ANST - Land funds...

Russell Kinder russmax at
Wed Nov 19 04:51:39 PST 1997

Tim McDaniel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Russell <russmax at> wrote:
> > With a $1 event surcharge,
> Well, there's Corpora VI.A.1.g.4:
>     No law may require members or branches to make donations to the
>     treasury of the realm.  Laws which discuss voluntary donations are
>     acceptable, as are those which mandate reasonable fees for events
>     and services or discuss financial arrangements for the realm's
>     main events sponsored by local branches.
> So I'm not sure such a surcharge could be *required*, except perhaps
> for "the realm's main events", which I read as Crown Tourney and
> Coronation and maybe a few others.
> (I have no problem with feudal obedience in general.  When money or
> other property starts getting discussed, especially *my* money, I get
> all democratic.)

Yes, that's a good point. I never said the plan was without problems,
political, logistical, and legal. I'm not even saying I think the plan
is a good idea. I'm just trying to bring some realistic thought to the
matter. I suspected the kingdom could not force a surcharge on local
events, but I wasn't sure. 

We do a dis-service to the land fund idea if we think that a couple of
fund-raisers, and some donations are going to be enough to get it done.
It's also a fallacy to think that a site could be secured, built, and
maintained for a pittance. We have to figure out how many events could
be held there, how many would attend on average, what the site would
charge, and if this is any improvement over renting sites like we do

We have to have a realistic idea of what the land would cost, how much
the improvements, like water, electricity, sewer, toilets, showers,
kitchen and feast hall, would cost. Then there is insurance, property
tax, and lots of other little costs.

We would be able to rent the site to other groups, but only if it's a
desirable site, and only to a few groups. And there would be very little
of this at first. The site has to become known to these groups before
they begin to use it.

If you were to ask me if I think the Kingdom should do this, I would
probably say no. I don't think it's a good idea. As a previous poster
stated, we have sites now that have appropriate facilities and are
available for a reasonable price. And the groups that are far away from
the site wouldn't get much benefit out of it, and would feel it unfair
to help shoulder the cost of it.

I think we should go out of our way to develop and maintain good
relationships with current and future site owners. Put an individual,
committee, or household in your group in charge of maintaining good
relations with the owners of the sites you use. Make sure that the sites
are never abused and are always left in good condition. Make sure that
other SCA groups that use the sites do the same. After all, it doesn't
matter if *your* group always leaves the site in good shape. To the site
owner the SCA is all one entity. It only takes one group to get all of
the SCA banned from a site. It is each group's responsiblity to see that
other groups do not abuse a *their* site.

It's also a good idea to do a fair bit of community service and maintain
good visibility in your area. Be the people that respected members of
the community think of when they want to see knights and fair damsels.
Be the ones that local school teachers call on when they want to liven
up their history and literature classes. Be the ones the Boy Scouts call
on for entertainment at their banquets. Do all the demos you can. In
doing this, you gain the respect of would be site owners and dispel the
myth that we're some weird pagan cult. And as a side benefit, you get
lots of new members.

Lord Guillaume 
Shire of Mooneschadowe
Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list