct more public city infrastructure that is not listed, so we'd really have to include "not limited to" anyway.

I noticed that --I thought it prudent.

I also tend to think the budget issue is addressed adequately in the bill as is. The guild may initiate a project on public land without specific RA approval, but needs to seek RA approval if it expects to be paid. My preference is to give the Guild a great deal of latitude, and let the RA enact legislation to stop a particular action rather than requiring a specific approval for each thing (with the exception previously noted about budget and expenditures)

On a practical level that gets sticky as removal of a structure is instant and sometimes irrevocable. Having the RA act after the fact doesn't prevent the damage.

I support this bill as a great clarification of NL 3-10 that will make neccessary renovations and changes possible while guided by a much clearer piece of legislation. I will second Diderot's caveat, in that in any event that the Guild is looking for a budget from the RA, they really should be obtaining approval prior to beginning construction. Otherwise, it creates a potential situation where more conflict could occur, even though there is the disclaimer stating that the RA may not approve all budget requests.

All in all, sounds good to me!

A valid point. However, if extended, it could mean that the RA would have to approve every change of a texture. What about something that required RA approval for removal but not replacement? Do we really want which floor texture to use to be an RA issue? Apparently it has been in the past. My personal opinion is that if you don't trust the Guild to make those decisions about texture choice and build design, why have one.

and to think you all mocked me for stating that the Guild was the most powerful branch of Government...

I've said several times this week that our circumstances were proving you right.

:::wink:::

agreed. What I would recommend is that all future builds for municipal use always be set as "Share with Group" --it's something that used to be done all the time, but I don't believe it's been formalized.

It might also be advisable to create a "library prim" that is accessable by appropriate personnel and contains an inventory of public works.

I would be more than happy to begin by placing all my N'burg textures into such a library prim.

We could also view the funding issue as addressed by the following excerpt from article I

That was always my understanding of it, Claude.

I also notice that the bill makes no mention of removal of buildings, only alteration and replacement. Thus the scenario Kendra describes isn't covered here. Perhaps a separate bill could require RA approval for removal and non-replacement of a structure on public land.

As a matter of fact.


4-27 Public Building Deletion Act

The Guild must seek RA approval to delete a city building on public land if the Guild intends not to replace that building within 30 days.

good call

I hope I'm not being disrespectful by interjecting the thoughts of a non-resident. I find the Neualtenberg project absolutely facinating - if it weren't for my own limited time, I'd probably throw myself in head first into Neutaltenberg.

Kendra - I would take your idea even a step further. Its been perplexing to me throughout this whole controversy, how infrastructure builds that are critical to the functioning of Neualtenberg are not group owned.

Granted, there are some disputes going on now on many levels. But once those disputes are resolved, I would strongly encourage you to consider the idea of enforcing the idea that all infrastructure objects for Neualtenberg are group owned - not just shared with group. Having objects owned by an individual, even a most trusted one - is a 'national security risk' IMHO, because circumstances can always change.

One of the most fantastic things about Neualtenberg, is that it is intended to be a government ran by the people. Having one individual with solitary power over anything critical just seems to me to contradict that ideal.

I realize you all are embroiled in some heavy controversy right now, and its probably highly emotionally taxing for everyone involved. I still have a high degree of confidence that once the dust settles on this, Neualtenberg will emerge a stronger state than it was before.

I quite agree, Travis --and thank you for your suggestions.

Group-Owned is certainly another way to go.

The problem with Group Owned is a matter of there being many groups involved.

Making it for example Guild owned --would give the Guild far too much power.

Perhaps a meta group or a Neualtenburg Public Works Group could be created for just this purpose.

"Group owned" is a great idea. But it would not prevent any officer of the group, or possibly any member of the group, from removing or deleting any particular object. Its benefits are basically the other way around. It provides every member of a group with edit and deletion rights to the object, but does not require a group decision to perform any of those actions.

To the best of my knowledge.

Sudane

which is why I suggest it would be better to have a "content bank" housed in a prim set to group share, so that it's inventory could be accsessed by any with the responsability of city upkeep.

This way if someone deleted their structure out of malice --it could be put back immediately.

All municipal works would have to be placed in a Guild owned content bank. Boom -Done --easy and simple.

Hmm. I think you all might be missing something -- either that or I misread that bill. It states: This would supercede N 3-10, making it permissible for the Guild to replace anything. So if this were the current law, it would be acceptable for individuals to replace the historic wall without any permission. As a matter of fact, the only thing it protects are things that are already protected. It appears to be an empty bill (and potentially a law).

As someone who authored what I thought was a very clear bill (N 3-10) and watched it be grossly misinterpreted, I would recommend taking turns stating what your expectations are for this bill and making sure it's reflected in the wording.

For instance, I would add a clause that required contacting an artisan before reverse engineering their structure. I would also add a clause that required the guild to show off the textures and structures before radically changing the city. To me, the goal was about giving folks time to reach consensus before proceeding.

~Ulrika~

you're missing the all important "but not limited to"

I don't think so. I think what the bill is stating is that the Guild has the right to edit the following (and possibly more) without permission:

1. The Marktplatz
   
2. All roads and objects on those roads
   
3. The City wall
   
4. The Rathaus

Seriously. I think this is going in the opposite direction you think it is. Either that or the wording in the bill needs to be improved.

~Ulrika~

Holy crap I totally misread this!

I thought it said :

The Guild is NOT authorized to...



I thank you for being proactive FR --but I would vote this down in a New York minute.