The question is not what the law says (the headline is sufficient to understand that), but why people are doing this at all. If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved. There is some reason they don't do this. I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a proxy" line is 100% horseshit.

▲

rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If corporations are just proxies for their owners, then owners who want a vote could just own the property in their own name rather than their corporation's and problem solved

Exactly! They could do that, so the law shouldn’t treat the two situations differently. You just proved my point, not yours.

> There is some reason they don't do this

I’m sure they have many reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that the corporation is a proxy for people.

Your real argument seems to be that you think people should have to choose between exercising their rights and having the protections of the corporate form.

▲

wat10000 5 hours ago | parent [-]

"Protections of the corporate form"? You mean they aren't just proxies?

▲

rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that the corporate form has other benefits doesn’t mean that the corporations aren’t proxies for the purposes relevant here.

	▲	wat10000 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Likewise, the fact that corporations act as proxies in some ways doesn't mean that they must act as proxies for votes. Obviously, the court has ruled that they do in fact act that way. But we're talking about what should be, not what is. The question of whether corporate owners of residences should be able to vote in this town is not at all obvious, certainly doesn't merit dismissal with a glib "corporations are just proxies." They aren't just proxies. In some respects they are, in others they aren't. If they were nothing but proxies then there'd be no point to them.

▲

malcolmgreaves 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Got ‘em!

▲

mschuster91 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I want rayiner to spell it out for me, because that "a corporation is just a proxy" line is 100% horseshit.

Not the original author, but generically, there are a few reasons why one would place a residential property in a distinct legal entity.

Most commonly it's to shield a property against others - spouses, children or other relatives with legal inheritance claims, especially if the jurisdiction in question treats corporate ownership more favorably to the goal of the person in question than they treat real estate ownership. In some cases, cough Rene Benko, the aim is to have a corporate veil against the government or creditors, although more commonly a trust is the chosen vehicle instead of a corporation.

The other way around is rare, but also works - the legal entity caps your exposure. Think of, say, your house catches fire due to shoddy electrical works. Some dumbass neighbor kid climbs over a fence, drowns in your pool and is barely rescued in time, but their brain is now fried for good and the kid will need 80 years in intensive assisted living. You own your home outright? All of your other wealth can be seized now to make the neighbors whole. However, if a LLC owns that home, your exposure is now limited to the value of the home - the LLC goes bankrupt, the house is sold off with the proceeds going to the neighbors, you can keep the rest of your wealth.

	▲	wat10000 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Right. And maybe in exchange for that, you don't get a non-resident vote anymore. That doesn't sound outrageous to me. If the LLC were a pure proxy then none of these advantages would apply. It makes sense that there might be some tradeoffs involved.