Politician Archive
Thread: does /grantzoning work for housing?
Page 1 of 1
CastorStablescraper
Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:48 am
#1
If /grantzoningrights works for housing, how can someone get voted out of office? You can just not grant rights to anyone, and keep a stranglehold on the city if the residents want you. For instance, if two nearby groups both want a city, one of them will lose. The losing group cannot try to vote them out if they can't place houses and declare residency because all the current residents will be voting for their selected mayor.
It would make sense if /grantzoning prevented other structures, but housing should be different. Otherwise, the only way I could see getting voted out of office is if the city expands and people placed in a surrounding ring.
It would make sense if /grantzoning prevented other structures, but housing should be different. Otherwise, the only way I could see getting voted out of office is if the city expands and people placed in a surrounding ring.
Mosati
Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:56 am
#2
Housing was placed under the effect of the zoning command because people didn't want a chaotic city where everyone could rush in and destroy any planning that the founder and their group had already done.
If you want in a city you have to accept that there is a central authority. No matter how the Devs implemented this, there will always be people who think it was done wrong but at this stage of the avalanche, it's too late for the pebbles to vote.
CastorStablescraper
Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:51 am
#3
It was fairly recently that the /grantzoning was added to novice, and bugfixes were still being tested last night. Things can still change if they're messed up, especially if it's inobvious at first.
With zoning affecting housing, it's too easy to render the voting system meaningless by restricting your voters. The best solution I could see to solve the issue of dictatorships:
First, owners of structures should be shown.
Next, the politician could zone, say, 30% of the city area specifically NOT buildable and anyone could build houses everywhere else. (you'd still need zoning rights to build anything other than a housing structure.) That way, the mayor could designate areas with future plans or streets (preventing griefing the structure), but couldn't prevent people from immigrating (and voting!) unless all the housing spots are already taken. A minimum nobuild size should be at least 3x3, to prevent dotting the landscape with single no-build points. Zoning something no-build wouldn't affect existing structures.
In fact, the "nobuild" zones could be maintenance-free, zero-lot dirt roads or ugly grassy surfaces. The mayor could create or destroy these, and it'd prevent building in the areas where they were place... but there would be a limited number of them availble (based on the size of the city).
With zoning affecting housing, it's too easy to render the voting system meaningless by restricting your voters. The best solution I could see to solve the issue of dictatorships:
First, owners of structures should be shown.
Next, the politician could zone, say, 30% of the city area specifically NOT buildable and anyone could build houses everywhere else. (you'd still need zoning rights to build anything other than a housing structure.) That way, the mayor could designate areas with future plans or streets (preventing griefing the structure), but couldn't prevent people from immigrating (and voting!) unless all the housing spots are already taken. A minimum nobuild size should be at least 3x3, to prevent dotting the landscape with single no-build points. Zoning something no-build wouldn't affect existing structures.
In fact, the "nobuild" zones could be maintenance-free, zero-lot dirt roads or ugly grassy surfaces. The mayor could create or destroy these, and it'd prevent building in the areas where they were place... but there would be a limited number of them availble (based on the size of the city).
Page 1 of 1