Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the U.S. was first formed, only landowners had the right to vote in most states -- white, male, landowners.
It does make some sense that only landowners should vote. They have the most to lose or gain; they're usually more informed; they're more apt to stay in the area.
It makes some sense, but not enough. And it's not what Americans have decided is best.
Amy knew when she purchased the property (or when she moved away from it) that she would have no voting rights in that community. It's what we've decided, over the years, is the MOST fair for everyone.
You've mentioned that renters should still have the right to vote for their government representatives, just not on property tax questions. Well, mayors and councilmen make many decisions that affect your property. If Amy wants to vote in the elections where her rental is, she'll have to move to where her rental is. It's "fair" because that's how it's done all across the U.S. and how it has been done for 100+ years. Amy knew that when she purchased the property.
Some good points made in your post and in other people who have differing beliefs than me throughout this thread. However, this point keeps coming up and it is a total fallacy. Just because something has always been the status quo does not make it right. Just because Amy knew something doesn't make it right. People knew the Jim Crow south was not a great place for black people and things eventually changed. There are fine arguments for why residents and not property owners should have property tax voting rights, but because that is the status quo is not a reason. That is just dogma.
Here in my city, we have a combination of year-round residents and second homeowners who either use the house themselves or rent to tourists in the summer. The 2nd homeowners, many of whom don't even live in NJ, want voting rights here. But I don't think they should have them. They are never going to vote to approve a school budget in a district their kids don't use, they will always vote against open space or historic district preservation if the alternative is to build some new tourist attraction there.
Bottom line, they have totally different priorities and agendas in how our city spends money then the year round residents do (we are very much the minority population-wise). It would change the town, and the people who have investment in schools, safety and infrastructure will lose to those who only care about cutting property taxes and couldn't care less if our schools are bad, cause the ones their kids go to are good.
Apparently some people think that you should have more than one vote if you own property in more than one place. That's exactly what would happen if 2nd homeowners or landlords who owned property outside of their residential voting districts would be doing if they were allowed to vote where they owned property. In fact, it would be likely that a real estate investor could have 100 votes in several states using the OP's rationale.
Many states, perhaps most, including NYS, allow owners of more than one residence to decide which is their permanent residence which might be different from where they live most of the year. So, 2nd homeowners in New York could decide to vote from their vacation home where they only "live" for 6 weeks in the summer rather than the home where they live the other 46 weeks a year. They just can't then also vote from the address where they spend most of the year.
Apparently some people think that you should have more than one vote if you own property in more than one place. That's exactly what would happen if 2nd homeowners or landlords who owned property outside of their residential voting districts would be doing if they were allowed to vote where they owned property. In fact, it would be likely that a real estate investor could have 100 votes in several states using the OP's rationale.
Many states, perhaps most, including NYS, allow owners of more than one residence to decide which is their permanent residence which might be different from where they live most of the year. So, 2nd homeowners in New York could decide to vote from their vacation home where they only "live" for 6 weeks in the summer rather than the home where they live the other 46 weeks a year. They just can't then also vote from the address where they spend most of the year.
If they owned property in 100 different jurisdictions, then yes, I think they should have some sort of voting rights in 100 jurisdictions. One vote in each one. When it comes to property tax. That doesn't sound ridiculous to me at all... it's not like I'm advocating a landlord getting 100 votes for the white house.
In how many jurisdictions are tax increases a voter decision and not a function of the elected governmental body?...............
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveklein
Some good points made in your post and in other people who have differing beliefs than me throughout this thread. However, this point keeps coming up and it is a total fallacy. Just because something has always been the status quo does not make it right. Just because Amy knew something doesn't make it right. People knew the Jim Crow south was not a great place for black people and things eventually changed. There are fine arguments for why residents and not property owners should have property tax voting rights, but because that is the status quo is not a reason. That is just dogma.
You still haven't answered the question I posed back 30+ posts ago and requoted here. The reality is that in the vast majority of governmental structures in the US the elected body sets the tax rate. And most of those go out of their way to keep the rates steady. Increased property taxes are many times a result of increasing assessments, not increasing rate.
Do you want to know what the biggest brake on increasing values for housing is? It's too many rentals. Much above 20% or so in a condo and it's hard to get a mortgage. Above 25% FHA mortgages are out.
For townhouses and SFHS the number is 30%-40%. Above 50% rentals then it can be incrediblt difficult to get a mortgage.
You didn't read the Court case I linked, did you?
Here's an illustration of what happens when a non-resident has too much influence.
We had a new townhouse development go in at the end of my street, a dead end, 135 "exclusive" units. Plans originally were to have the entrance on my street and also to push through an unfinished cross street right of way to connect to a main road ( a 2 block finisher).
The non-resident gas station owner at the lower end of my street raised hell about that, he wanted all the cars from the new development to have to pass his station. Due to a newly elected and inexperienced Town Council he got his way.
Fifteen years later he's gone, the street which had 30 houses on it originally, with a street designed for amount, now has the traffic of 135 additional units. The intersection by the gas station is a failing intersection and the Town Council (of which I am a member) is considering speed bumps due to the excessive speeds and running of stop signs by the residents.
All because a non-resident carried more weight than residents.
Lets say you converted your second home to a rental. Would that extra $750 to $1,000 per year tax be fair to your tenants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macgregorsailor51
I have never heard of such a thing!! So I will ask where is this happening? NOW! if your renting it out!! Its Become RENTAL PROPERTY that you also from time to time use.. use.. Thats Different. I have owned Rental Income Property and been surcharged for that.. No Big Deal I passed it right on to my tenants and you can bet your patutti I turned in every rental that wasnt paying that surcharge.
The whole point is we don't desire to convert it to a rental. Sometimes, I allow friends, family, and even clients to stay there for a few days. However, its our vacation home and I don't want to rent it out. We want it available whenever DW or I need a break. Sometimes, we don't even go down there together.
I grudgingly accept the additional taxes because it is not my primary residence.
If they owned property in 100 different jurisdictions, then yes, I think they should have some sort of voting rights in 100 jurisdictions. One vote in each one. When it comes to property tax. That doesn't sound ridiculous to me at all... it's not like I'm advocating a landlord getting 100 votes for the white house.
Actually, you are. Your ignorance of how the US electoral system works is simply astounding, indicating you don't vote often if you've ever bothered to vote at all. Otherwise, you'd know that when you go to vote, you get a ballot that contains the names of people running for office as well as proposals to change laws or whatever. Therefore a landlord, in your system, could cast 100 votes for people running for office as well as for taxes.
BTW, where do voters get to vote directly on property taxes rather than for representatives who decide on the property tax rate?
Why, here in Californa, of course. Property taxes are determined by a statewide vote, and must be approved by 2/3's of the electorate!
If it's state-wide then there's no need to give non-resident owners extra votes since taxes on a property of equal value in one place will have the same tax as it will in another ... unless California were to open its voting up to non-state residents and maybe, in the name of "fairness", to non-US citizens who happen to own property in California, too.
I have been both a landlord and a tenant over my lifetime. I have liked neither. Greedy landlords were always raising my rent and irresponsible tenants were making my life miserable with their late rents and endless complaining.
When one shops in a retail store, one pays a price which provides a profit for the shop owner. If the landlord raises the shop owner's rent, then the price of goods will rise. When one rents, one pays what will provide the property owner a profit.
Rising prices are a fact of life, like it or not.
PS I am surprised, reading through this thread, the tortured reasoning of those who believe that a non resident landlord should be able to vote in a district where she cannot otherwise vote. One votes where one lives. Now then, it is possible that the landlord lives in the same tax district as the tenant, and therefore could legally vote. For example, here in California, for the most part, property taxes are determined statewide. If this situation were to take place with both parties living in California, then the landlord could vote on the matter.
Fairness is irrelevant in the private sector, but I believe fairness is very relevant in the public sector. Lack of fairness in the public sector equates to favoritism, cronyism, and class warfare.]
While I have no illusion that rent will fall if the extra $1,000 property tax is repealed, I resent the action of government to effectively take that $1,000 off the table in rent negotiations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, it would be likely that a real estate investor could have 100 votes in several states using the OP's rationale.
