This case is specifically about allowing voting for non-resident property owners when the ownership is held by a corporation rather than a natural person.

▲

postflopclarity 4 hours ago | parent [-]

correct. and the comment I replied to is about allowing voting for non-resident property owners when the ownership IS held by a natural person.

	▲	toast0 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The poster did not indicate how they hold their ownership. Many people hold their real estate indirectly; a trust is common; if I read the opiniom correctly, a majority of properties in the municipality in question are held in trust.