Voter Suppression (not the usual) (San Antonio, Donna: sales, neighborhood, buying)

[JH6]

Did you know that if you live outside the SA City Limits, you can not vote for Mayor, Council, or either of the Ballot Propositions?

I work in the city, spend most of my money there, and happen to live half a mile outside the city limits, in the fast growing Northwest.

I went to vote against the incumbents, and against the ballot initiatives, and was presented with a Ballot with one race on it, for School Board.

I just find that interesting, my drivers license says San Antonio on it, but that does not matter.

This is one of the ways this city keeps a left of center lean.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by JH6

Did you know that if you live outside the SA City Limits, you can not vote for Mayor, Council, or either of the Ballot Propositions?

I work in the city, spend most of my money there, and happen to live half a mile outside the city limits, in the fast growing Northwest.

I went to vote against the incumbents, and against the ballot initiatives, and was presented with a Ballot with one race on it, for School Board.

I just find that interesting, my drivers license says San Antonio on it, but that does not matter.

This is one of the ways this city keeps a left of center lean.

Do you pay all the same taxes that someone inside the city limits does?

[ashbeeigh]

Should of thought of that before buying outside city limits. At least you were given a ballot and not turned away because of lack of ID, appearance, color, etc.

[ged_782]

Yes, this has always been the case. You must reside within the city limits to vote in a city election.

Same applies to people residing in suburban municipalities, like Alamo Heights, Leon Valley, Castle Hills, etc. Even though their addresses are listed as "San Antonio", they can only vote in their respective city's elections, as they have their own mayor, council, police department, fire, street repair, etc.

[TexasRedneck]

That's not voter suppression, sorry. You're not a resident of the city of SA, therefore you don't qualify to vote in their elections, just as someone not a resident of this state can't vote for governor.

[Cuero]

Look at your property tax statement. If you don't pay city property taxes then you have no reason to vote in city elections. You can always lead a campaign to get your neighborhood annexed by the city if it bothers you that much. As others have said its a matter of jurisdiction not voter suppression.

[flashfearless]

You must have been the knucklehead that my wife witnessed getting turned away at Parman library yesterday. What makes you think you should be allowed to vote in elections where you don’t live?

[Me007gold]

If you don't live in an area you don't get to vote in/for its policy's. Shocking, huh?

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by Azure110

Do you pay all the same taxes that someone inside the city limits does?

So, there are some nuances to this people often over look. First, SAWS and CPS customers outside of SA city limits pay an excise fee on their accounts. Secondly, they pay city sales taxes which fund things like Pre-K4SA that they cannot use. So, while residents outside the city limits may not pay city property taxes, we are hit with numerous other charges that benefit residents of San Antonio, but not those residents themselves. All while having no representation or say in the matter. This is essentially taxation without representation.

Yes, I reside outside the city. Yes, that's a choice I made. No, I don't want to live in the city. No, I don't receive, nor desire any services from the city. No, I shouldn't be paying for services for those that do live in the city.

Before the usual, threadbare arguments start about city infrastructure used by non-residents, that's a non-issue. I commute entirely on Interstate highways, with the exception of a 1/2 mile stretch of N. Walters. This road was widened, and improved with Federal funds following BRAC decisions to move several commands to JBSA.

My area was the number one priority parcel being eyed by San Antonio for annexation a few years ago. The city's justification was to protect the training mission at Camp Bullis which was a complete crock. Nothing on the west side of Camp Bullis directly borders the installation. There are properties across 3351 from Camp Stanley, but that installation has no training requirements. Camp Stanley provides a natural buffer to any encroachment. If the city's stated goal were really to protect the training mission at Camp Bullis, why did the city enter into a multi-decade non-annexation agreement for the properties directly across Blanco Road from, and directly adjacent to Camp Bullis? It's mind boggling. In addition to their stated justification being a crock, both SAPD, and SAFD said they would not be able to provide adequate services in our area. Thankfully, efforts by State Senator Donna Campbell were successful, and the city was required by law to put the issue on a ballot. It was defeated 96% against, to 4% in favor.

After living here for over a decade, it never ceases to amaze how residents of the city feel entitled to have their services paid for, at least in part, by non-residents.

[Azure110]

My response/question was really in regards to city limit voting rights. Period.

I didn't say you have to pay for our city services in any way. That being said, don't come and work in San Antonio if it bothers you to spend money while using San Antonio facilities and infrastructure.