Posted By Poldano at
Here are the things that seem a little bit unresolved to me:
Q1. The first bold statement asserts that votes depend upon contributions of land to the settlement. A question that immediately arises is whether the contribution is compensated (i.e., actually a sale) or not.
At exposition and launch, no it won't be a compensated thing. Remember that this world has been lived in for awhile, it is assumed they were compensated for their contributions already in the past. Ones made during exposition or post launch are another matter though and certainly compensation can happen.
Q2. The second bold statement asserts that land contributed to the settlement (and perhaps any land comprising the settlement) can be sold to individuals. The question I have is whether land sold back in such a way retains its vote-generating capability.
Your voting capability comes from donating the parcel. After that no matter what happens to that parcel you still have voter rights attributed to you because it was donated. If it goes on to private ownership with someone else, if you buy it back, if it becomes a park, doesn't matter. You got a vote by donating it to the settlement, not what the settlement does with it.
Depending on the answers to Q1 and Q2, various seemingly unfair manipulations may be possible.
Q3. The third bold statement asserts that land owned by third-party individuals may be purchased in order to annex it into the settlement. It also seems to assert that such purchases also (potentially) obtain voting rights for the new landowners. Who are the new landowners? If the settlement itself bought the land with settlement funds, then it would appear that there are, strictly speaking, no characters who are the new landowners. Presumably in such a case the mayor would get the new votes enfranchised by the annexation.
In this scenario it is explaining what can potentially happen if someone owns a parcel(s) of land that borders your settlement. In order to incorporate it into your settlement you have to have the owner "donate" that parcel in exchange for voting rights and potentially funds to help encourage them to give it up. Once it is incorporated into the settlement it will be unowned and belong to the settlement unless resold to a private owner.
Q4. The third bold statement also begs the question of who else but the settlement could be the new landowners. The most obvious answer is someone who donated the purchase price. If land sold from the settlement to private owners retains its franchise (answer to Q2), then that donor gets the votes from the land.
Anyone can become the new land owners. The settlement gains ownership of the parcel given to it, after that it can remain in the possession of the settlement, or it can be resold to literally anyone with the funds to buy it for private ownership. Farmer, merchant, guild, corrupt mayor.
Q5. It is conceivable that the new landowners in the third bold statement are actually the old landowners and new settlement citizens. Is this the case? If this is the case, then the transaction is roughly the equivalent of a compensated donation.
Yes it's entirely possible. This would likely be a case by case basis, but this would be the easiest way to maintain ownership of your parcels while incorporating them into the settlement. Don't get paid to do so, don't pay to get them back, gain voter rights. Win, win. Although the settlement may take a hit from potential revenue on the resale, hence case by case.