Should LL be subsidizing poor land speculation?

Hi, blah blah friendly preamble blah blah...

The fact is that from day 1 it was obvious buying land in LL is speculative in nature. It has been well known that Point to Point teeping was a possibility [it's been talked about since I was a new resident].

If you didn't know, well then, you we're doing any sort of due diligence, and as an investor/speculator, who's fault is that?

If people wanted to buy into a bubble that built around hub land, that's their business. Prices of hub land revolved around it's scarecity to a large extent and a HUB's perceived value, and those trading in it sought to profit from it.

As far as I know, LL did not cap the profits from hub land sales, so why is it now capping the loss?

-Max Case

Very true.

And when auction prices went totally nuts the last few weeks, you either dropped out when the bidding for a telehub sim passed a level that had a reasonable chance of being supported by the market, or you just kept bidding higher, figuring you could capture a virtual monopoly and fix the price at what you wanted.

I dropped out. Others went for broke. Any now they could get it ... broke, I mean. ~

No, buying land anywhere in SL is a risk - land values rise and fall all the time. Why should those who bought telehub land get special treatment? The answer is - they don't deserve any special treatment.

For as long as I've been around - Telehubs have been with us. Up until very, very recently - the idea of them going away was about as far fetched as the concept of halving prim limits across the grid.

As recently as 2 months ago, I posted a hotline forum post here, and received the following reply:



This reply, from Robin - sure leads me to believe that no major action would be taken without feedback from us. This wording certainly doesn't indicate anything immenent, or something that was even being discussed.

Do they owe telehub landowners recompense? That's debatable. But calling their speculation folly is a little unfair.

I don't believe in compensation in such circumstances. Partly for the reasons already given, but more for the sheer impossibility of identifying and assessing all loss sufferers fairly. All those, that is, suffering financial loss as a result of p2p implementation.

Landowners for capital loss; storekeepers (renter and owners) for loss of traffic and earnings both near the telehub and strung along well frequented routes; vehicle sellers; teleporter and other transporter sellers, residents in backwaters for loss of amenity as the stores and casinos arrive seeking cheap land....... I'm sure there are lots more. Gonna set up a "claims office" ?

All these lossses cannot be quantified, audited, balanced. To select just the landowners (not even renters/sellers) in telehub sims themselves (or very near) is only to scratch the surface. This would be so unjust and partial, it would be better to give no compensation at all.

And as for doing it via traffic payments - how does that correlate with capital loss? A private resident could have grimly held on close to a telehub, maybe waiting for the best moment to sell but getting no dwell. Why should his compensation be nil. His capital loss is the same.

Better no compensation at all than biassed payments, funnelled only to people in unjustifiable and illogical categories.

Pay nothing - its just the luck of the draw. Avoid huge trouble, recriminations, accusations of unfairness. At least this way everyone is treated the same.

No dwell, no compensation ? How ludicrous is that ? Isn't the capital loss the same regardless of dwell ? Shall we see a sudden explosion of money chairs ? Better get some in, guys, pronto. No telling if calculations might be retrospective.

Lay out dem money chairs today, telehub neighbors !!!!!

Hi Travis, I am not calling it folly. I am calling it what it is: speculation.

Speculating on land has it's potential risks and rewards.

But from the first week, I had apretty good idea that nothing in SL is forever, or for certain. It is a constantly evolving platform/game, and any investments you make into it are under those terms.

Furthermore, there has always seemed to be a policy of caveat emptor - i would think that includes land.

There will be financial impact on other residents as well. Should the ROAM team be compensated as well? Is there a process in which all residents can apply for compensation?

Maybe someone wants to start an Upgrade Insurance Company - there's an idea.

I vote no, cuz if your going to compensate for people who bought telehub land, then why not help out all the suckers who bought snow land, or PG land, or rocky/cloudy land?

There are people out there who own Snow land, or PG land, or rocky/cloudy land and they made it work and they are very happy with it. Most maybe did not have the luxury of a hub--they used their wits and creativity. But by looking at the going rate in Land for Sale for Snow land, PG land, or rocky/clouds you would think it was made of pooo. Thats the gamble of the investment.

So since they have become "undersirable land" will LL compensae those landowners for it? No they should not. If LL does away with the telehubs -tough-that was the gamble of the investment. So do like snow, PG, and rocky/cloud land owners to---make it work.

I know, Max I don't even mean to sound like I support compensation. I'm biased as hell cause I'm affected directly by this change - but still somewhat on the fence about the whole thing.

My issue was with the poll title. It didn't ask if LL should be subsidising land speculation. It says poor speculation. Maybe I'm just being a bit defensive But I feel I made the best choices I could with the information I had at the time.

By the same token, you are well positioned to not be too effected. The Shelter offers a good service for new residents, and now people will be able to teep in directly, with out navigating through lag farms and whut not.



It says poor speculation, because that is what is being discussed. Not as a perjorative. But if you make speculatation with land, and it loses money, thats a poor speculation.

I feel this is a BAD move and a bad precidence. LL is in NO way liable for business decisions that go awry. Almost any business that fails or loses money due to any change that they make to 2L (and any change will negativly effect some buisness or another) is just captitalism at work. It's unfortunate, but it happens. If they set this precidence, can I expect the same consideration? I think not, so why are some people worth more consideration?

Im thinking none of the against votes own a meter of land in the telehubs. Love you ability to express your opinion but, its not your land or your money that would compensate these land owners so, Im not sure why you are so pasionate aginst this.

But, with all this said, I see your point. I sold out of my 100,000s of meters of hub land when I first caught wind that this may be coming. I sold under value as I felt there would be enough time to more than compensate the new buyer with rents collected befor P2P came.

I do however find it interesting that so many are up in arms against LL providong any an increased traffic bounes for this move. I wonder how against this many would be if they owned this land. This is not uncommon in real life, when a entity require land from a private land holder they pay that land owner "Fair Market Value" under the laws of "Eminent Domaine" they are not even talking about this much. What do you think an increased traffic bonuse would realy amount to. I am willing to bet that its not even close to the prices paid. Have you given this any thought? Traffic bonuses are so small LL would have to increase then by 10 fold to even make a dent. You have to know that they are not talking about this kind of increase.

in conclusion, Im setting what little hub land I own on the market for what non-hub land is goinng for in the area. this maybe a bad move as the lindens plans to make these areas gathering places may still result in increased traffic flow and inturn greater land values.

Actually I have telehub land and I voted no

I voted No. I wasn't compensated for my shop suddenly being 4 sims away from a telehub when they took away P2P originally. I just took things in stride. SL is always evolving. Change and additions are a part of the world. No matter what business you choose to make for yourself in SL, you should always have a "disaster recovery" plan in case the tools, layout, changes, etc in the world are suddenly different in the future.

I think this piece of highly relevant history clinches the matter, don't you ?

No compensation of any sort. Its impossible to distribute it fairly, and not justifiable on moral grounds without extending that morality to the effect of every tiny little decision LL may make. And for the ultimate in morality, every gainer should consent to be taxed to pay the losers, rather than the cost being shared by those who gain nothing. Why should they contribute to the compensation, via LL ?

Just NO. Nothing. Zilch. It's sad, its tough, but it's life.

Just for the record, I own almost entirely telehub land, and I will definitely lose out. But not much land, so not a big enough loss to upset me. As if that's relevant.

I guess this is an old thread, but one thing that I havent seen mentioned is that P2P might also *increase* the value of the rocks and clouds and swamps type land.

The telehubs artificialy raised the price of the land around themselves, but also lowered the price of land that was too far away from a telehub.

It depends on the exact implementation details of course, but if one can TP directly to ones house on a lonely mountain top on the other side of the world, then that land becomes just as valuable as any other.

The value that is potentialy lost from the hub areas is potentialy gained by the swamp land/mountain top owners.

Absolutely, Dianne. Surely not "might" but "must". Shall we tax all these gains ?

Mind you, let me warn again. We know no details of the p2p implementation, and so cannot possibly assess the scale of the result. Their direction, to some extent, yes. But as to the size of the effect................

Well, we know that's not true.
But you are right about me - i don't own any - one reason is because early on it was obvious these prices were artificially high, and I really didn't see the point of buying some.

Well, I am a stakeholder in SL much like many other residents. So, if something is happening which affects the grid as a whole, or the economy, it's perfectly valid that I comment.
I am against this for the reasons stated above - SL's overriding policy seems to have been Caveat Emptor - check Ginsu's most recent post about financial dealings in SL. I always assumed that this held for land speculators as well. Barring theft, or dirty tricks, that LL would not get involved in land, aside from putting it for sale.

I know what eminent domain is, and this very obviously isn't a case of it. LL is not taking back the land. They are changing the transportation system - how people get around. Big difference.

Does it matter? The issue here is balance and fairness in an emerging economic platform for many people. And if it's so minor, why bother giving it?
Personally, I've never been a fan of P2PTeep in SL, for a variety of reasons, but by the same token, it will make things a bit easier. I feel bad for people who bought land AWAY from telehubs to cut down on drop-ins and traffic.

-Max

If your land was worth going to in the first place, then I don't see this change affecting your land much. Maybe its just me, but I'm willing to bet that the number of people going to telehub land over other locations just because its closer is very small, if any at all.

I own a telehub sim snow sim.

I M TEH SMATZ!

Moving the thread topic slightly sideways - I sense the new "hot land" lots are going to be....















....Welcome Area land! Anything within 256 m of a current, future or overflow Welcome Area is going to be hot, hot hot!

At least until "Help Island" is made. Which will be an island that no other land is connected to (if I've read bits of the description correctly?)

no compensation. property values fluctuate in rl based on many factors, and no one is compensated when they go down. i see no reason it should be done in sl either. you take a risk when you buy property, whether it be in rl or sl.

I don't think this falls into the class of 'land speculation'.

People that bought land near telehubs didn't speculate on the LAND itself.

In fact you can't really call it speculation. The universe...SL...existed in a certain way. Telehubs where the 'physics' of how the universe worked.

People that bought land near telehubs were NOT speculating, they were setting up business in a universe that functioned in a certain way and where there was NO indication that the laws of nature would change one day.

I personally have no problem with them being compensated for a change to the basic laws of nature.

My big question is this; "How in the world does it adversely affect YOU?" The compensation will occur, it will end, the world will go on about it's business and I seriously doubt you or anyone else will be adversely affected by it.

Oh, and btw..

Your poll wording is MISLEADING. You assume that this is ONLY a matter of "poor land speculation". You've stacked your poll simply by the way you worded it.

Nice goin, it's nothing short of rhetoric the way you went about it.

And this, btw, is not strictly correct.

Oregon has been rezoning areas to try and 'green' up the state.

Oregonians recently passed a law stating that if land value decreased because of a Planning Commision rezoning then the land owner could ask for fair compensation based on previous market values.

This is exactly analogous to what LL is doing.