3 ms·

It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.

by cwmma 4mo ago

ceejayoz 4mo ago
Wonder how long it is before there's a vote to allow the sale of inch-square lots.
- mindslight 4mo ago
  IANAA. It would seemed to be recorded, not registered, land. Which means I wouldn't think approval would be required in the first place (the lot isn't going to be buildable though, of course]
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- NDlurker 4mo ago
  Exactly. Same thing as offices set up to register out of state businesses.
- cwmma 4mo ago
  besides zoning laws, the judge fairly explicitly states that one of the reasons he thinks it's fine is because corporations aren't doing these kinds of shenanigans, so if you were to do something like that he might revise the ruling.
SoftTalker 4mo ago
I own property in a nearby town but it's an investment; I don't live there. I'm unable to vote in their local elections. I have not heard of property ownership being a qualification to vote since the 1800s.
- Hugsbox 4mo ago
  Which makes sense... why should anyone get a say in the local matters of a place they don't even live in?
  - SoftTalker 4mo ago
    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 4mo ago
      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?
      - SoftTalker 4mo ago
        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 4mo ago
        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.
        nullocator 4mo ago
        I guess the Walton family has a long-term local presence in basically every mid to large town and city in america. Same with Mcdonalds Corp. They have vested interests there (crushing competition, raising prices, lower quality, profit!). And their bigly profits certainly show a more significant vested interest as opposed to just a small property owner or worse a bystander or citizen.
SkyPuncher 4mo ago
Owning property through a corporation is trivial. 3 of my nearby neighbors are owned via an LLC (rentals). * Start an LLC/C-corp for a trivial amount of money. * Purchase land, but instead of paying with it via a personal check, you need a touch of foresight so you can "capitalize" the corporation you just started. Write the check from the corporation, instead of your personal checkbook.
- cwmma 4mo ago
  yeah so it sounds like if you did this IN THIS TOWN and didn't also live in the town you'd get a vote. I'm not sure if you'd get a vote if you owned the land directly but for all I know you might.
- mindslight 4mo ago
  IANAA, but having looked into it this does very little to actually reduce the liability exposure from small businesses. The minute you do anything yourself, you start to accrue personal liability. The only way to keep the corporate veil intact is to hire other people. So it only works if you're rich enough to hire a management company to do everything (screen tenants, maintenance/inspections, supervise contractors, etc) and you manage it as a purely financial investment. Just like the anonymity aspect doesn't work out in most states unless you're willing to shell out for an attorney to be the manager. In general these laws aren't made to help little people.

It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.

by cwmma 4mo ago

It sounds like you it's only corporations that own property in the town that get to vote. So that's probably whats preventing you.

ceejayoz 4mo ago

Wonder how long it is before there's a vote to allow the sale of inch-square lots.

mindslight 4mo ago
IANAA. It would seemed to be recorded, not registered, land. Which means I wouldn't think approval would be required in the first place (the lot isn't going to be buildable though, of course]
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
NDlurker 4mo ago
Exactly. Same thing as offices set up to register out of state businesses.
cwmma 4mo ago
besides zoning laws, the judge fairly explicitly states that one of the reasons he thinks it's fine is because corporations aren't doing these kinds of shenanigans, so if you were to do something like that he might revise the ruling.

SoftTalker 4mo ago

I own property in a nearby town but it's an investment; I don't live there. I'm unable to vote in their local elections. I have not heard of property ownership being a qualification to vote since the 1800s.

Hugsbox 4mo ago
Which makes sense... why should anyone get a say in the local matters of a place they don't even live in?
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  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 4mo ago
    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?
    - SoftTalker 4mo ago
      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 4mo ago
        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.
      - nullocator 4mo ago
        I guess the Walton family has a long-term local presence in basically every mid to large town and city in america. Same with Mcdonalds Corp. They have vested interests there (crushing competition, raising prices, lower quality, profit!). And their bigly profits certainly show a more significant vested interest as opposed to just a small property owner or worse a bystander or citizen.

SkyPuncher 4mo ago

Owning property through a corporation is trivial. 3 of my nearby neighbors are owned via an LLC (rentals). * Start an LLC/C-corp for a trivial amount of money. * Purchase land, but instead of paying with it via a personal check, you need a touch of foresight so you can "capitalize" the corporation you just started. Write the check from the corporation, instead of your personal checkbook.

cwmma 4mo ago
yeah so it sounds like if you did this IN THIS TOWN and didn't also live in the town you'd get a vote. I'm not sure if you'd get a vote if you owned the land directly but for all I know you might.
mindslight 4mo ago
IANAA, but having looked into it this does very little to actually reduce the liability exposure from small businesses. The minute you do anything yourself, you start to accrue personal liability. The only way to keep the corporate veil intact is to hire other people. So it only works if you're rich enough to hire a management company to do everything (screen tenants, maintenance/inspections, supervise contractors, etc) and you manage it as a purely financial investment. Just like the anonymity aspect doesn't work out in most states unless you're willing to shell out for an attorney to be the manager. In general these laws aren't made to help little people.