SL Land Cutting
Linden Lab asks: “Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?”; http://tr.im/dgq9
-
Gerrit Eicker
Reply
-
eicker. Wir sprechen Online. Folgen Sie uns zu relevanten Nachrichten rund ums Web. [RSS, Kontakt]
We speak Online. Follow us to relevant news focusing the Web. [RSS, Contact]
kathleen, 
Russy and one other person are discussing. 
Demian Arbizu 16:31 on 29. January 2009 Permalink |
I own an extensive land area in Horisme and I have cut my parcel into numerous smaller lots for the purpose of renting out houses on the property. The lots are necessary to allow each renter to control their own lot in terms of media especially as well as providing a defined area wherein they are allowed to rez their objects. The nonallocated areas are common land that all renters are permitted to utilize. I am concerned that your land cutting policy might affect this kind of subdivision, which has not damaged the appearance of the area at all. In fact, it has enhanced it. If you doubt this, then I invite you to come and look. Dividing a large lot up into tiny parcels for ad lots should be a violation, but subdividing land for the purpose of development or control should not be. I suggest that LL define a minimal habitable lot size, and not allow any lot below that size to be sold. Modify the software to make it impossible to sell it in About Land. That would eliminate this problem altogether, while allowing landowners to use subdividing land for legitimate purposes, since it would only affect them if they attempted to sell their land. Since a free starter lot is 512 sq.m. I believe, this should probably become the basic unit for saleable land.
Russy 01:20 on 30. January 2009 Permalink |
The solution should be system-based rather than AR-based – either minimum sale size of 512 sq.m., or minimum contiguous holdings of 512 (I prefer the latter approach). (We’re obviously only talking about mainland here.)
Anyone already holding parcels which are *less than* 512 sq.m. contiguous should have a grace period to sell … after which their parcel is automatically put up for auction at a starting price of e.g. L$8 / sq.m. (using some simplified in-world, on-parcel auction mechanism), whereby they receive the full proceeds.
Problem solved.
Gerrit Eicker 09:14 on 30. January 2009 Permalink |
Demian, Russy, I believe that LL is talking about parcels smaller than 512 sqm right now: “Whenever you see land that has a grid of 16m parcels for sale that are all clumped together, or in a checkerboard pattern, then what you’re seeing is an example of land cutting.”
Russy 21:22 on 30. January 2009 Permalink |
This is clear, Gerrit. The point of my proposal is that 16K parcels which are not part of a larger contiguous block (min 512) would be forcibly auctioned off. Since in practical terms, only adjoining neighbors could buy it, a reasonable starting price e.g. L$8 would be set.
kathleen 22:56 on 30. January 2009 Permalink |
LL has stated that it’s not illegal to own the land, only to cut the land (if you own it and you’re the one who cut it, then that would be illegal as well). And they do seem to be after 64 and smaller blocks.
Gerrit Eicker 06:52 on 31. January 2009 Permalink |
Sorry Russy, I somehow associated your comment to Demian’s.
Right now I don’t see any forced auctions. And LL talks about ad farms with 16sqm parcels that are 1. “for sale” and 2. “all clumped together”. At least that’s how I understand their offensive.