CIP 3 Authorize CityDAO to acquire a parcel of land

Summary

This proposal authorizes CityDAO to place an offer of up to $125,000 (up to approx 38% of the CityDAO treasury) on a parcel of land.

Over the last few weeks, we have been discussing optimal criteria for selecting a land parcel. This included distance to an airport, maximizing freedom of zoning, ease of access via road, and available resources like water and power.

Resources

We have debated different options and have an ongoing discussion in Discourse.
https://forum.citydao.io/t/land-selection-discussion/15

Summaries, listing info, and virtual tours of our top parcels:
https://citydao.notion.site/Parcel-0-Selection-Parcels-e25f25978d094ff5b15021eb4ddf425b

Caveats

The ability to use land may be limited by Wyoming state law, Clark County law, and CityDAO.

Further decisions are needed around mechanisms for land tokenization (lease, easements, etc) and will be decided in separate proposals.

CityDAO is operating in a legally novel zone and is a risky project.

Options

The proposed options are

1 - 226 Overland

2 - TBD Louis L’amour

3 - Parcel 6

4 - Reject

Wondering if we need to increase the $125,000 since that’s exactly what parcel 6 is, knowing there will be broker fees, taxes, etc. Difficult to get exact though. Maybe it’s an authorization of $140,000 or a better estimate from our broker of total out the door costs?

I’m aligning with this.

1 Like

I propose that we:

  1. do more (or some) explorations exploring Opportunity Zones within Wyoming. This is a topic I have regularly brought up since participating in Community Call #8 and following.
  2. Have more conversations with “DeFi Players”, legacy financial institutions, etc to see if we may be able to increase the $$ amount (instead of paying 100% using treasury funds, utilize leverage … most land deals involve leverage in some manner).

I also do not feel that proper “governance procedures” were followed with the creation of this submitted proposal on Snapshot:
https://snapshot.org/#/daocity.eth/proposal/QmY4fHV1QAtHSo7Lfcus8bAP2Dj3sSLsVMf33EbonD87Kt

I expressed my concerns on this Discord thread:

I agree w/ alexthims regarding increasing cap due to unforeseen closing costs. I’m ready for a snapshot vote but this one somehow slipped under my radar, don’t remember it being formally mentioned (doesn’t mean I didn’t miss it.)