Would YOU?

[Isabella Stormrift]

akumabito-

The simple structure fill in the blank with a brick facade seems logical... as for huddling... well, as long as there's some sort of public park or square or whathaveyou I'm fine with this However, based on your initial rough, I'd say we'd need to raise the roofing a bit higher, or we run into wasted space issues, with the top floor being less usable.

The top floor would be used as bedroom, with closets build under the lower parts of the roof. Most small farms and detached houses here have been built like that for centuries. Yes, there is some 'wasted' space as you can not stand upright everywhere on the attic, but it isn't really wased as it is converted to storage space. Wouldn't want to 'waste' proper standing height on cabinetry now, would we?

Perhaps it's just my own limited personal experience with housing... I currently reside in what is essentially a series of boxes shoved together, with holes in to allow movement between boxes. I grew up in this house and suppose I simply can't wrap my head around the idea of a triangular room ^^;;

[Dr. Oliver Cross]

Once again, Dr. Oliver, that seems absolutely splendid. One thought, however... does this mean that initial members are going to require a much higher financial investment, or am I not quite understanding the concept correctly?

Actually, no.  Basically, the Company would have the inherent right to issue new stock at a set price (which, with the resale of stock requiring approval of the Company, we can be reasonably certain won't change but to match the Cost of Living increases annually).  This means that when someone wants to move into a building that isn't currently in use, an entirely new share, (or five shares, if it's to be a business), are sold to her.  In other words, there are only as many shares in circulation as there are people who live in the village, plus five times as many shares as businesses.  The First Settlers would only have to invest as much as they wanted to in order to acquire the specific type of location or locations they wanted.  (And the Riding Centre would be operated BY the Company, and as such wouldn't come into the stock equation.)

There's also something else we could do, in order to prevent business owners from having more legal weight in decisions of the Company than non-owners.  It's known as Series A and Series B shares.  In this structure, instead of having to buy five shares for a business license, you'd simply have to buy one Series B share, which would entitle you to operate your business and be a resident.  Those shares would cost five times what a Series A share does, which would only entitle you to residence, not business.  However, the voting rights of each type of share would be identical.

Then there's option three.  In this one, there'd only be one series of stock, because under this option anyone who was a resident could legally operate a business.  And now that we're talking identical buildings, the more that I spin the options around in my brainmeats, the more I like this last option.  One share = one building.  When the first share to a specific building is sold, that building gets built.  It can be a shop, a residence, or a residence/shop.  When that building is going to be vacated, either the current share owned by the building's occupant sells the share, and thus the building, to a new person coming into the community, or they sell it back to the Company, and the Company sells a new share to someone who wants to take over the existing building at a later date.  Sound good?

As for immigration... well, America is the Land of Opportunity, or so says the propaganda of days gone by.  If you plan to invest in a US corporation, which is effectively what you'd be doing in this case... it's remarkably easy to immigrate.  Especially since you'd also be an employee of the Company, and the Company would therefore be helping with the immigration paperwork....

And on the topic of rooms... vaulted ceilings equals yay, Ms. Stormrift.  Trust me.

[Isabella Stormrift]

I'm rather a fan of option three, it seems ever so much more equal opportunity, and considering the identical buildings concept seems quite the rational way to go about it. Series A and Series B make more sense than 1 and 5 shares, for legal business purposes, but I feel that is slightly financially discouraging toward business, especially with the proposed building plan in mind.

As for the rooms... I will simply have to trust you until I can see for myself

[MechanicalMouse]

I'm not keen on the corporation idea. Feels more like a business than a community.

[akumabito]

As for immigration... well, America is the Land of Opportunity, or so says the propaganda of days gone by.  If you plan to invest in a US corporation, which is effectively what you'd be doing in this case... it's remarkably easy to immigrate.  Especially since you'd also be an employee of the Company, and the Company would therefore be helping with the immigration paperwork....

There is a minimum nvesment tied to that, isn't there?

[Isabella Stormrift]

As for immigration... well, America is the Land of Opportunity, or so says the propaganda of days gone by.  If you plan to invest in a US corporation, which is effectively what you'd be doing in this case... it's remarkably easy to immigrate.  Especially since you'd also be an employee of the Company, and the Company would therefore be helping with the immigration paperwork....

There is a minimum nvesment tied to that, isn't there?

Even if you're an employee?



MechanicalMouse- the 'corporation' idea is actually supposed to be both. The idea of bringing some business aspect to it would free up more time for us to do those wondrous tinkerings and things that brought the idea up in the first place. Or at least that's how I'm looking at it.

[Pnakotus]

Yes. I get to be a part time chimney sweep, part time junk collector in this city, right?

[MechanicalMouse]

MechanicalMouse- the 'corporation' idea is actually supposed to be both. The idea of bringing some business aspect to it would free up more time for us to do those wondrous tinkerings and things that brought the idea up in the first place. Or at least that's how I'm looking at it.

I can see it working, specially in the premise of a "Living Steampunk themepark". But I would like own my home outright, and to be held accountable to a community spirit rather than corporate legislation.

I know the corporation system a tool to an end, and like all tools the malice has to be supplied by those wielding them (which you would not supply), but I dislike the idea of corporations. The ruling body could have the power to evict with relative impunity.

[Isabella Stormrift]

Yes. I get to be a part time chimney sweep, part time junk collector in this city, right?

Actually I rather think it's what you do with the junk after you've collected it that's more important here 

MechanicalMouse- the 'corporation' idea is actually supposed to be both. The idea of bringing some business aspect to it would free up more time for us to do those wondrous tinkerings and things that brought the idea up in the first place. Or at least that's how I'm looking at it.

I can see it working, specially in the premise of a "Living Steampunk themepark". But I would like own my home outright, and to be held accountable to a community spirit rather than corporate legislation.

I know the corporation system a tool to an end, and like all tools the malice has to be supplied by those wielding them (which you would not supply), but I dislike the idea of corporations. The ruling body could have the power to evict with relative impunity.

Actually, in this case, I don't think they would. You own a "share", and that share equates to a building. Thus you own the building.

[Dr. Oliver Cross]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

[Isabella Stormrift]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

Though by your own explanation, the Company couldn't evict you even for violating steampunk feel agreements. You could run around dressed like Pocahontas or Luke Skywalker without being evicted, if I'm understanding, which I think was part of the concern?

[akumabito]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

Though by your own explanation, the Company couldn't evict you even for violating steampunk feel agreements. You could run around dressed like Pocahontas or Luke Skywalker without being evicted, if I'm understanding, which I think was part of the concern?

The shareholders control the company - piss off the shareholders, and they could 'force' the company to take action. Maybe sumthin' like that..

[Isabella Stormrift]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

Though by your own explanation, the Company couldn't evict you even for violating steampunk feel agreements. You could run around dressed like Pocahontas or Luke Skywalker without being evicted, if I'm understanding, which I think was part of the concern?

Quite so, but if the council can vote on who may buy shares, that will fairly well prevent prancing Pocahontases, in as much as we wouldn't vote to allow in those who won't at least try.

The shareholders control the company - piss off the shareholders, and they could 'force' the company to take action. Maybe sumthin' like that..

[MechanicalMouse]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

I see, 20 building in the community = 20 shares. Identical building allow each share to be of equal worth. Of course these are not Share as in those floated on the stock market but rather a percentage of control on the managing board.

My mistake I had assumed a normal share holders situation.

With in England this would be a Partnership (with upto 20 people controlling a company) or a private limited Company where shares can only be owned by friends and family.

Of course, the actual value of houses which started identical can change in value overtime. My house with fully working mad science Laboratory may be worth more than the seamstress next door. But that only matter in terms of conveyancing.

The idea has merits. Also being a part of a company makes things easier for buying and selling services outside the community.

[Isabella Stormrift]

On the eviction front... no, actually they couldn't.  If you hold stock, you have a legal right to live there.  Period.  The Company can't take that away from you -- you ARE the Company.

The sole reason for taking the corporate route was to legalize the structure in a manner wherein it would be legal to enforce the steampunk feel, that's all.

I see, 20 building in the community = 20 shares. Identical building allow each share to be of equal worth. Of course these are not Share as in those floated on the stock market but rather a percentage of control on the managing board.

My mistake I had assumed a normal share holders situation.

With in England this would be a Partnership (with upto 20 people controlling a company) or a private limited Company where shares can only be owned by friends and family.

Of course, the actual value of houses which started identical can change in value overtime. My house with fully working mad science Laboratory may be worth more than the seamstress next door. But that only matter in terms of conveyancing.

The idea has merits. Also being a part of a company makes things easier for buying and selling services outside the community.

Well unless the mad scientist and the seamstress decide to vacate at the same time, that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I believe the current concept is along the lines of the private limited Company, yes.

On another thought... would a business such as a B&B, which would require more room for... well... rooms... require, say, a 2 shares, to make a building basically stacking two base buildings connected to one another? I've tossed the basic concept past a friend of mine, and he may be interested in teaming up toward running a B&B, inn, sort of ... thing.  ...how were travel accomidations dealt with in the period? For some reason, my mind invokes roughly the same image as a fantasy tavern/inn, with different decor, but that's certainly not based on any historical knowledge... google is yielding only inns named Victorian :/

[MechanicalMouse]

On another thought... would a business such as a B&B, which would require more room for... well... rooms... require, say, a 2 shares, to make a building basically stacking two base buildings connected to one another?

The problem is the Hotel owner would have more control over the community because of the size of there plot, rather than their contribution. Of course with the tourest driven themepark idea their hotel would be more important to the community.

If you went for a system of each building comes with a share regardless of size, and the building being bought and sold through the company for the market price you can have each own having a stake in the company, but able to buy the building of a size they need.

[Isabella Stormrift]

On another thought... would a business such as a B&B, which would require more room for... well... rooms... require, say, a 2 shares, to make a building basically stacking two base buildings connected to one another?

The problem is the Hotel owner would have more control over the community because of the size of there plot, rather than their contribution. Of course with the tourest driven themepark idea their hotel would be more important to the community.

If you went for a system of each building comes with a share regardless of size, and the building being bought and sold through the company for the market price you can have each own having a stake in the company, but able to buy the building of a size they need.

One building=one share, regardless of size seems to go back to the idea that not all shares are equal. On the other hand, the hotel would certainly require more than one individual to operate. I was thinking of he buys his share, I buy my share, and together we have enough for a hotel?

[MechanicalMouse]

One building=one share, regardless of size seems to go back to the idea that not all shares are equal.

Separate the concepts.
Just because the building are difference, the shares in the Community would be equal. Its unavoidable that certain building will need to be bigger than others.

If different building have different number of shares attached to them then you end up creating the question, who is worth more to the community. Wouldn't it be better to "sell" building based on market value with each building getting a share?

[Isabella Stormrift]

One building=one share, regardless of size seems to go back to the idea that not all shares are equal.

Separate the concepts.
Just because the building are difference, the shares in the Community would be equal. Its unavoidable that certain building will need to be bigger than others.

If different building have different number of shares attached to them then you end up creating the question, who is worth more to the community. Wouldn't it be better to "sell" building based on market value with each building getting a share?

Perhaps another look at it, buying a share of the company entitles you to inhabit the community. Buildings are purchased/built by the company, to be provided for 'employees'. This would also help work around multiple people inhabiting the same household having but one vote. Example: My partner and I each buy a share to live in the community, inhabit and operate the inn, and each individually get vote in company/community matters, so we don't have to necessarily agree which way to vote.

[MechanicalMouse]

Yep that works well in my mind.

Damn, I can feel the back of my mind trying to figure out how to make it work this side of the pond.

[Isabella Stormrift]

Well, look at it this way... if we get it working over here, you'll have a prototype to work from!

[miststlkr]

Which would be the prefered approach; buy and convert a farm (which would probably require a covenent on the residential rights that required you work on the farm in some sense - which could be fairly straight forward if its a "Museum") or buy a huge old warehous, knock it down, and create a gated enclave (for want of a better term)? The latter would be more practical in many ways, but hideously expensive in comparison 

Anyone else getting reminded of Neil Stephenson's book Diamond Age by this discussion of a Neo-Vick enclave?

[akumabito]

[Lucius Voltaic]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MONTRESOR

WILL SOMEONE MOVE THIS TO METAPHYSICAL

[akumabito]

On another thought... would a business such as a B&B, which would require more room for... well... rooms... require, say, a 2 shares, to make a building basically stacking two base buildings connected to one another? I've tossed the basic concept past a friend of mine, and he may be interested in teaming up toward running a B&B, inn, sort of ... thing.  ...how were travel accomidations dealt with in the period? For some reason, my mind invokes roughly the same image as a fantasy tavern/inn, with different decor, but that's certainly not based on any historical knowledge... google is yielding only inns named Victorian :/

Check the other thread, I already got dibs on tourist accomodations!

Seriously though, an Inn or B&B could very well be the main source of income for the community. It is also a source of on-site employment - especially important for the non-artisans among us. I don't think any one person should own the Inn. Rather, it ought to be community-owned and operated, as the income generated ought to flow right back into the community.