Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: post
From: hberger@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 30 Aug 92 12:22:09 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In recent discussion, several gentels have proposed that selling space at
Pennsic would be a good system to deal with the current complexities and
shortcommings of the land-grab system.  The figure I remember being quoted
was $.02 per square foot per day.  This may seem heretical issuing from
a mundane economist, but the Pennsic land garb is one system which should
probably not be organized strictly as a market.  Markets have many good
points, allocative efficiency being very high on the list but it is 
important to realize precisely what allocative efficiency mean to an
economist.  

	Consider the following system which is one of the simplest which
could be constructed using this as a base.  Land is allocated on a first 
come first serve basis to whoever is willing to put forth his two cents.
Reservations are taken in advance.  Anything leftover is distributed as
people attend war.  Ignoring the problems which would arise if the market
price were set below market clearing (not a trivial problem), this would create
an efficient system.  It would also create a system which was extremely
inequitable, and in which ones camping arrangements at war were determined
largely on the basis of mundane income.  The older and richer members would
have the most space.  The younger and poorer ones would attend war for a
shorter amount of time and be crammed into dome tents.

Other obvious problems include the fact that most people (although not all)
want the land for the main weekend of pennsic.  Charging per day as well as by
square foot is trying to achieve two seperate policy goals with one instument. 
First, raising money to compensate the Cooper (rent).  Second using a price
system to allocate space.  Realisitically, it would be best to set up a two
tiered pricing system.

A second problem is what is to be done with the money generated by such a
system.  Do we want the land auction to break-even or make a profit?  There
are good arguments on each side.  A system which broke even - presumably
the rental fee to the Coopers would be used to offset the estimated income
from the land auction - would place the highest financial burden of Pennsic
on those most able to pay and would actually subsidize poorer members as
compared to the current system.  A system which generated a profit would 
leave more money for little improvments like the sanitizers in the 
port-a-johns.

The final problem is that any free market depends on several important factors.
Clearly defined ownership of property rights is one important charaterisitic
however.  Realisitcallyu, any system set up under the current operating
constraints would have have to be a centrally planned system trying to
approximate the optimal (market) solution.  It could work.  It would be
a hell of a lot of trouble.  Any complications (sliding prices based on
location?) certainly have their advantages but further complicate the question.


A far better solution would seem to be to modify the existing system.  A
camping fee guaruntees a plot of land of X square feet to live upon.
Certain questions need to be addressed?  What is the optimal number of 
footage?  Certain improvements can be made - individuals should be able to
sell temporary land title if they don't want to attend the entire event.
But for the most part, such a system should be workable and fair.

Frankly, from my perspective, easiest way to imporve the Pennsic land
allotement process isn't to radically change the lottery system but rather 
for the principle Kingdoms to sign a multiyear contract with the Coopers.
Currently, the Coopers are constrained in improving and expanding the site 
in that they have little incentive to sink a large amount of money in yet
more expansions to accomodate a one time a year influx of people with no 
guaruntee that we will return.  If we were willing to comit to a multi year
contract, we could probably improve the camping infrastructure substantially.


email welcome as always.
please don't use reply, but rather write to
	rwilley@eagle.wesleyan.edu

				hrothgar hrolfsson

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca