Which makes sense... why should anyone get a say in the local matters of a place they don't even live in?

SoftTalker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I own property there, I pay property taxes there (at the highest "non-owner-occupied" rate), in my case I'm actively operating a business not (just) a passive investor. Why should I have zero say in how those taxes are spent, or other local governance? I'm not a disinterested bystander.

▲

shimman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I pay sales taxes in other cities I travel in, I too should get a say in how they run their government. Money, after all, is the top virtue in a democracy; if it wasn't why did the founders ensure that slavers had equal representation?

▲

Supermancho 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Money, after all, is the top virtue in a democracy

"The Founders" of the US (however you want to form that category) were not the arbiters of what is virtuous about Democracy. Democracy is orthogonal to US law and intent. The PR for the US has always tried to message that they are a singular ethos.

▲

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would say the difference is that as a property owner I have a long-term local presence and vested interest there, I am (in theory) motivated to make thoughtful decisions about local governance, as opposed to a disinterested bystander passing through and paying local sales tax on a soft drink.

	▲	ryandrake 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can't have a presence if you're not present. My parents own two properties, but they have to decide which one they are residents of, because they are not entitled to a say in how both local governments are run. If I am a long-term owner of Google stock, I still don't get a say in how Mountain View runs their city. A "vested financial interest" in an area should not be enough to give one a vote on local laws.

▲

EnergyAmy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you want a say, live there.

▲

rayiner 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s a fair point, but the ACLU didn’t challenge that aspect of the municipal charter.

▲

charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because you have a vested interest in the success of that region by owning land (and a business) at that location. You have skin in the game compared to someone who is just renting and can easily flee to a different city if they vote poorly.

	▲	cucumber3732842 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>renting and can easily flee to a different city if they vote poorly. Nitpick: I think you're correct that the problem is people who do selfish shortsighted things and leave others holding the bag but I think you are blaming the wrong people. Pretty much everyone from Marx to MLK to Rand and Sowell identifies somme sort of class of "comfortable enough to meddle in things to further their self interest at everyone else's detriment" demographics as the root of a whole bunch of bad stuff. In most municipalities middle class who are too tied into the place (often through home ownership) to just get out that provide the bulk of the political will to do short sighted "feels good" stuff that solves some minor problem they have but screws the whole place on a 20-50yr timeline (by which time the individuals responsible will have retired and cashed out to Idaho or Florida or whatever).