🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard K. Downer" <richard.k.downer@boeing.com> wrote:

...
>> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
>> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
>> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
>> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
>> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
>> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
>> 
>> Hardly sounds fair - does it?
>
>I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location.

Why is that fair?  I pay taxes (more - up to three times the
"locals").  Are you suggesting then that I need only pay
taxes in one location?  Besides, keep reading - I address
your point further on.

> If
>you wish to vote in BC elections, establish BC citizenship (residency,
>whatever) and register to vote there. 

I intend to - in the future.  The problem is that decisions
made NOW impact my ability to do so.

>If you think this is unfair, sell
>your second home; most people (who can't afford two homes) would
>consider you a spoiled rich kid and tell you to enjoy your good fortune
>and quit complaining. 

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever not getting a break
on taxes on a second home.  Nor do I mind paying school
taxes - the largest part of the bill BTW - or  for services
I do not need.  I support the fair and equitable payment of
real property taxes.

What I, and any reasonably rational and fair and democratic
individual  might also think is that "taxation without
representation" is fascist.

>Choosing where you will vote is just another
>"cost" of your second home; if you can't afford every aspect of owning
>it, you should sell it.

Huh?  Due to hard work (and not handouts) I _can_ afford it.
<I only wish I was a "rich kid"...>

 But do you realize that non-local residents to an area in
BC _can_ vote (non-resident elector clause in the current
Municipal Act)?  WHat that means is that a full time BC
resident DOES have the right to vote in two places.

So basically the BC government says we'll take your
non-resident money but if as you reside SOMEWHERE in the
province you can tell your neighbour what to do.

Tom

Tom Ruta wrote:
> 
> I thought (esp.) the rural Canucks would appreciate this one
> as might any other non-resident rural land owners.
> 
> We live full time in one province but have a rural place in
> another province (British Columbia).  Last weekend, a public
> referendum was held to decide upon a parcel tax to allow
> natural gas service.  It was voted down by FOUR STINKING
> VOTES!  Given that natural gas is way cheaper, it surprises
> me somewhat, but that is human nature.
> 
> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
> 
> Hardly sounds fair - does it?
> 
> Tom
> ==============================================================
> 
>     Need info on COTTAGES, CABINS and RECREATIONAL living?
>         Check out "Cottage Living" On-Line book store!
> 
> http://www.cadvision.com/Home_Pages/accounts/rutat/cottage.htm
> 
> ==============================================================


We're just a tiny bit better in Ct.  We can vote in local town meetings,
but not elections, if we own property, but are not residents.  I have a
residence in NYC andmy lawyer says it will be very expensive to die in
two places, so the house in CT earns me no vote.  However, I am listed
on the General rolls of taxpayers, so i can vote to banish designer
coffee at the local store if someone brings it up.  My wife can't,
thought, till I put the house in both our names.  Worth checking to make
sure being a tax payer doesn't give you at least some leverage.
-- 
EAH

     Otium cum dignitate

Tom Ruta wrote:
> 
> I thought (esp.) the rural Canucks would appreciate this one
> as might any other non-resident rural land owners.
> 
> We live full time in one province but have a rural place in
> another province (British Columbia).  Last weekend, a public
> referendum was held to decide upon a parcel tax to allow
> natural gas service.  It was voted down by FOUR STINKING
> VOTES!  Given that natural gas is way cheaper, it surprises
> me somewhat, but that is human nature.
> 
> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
> 
> Hardly sounds fair - does it?

I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location. If
you wish to vote in BC elections, establish BC citizenship (residency,
whatever) and register to vote there. If you think this is unfair, sell
your second home; most people (who can't afford two homes) would
consider you a spoiled rich kid and tell you to enjoy your good fortune
and quit complaining. Choosing where you will vote is just another
"cost" of your second home; if you can't afford every aspect of owning
it, you should sell it.
-- 
Rick Downer
BCAG I/S, Renton
richard.k.downer@boeing.com

These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I 
opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.

"Richard K. Downer" <richard.k.downer@boeing.com> wrote:

...
>> >I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location.
>> 
>> Why is that fair?...

>I'm saying that each person gets one vote. You cannot (or at least I
>don't believe you should be able to) buy votes by paying taxes in
>multiple jurisdictions.
>> 

Well, in the province of British Columbia, you can! This is
according to the RSBC 1996 "Municipal Act".

>[snip]
>> 
>> What I, and any reasonably rational and fair and democratic
>> individual  might also think is that "taxation without
>> representation" is fascist.
>
>And I, and any resonably rational and fair and democratic individual
>might also think, is that buying votes is elitist at best.
>

I have to disagree - I'm not "buying" a vote any more than
my neighbours are.  He/she pays  real property tax and so do
I.  He can vote - I can't.

...<swipe at the "rich kids" snipped>
>
>Apparantly not, if you're not willing to pay the price of not voting
>everywhere you happen to own property. 

Sorry - but you are OTL on this.  I pay a price:  up to
three times my neighbours tax loads.  If I could transfer my
job , believe you me I would.  Heck if I could find a decent
job I would.

>What about corporations -- they
>own property, they pay taxes, yet they don't get a vote. Do you think
>any legal entity that owns property should get a vote just for owning
>property?
>

True.  Corporations or any other legal entities are not
allowed a vote. The Municipal Act is specific in denying
corporations a vote. In an obtuse sense, though, this makes
sense.  A corporation, while a separate "individual" is
typically owned by someone or a number of someones.
Granting a vote to a corporation would give at least one
person a duplicate vote (in theory anyway...)

Interestingly, if my wife were to make this her primary
residence (and I'm gonna ask the tax lawyers about this...)
SHE could vote in elections.

>> 
>>  But do you realize that non-local residents to an area in
>> BC _can_ vote (non-resident elector clause in the current
>> Municipal Act)?  WHat that means is that a full time BC
>> resident DOES have the right to vote in two places.
>
>I did not know that. If true, then BC has some screwy rules and I can
>understand why you're upset.

Yup!  This is what I've been saying all along.  You can
check it out at (I can't quote it due to copyright laws - or
so says the web page!)
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/stat_reg/statutes/32300_03.htm#3473

> So, does this allow BC residents to vote
>mulitple times in national elections, too? Provincial elections?

No and No. 

They only get to vote in any jurisdiction where they have
property (elector rolls) on local or municipal issues.  I
beleive that Federal and Provincial elections are covered by
Federal and other provincial statutes accordingly.

> If they
>only allow this multiple voting in local elections, how does each
>jurisdiction know which votes to count and which to ignore? 

There are specific rules in the Municipal Act that cover
such things.  Bottom line though, is that there are  no real
lists that are easily used for local elections - the tax
rolls are what was used in this referendum.

>Are there
>multiple ballots? If so, how do they know which ballot to give you
>(local only vs. local & national)? It seems like such an administrative
>nightmare that I don't see why they'd do it, unless the people demanded
>it in a referendum, and I find that hard to believe since this would be
>seen by many as another perk for the rich. I'd be curious to learn more
>about this...
>

Check out the web site listed above.

>> 
>> So basically the BC government says we'll take your
>> non-resident money but if as you reside SOMEWHERE in the
>> province you can tell your neighbour what to do.
>
>I'm sorry, but I don't follow that. Are you saying that if your primary
>residence is in BC then you can also vote in other BC elections, but if
>your primary residence is outside BC then you cannot vote in any BC
>elections?

Yes!!!  Can you say "disporportionate taxation without
representation?"

> You're right, that doesn't seem fair; but as I say, allowing
>multiple votes at all doesn't seem fair to me.

I can accept your point on multiple votes - but it is really
galling to have that dual standard (non-resident electors).
Either ALL property owners have a say or only  "true"
locals.  But of course on this latter point we may disagree
- and not that I want to run the locality that is not
currently my permanent residence, but that as a taxpayer it
is my right to be able to influence local issues.  To what
degree, however...(starts another thread...)

Tom

Gordon McKenzie <gordmck@1.direct.ca.com> wrote:

...
>> So basically the BC government says we'll take your
>> non-resident money but if as you reside SOMEWHERE in the
>> province you can tell your neighbour what to do.

>I think the issue is that yourself, as a temporary resident of the area,
>would be unrepresentative of the issues the residents have to face. 

True - your point is accepted at least in principle.  But
isn't the reverse also true?

>Does
>someone who vacations in an area have the same rights as someone who
>lives in the area year round?
>
But  how then do you explain the fact that a person from
say, Vancouver (my neighbour  at the lake) can vote while I
can't?

As for  rights of one who spends significant portions of 7 -
8 months versus twelve - I'm not sure.  Which is why I pay
for 12 months of fire and police protection, a full school
year even though we will never use it, and the like.

>
>I know Whistler was fighting over this issue a while back. A bunch of
>people who used the area two months of the year controlling what
>happened 12 months of the year and the actual residents getting very
>upset about it. Anyone know what the end result of that was?

I am not asking about upsetting the balance of local versus
non-local, I'm just trying to figure out why there's
discrimination against non-BC (not non-local!) residents.

Tom

Tom Ruta wrote:
> 
> I thought (esp.) the rural Canucks would appreciate this one
> as might any other non-resident rural land owners.
> 
> We live full time in one province but have a rural place in
> another province (British Columbia).  Last weekend, a public
> referendum was held to decide upon a parcel tax to allow
> natural gas service.  It was voted down by FOUR STINKING
> VOTES!  Given that natural gas is way cheaper, it surprises
> me somewhat, but that is human nature.
> 
> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
> 
> Hardly sounds fair - does it?
> 

Sorry, I don't see it.  Yes, it sucks to not have a vote in a
jurisdiction where you pay taxes, but, at least in North America, the
tradition and/or law is that you can only register to vote at your
primary residence.  You don't get to vote in two places.  It's the same
way everywhere.   

Yes, taxation without representation sucks.  But people in your
situation aren't the only ones living with it. Whenever I travel, I pay
taxes in the jurisdiction where I go (usually taxes aimed at tourists),
but that doesn't give me the right to vote there (which is why rental
car and hotel taxes are so popular with local voters :).   It's just a
fact that paying taxes doesn't give you the right to vote -- plenty of
tax-paying resident aliens here in the USA can attest to that
unfortunate fact.  Even paying higher taxes doesn't give you the right
to vote.  Back to the resident aliens example, many of them don't get
the same deductions citizens get (e.g., can't deduct dependents that
aren't citizens of or living in the USA), but they still can't vote
here. 

My family owns a second house in rural area.  True, we can't vote
there.  And true, our property tax appraisal is inflated and when we
tried to appeal it they laughed us out of there.  But that's the way it
is -- we vote where our primary residence is, only.  It's just a cost of
having a second home. 

Mike

-- 
"Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?"

In article <3471d457.950173357@news.supernews.com>, rutat@cadvision.com wrote:

> "Richard K. Downer" <richard.k.downer@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
> >> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
> >> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
> >> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
> >> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
> >> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
> >> 
> >> Hardly sounds fair - does it?
> >
> >I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location.
> 
> Why is that fair?  I pay taxes (more - up to three times the
> "locals").  Are you suggesting then that I need only pay
> taxes in one location?  Besides, keep reading - I address
> your point further on.
> 
Taxation without representation is tyranny.  Representation without
taxation is just the other side of the tyranny coin.

-- 
Free men own guns - slaves don't  
Committees of Correspondence web page:
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/>
   nhull@mindspring.com

Tom Ruta wrote:
> 
> "Richard K. Downer" <richard.k.downer@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> >> What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
> >> province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
> >> residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
> >> etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
> >> or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
> >> but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
> >>
> >> Hardly sounds fair - does it?
> >
> >I think it's quite fair to only allow people to vote in one location.
> 
> Why is that fair?  I pay taxes (more - up to three times the
> "locals").  Are you suggesting then that I need only pay
> taxes in one location?  Besides, keep reading - I address
> your point further on.

I'm saying that each person gets one vote. You cannot (or at least I
don't believe you should be able to) buy votes by paying taxes in
multiple jurisdictions.
> 
[snip]
> 
> What I, and any reasonably rational and fair and democratic
> individual  might also think is that "taxation without
> representation" is fascist.

And I, and any resonably rational and fair and democratic individual
might also think, is that buying votes is elitist at best.

> 
> >Choosing where you will vote is just another
> >"cost" of your second home; if you can't afford every aspect of owning
> >it, you should sell it.
> 
> Huh?  Due to hard work (and not handouts) I _can_ afford it.
> <I only wish I was a "rich kid"...>

Apparantly not, if you're not willing to pay the price of not voting
everywhere you happen to own property. What about corporations -- they
own property, they pay taxes, yet they don't get a vote. Do you think
any legal entity that owns property should get a vote just for owning
property?

> 
>  But do you realize that non-local residents to an area in
> BC _can_ vote (non-resident elector clause in the current
> Municipal Act)?  WHat that means is that a full time BC
> resident DOES have the right to vote in two places.

I did not know that. If true, then BC has some screwy rules and I can
understand why you're upset. So, does this allow BC residents to vote
mulitple times in national elections, too? Provincial elections? If they
only allow this multiple voting in local elections, how does each
jurisdiction know which votes to count and which to ignore? Are there
multiple ballots? If so, how do they know which ballot to give you
(local only vs. local & national)? It seems like such an administrative
nightmare that I don't see why they'd do it, unless the people demanded
it in a referendum, and I find that hard to believe since this would be
seen by many as another perk for the rich. I'd be curious to learn more
about this...

> 
> So basically the BC government says we'll take your
> non-resident money but if as you reside SOMEWHERE in the
> province you can tell your neighbour what to do.
> 
> Tom

I'm sorry, but I don't follow that. Are you saying that if your primary
residence is in BC then you can also vote in other BC elections, but if
your primary residence is outside BC then you cannot vote in any BC
elections? You're right, that doesn't seem fair; but as I say, allowing
multiple votes at all doesn't seem fair to me.
-- 
Rick Downer
BCAG I/S, Renton
richard.k.downer@boeing.com

These opinions are not mine, they're Boeing's. Boeing paid me while I 
opined them, so Boeing owns them. But Boeing might not agree with them.

In message <3471b5c8.942350368@news.supernews.com> - rutat@cadvision.com (Tom
Ruta)Mon, 17 Nov 1997 21:29:39 GMT writes:
:>
::>
:>What _DID_ surprise me, though, is that non-residents of the
:>province, despite paying taxes HIGHER than local full time
:>residents (they get grants to offset taxes - depends on age,
:>etc.) simply CANNNOT vote in  _any_ BC provincial elections
:>or referenda of any kind.  In other words, I pay full taxes
:>but cannot vote on _anything_ involving my property.
:>
:>Hardly sounds fair - does it?
:>
:>Tom


 We have an even better deal here in Washington State. I live on a
Native American reservation. Property taxes pay for the schools and
fire services. The Native's property is exempt from property taxes, but
everyone, whether a taxable property owner or not, gets to vote on taxing
issues. Needless to say, tax levies pass rather easily. Many get to vote, but
only those living on non-native taxable property get to pay. Whattadeal!


 Regards, Dave
_______________________________________________________________
Dave Miller Marysville, WA USA davem@whidbey.net  My account, my opinion!
_______________________________________________________________

Tom Ruta wrote:
> 
> But  how then do you explain the fact that a person from
> say, Vancouver (my neighbour  at the lake) can vote while I
> can't?

and

> I am not asking about upsetting the balance of local versus
> non-local, I'm just trying to figure out why there's
> discrimination against non-BC (not non-local!) residents.
> 

I don't think this distinction was clear earlier in the thread.  I know
I didn't realize it, and I suspect many other responders didn't either.

I agree, that system is strange at best and unfair at worst.  I think it
is fair to prevent non-residents from voting, on the grounds that they
can vote at their primary residence.  But I agree with you that it's
patently unfair to allow *SOME* non-residents to vote and not others.  I
wonder how they justify that -- there must have been some public policy
justification, no matter how flimsy, for it.  Why do people who support
it think it's right?  I'm not that familiar with Canadian electoral law
or history. 

Mike

-- 
"Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?"

Mike Fox <mikefox@ibm.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
>> But  how then do you explain the fact that a person from
>> say, Vancouver (my neighbour  at the lake) can vote while I
>> can't?

...
>I don't think this distinction was clear earlier in the thread.  I know
>I didn't realize it, and I suspect many other responders didn't either.
>

Okay.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.

>I agree, that system is strange at best and unfair at worst.  I think it
>is fair to prevent non-residents from voting, on the grounds that they
>can vote at their primary residence.  

I would accept that in things like provincial issues.  But
in a clearly local issue, it seems to me that  there needs
to be a more fair way to incorporate non-full time resident
rate payers.

>But I agree with you that it's
>patently unfair to allow *SOME* non-residents to vote and not others.  I
>wonder how they justify that -- there must have been some public policy
>justification, no matter how flimsy, for it.  

The only possible thing I can think of is that in a lot of
cases money from the provincial coffers (added to by BC
residents income tax - of which I pay none; I pay income tax
- lower ones, mind you - in Alberta) might conceivably be
used to support local initiatives.  However, in this case it
was clear:  this was a local appropriation (loan) of funds
to extend natural gas service to a group of properties.  I
wanted to vote to pay the parcel tax so that in a few more
years I can live there year round.  The BC Municipal Act
prevents me, an Alberta resident from voting and as is now
clear, allows non-local BC-ers to vote, though.

Incidentally I have sent a letter to the area MLA (elected
rep) to get his input.  It'll be interesting to see if I get
a response.

>Why do people who support
>it think it's right?  

The only argument (and I'm not making it!) is that where
this has arisen before (like in the Gulf Islands off
Vancouver) is that it is a bunch of ( and I quote an earlier
poster) "rich kids" who want to take over the country.  I
actually have some sympathy for local folks who grew up and
are full time residents in areas that have been "yuppified".
My problem is how to answer the question of what constitutes
fair participation in the democratic process.

Any other arguments?

Tom

Marcia & Tim <caven@mint.net> wrote:

>Tom Ruta wrote:
...
>No, it makes sense to me. You could pay taxes until the cows come home,
>but never have to live with the results of the vote, but the full time
>residents would. Don't forget that other things are voted on all the
>time- not just this one issue.
>

I can accept that full-time residents should have a greater
say (at least in principle).  But how do you reconcile the
fact that BC residents from say, Vancouver, can vote on
property issues in another part of the province while
Alberta residents can't?

>I wish we could disenfranchise the absentee landlords and carpetbaggers
>here in Maine.

What about "snow birds" (those rich folks who winter in
Phoenix although are BC "residents"?

Tom