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.
It is a foundational principle of our nation that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Fortunately, restrictions on the right to vote based on property ownership, wealth, sex, race, or payment of a poll tax are long gone and never likely to return.
Residence is a bedrock requirement for voting eligibility, so nonresident property owners have no right to vote.
In Montpelier we passed a noncitizen voting charter change that applies only to legal, noncitizen residents in city of Montpelier elections and we are awaiting approval by the Legislature. It was not acted on in the 2019 legislative session.
There is no reason to think that allowing a small number of noncitizens to vote in local elections will have any meaningful effect on the outcome of those elections. Moreover, because of the small numbers involved, the need to maintain a separate list for noncitizen voters will involve minimal administrative burden.
It just doesn't "feel right" to you? Well, there was a time when allowing non property owners, or black people, or women to vote didn't "feel right".
Harry, a few years ago, the homeowner next to me put a mobile home on his property, lived there and rented the main residence. So two separate families were able to vote in the local elections.
I have heard before that renters indirectly pay property taxes, but I don't agree. You pay property taxes when your name is on the deed of the home and you get a property tax bill. Some people rent so they don't have to have the burden of paying taxes. If someone isn't a permanent property owner, they shouldn't be allowed to vote to raise taxes on my property. If it is so important to a person to be included in the community, then save your money and purchase a home. Unlike other States, it is possible to purchase an inexpensive home. The neighbor that was renting that home decided to move a short time after Town Meeting Day. She went and voted to raise the education taxes when she wasn't even going to be living there. What was more appalling is that I watched her child for years and didn't charge her a penny, but she didn't have a problem voting to raise my taxes.
I think this is going to open up a can of worms....give non-citizens legal voting rights in local elections and next push to give them the right to vote in the general election. (Not that they aren't voting illegally anyway)
I don't often rise to bait, but in this case your argument is idiotic. (Not, in any way, saying that you are idiotic, but that your proposition is.)
I was BORN in Vermont, probably before you were a gleam in your dad's eye. I can trace roots back at least seven generations. I had to rent for a while before purchasing my home. I have crocodile tears for your insane whinge.
You are conflating an irritation about a renting voter who voted to raise taxes with the concept of home and property ownership. Somehow, the idea of community and community values seems to have escaped you.
Whether or not you charged for child care is ... not a valid argument. I once gave an old car to a neighbor. Do you find that a valid argument for me judging his marital choices? Arrgh.
It is a foundational principle of our nation that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Fortunately, restrictions on the right to vote based on property ownership, wealth, sex, race, or payment of a poll tax are long gone and never likely to return.
Residence is a bedrock requirement for voting eligibility, so nonresident property owners have no right to vote.
In Montpelier we passed a noncitizen voting charter change that applies only to legal, noncitizen residents in city of Montpelier elections and we are awaiting approval by the Legislature. It was not acted on in the 2019 legislative session.
There is no reason to think that allowing a small number of noncitizens to vote in local elections will have any meaningful effect on the outcome of those elections. Moreover, because of the small numbers involved, the need to maintain a separate list for noncitizen voters will involve minimal administrative burden.
It just doesn't "feel right" to you? Well, there was a time when allowing non property owners, or black people, or women to vote didn't "feel right".
The gov't feels that nonresident property owners have "no right" to vote, but they have no problem making them pay property taxes. These are people that own a piece of this State and pay dearly for it.
You should not compare people that are not American citizens to races and genders that are.
Let me ask you something Jack...since your post has made it quite clear that you work in the political field. Shouldn't your priorities be to help legal residents of VT first? I talk to so many legal citizens of this state that are struggling every day because of a Legislature that loves raising taxes, but you want to focus on people that aren't US citizens voting rights? Something is wrong with this picture because the legal citizens are being ignored. I sure hope there will be changes to make sure only legal US citizens can vote in the general election.
It is a foundational principle of our nation that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Fortunately, restrictions on the right to vote based on property ownership, wealth, sex, race, or payment of a poll tax are long gone and never likely to return.
Residence is a bedrock requirement for voting eligibility, so nonresident property owners have no right to vote.
In Montpelier we passed a noncitizen voting charter change that applies only to legal, noncitizen residents in city of Montpelier elections and we are awaiting approval by the Legislature. It was not acted on in the 2019 legislative session.
There is no reason to think that allowing a small number of noncitizens to vote in local elections will have any meaningful effect on the outcome of those elections. Moreover, because of the small numbers involved, the need to maintain a separate list for noncitizen voters will involve minimal administrative burden.
It just doesn't "feel right" to you? Well, there was a time when allowing non property owners, or black people, or women to vote didn't "feel right".
Our Constitution ties voting rights to citizenship because having a vote also carries with it other responsibilities, including serving jury duty, the potential for being drafted for military service, and a requirement to have some loyalty to our country (i.e., a foreign citizen can't be charged with treason for aiding an enemy of our nation). And as elections periodically get decided by a single or a few votes in this state, it's not really accurate to say this won't have a significant impact.
I don't often rise to bait, but in this case your argument is idiotic. (Not, in any way, saying that you are idiotic, but that your proposition is.)
I was BORN in Vermont, probably before you were a gleam in your dad's eye. I can trace roots back at least seven generations. I had to rent for a while before purchasing my home. I have crocodile tears for your insane whinge.
You are conflating an irritation about a renting voter who voted to raise taxes with the concept of home and property ownership. Somehow, the idea of community and community values seems to have escaped you.
Whether or not you charged for child care is ... not a valid argument. I once gave an old car to a neighbor. Do you find that a valid argument for me judging his marital choices? Arrgh.
I have always been respectful to you Harry, whether or not I agree with you, but I am disappointed you would respond to my post in this manner. I watched this couples child for many years to save them money and so they wouldn't have to worry about their child being with a stranger. These people knew they were not going to be part of this community because they were moving. They admitted they were jealous of what my husband and I had. So there is more to this than what I mentioned in the last post, but I didn't feel the need to go deeper with it. She also stated that she voted so the teachers could be paid more (she was a teacher in another district), even though she was moving because she thought the teachers were not competent. I always feel that one hand washes another. I help you, you help me. I helped her save money, but she didn't care how her vote was going to affect me. I would have felt differently if she was going to be living in the community.
Now, you may have gone back generations, but you also moved because of the high taxes. Didn't you state that in another thread?
How nice it must be for people to not have to suffer the consequences for voting to raise taxes. You have not been a property owner in VT in many years. My education taxes went up $500.00 a few years ago and $200. this year, even though the district consolidated the schools. I am not talking about small increases.
You're becoming a cranky old man, Harry. Arrgh, back at you!!
I have always been respectful to you Harry, whether or not I agree with you, but I am disappointed you would respond to my post in this manner. I watched this couples child for many years to save them money and so they wouldn't have to worry about their child being with a stranger. These people knew they were not going to be part of this community because they were moving. They admitted they were jealous of what my husband and I had. So there is more to this than what I mentioned in the last post, but I didn't feel the need to go deeper with it. She also stated that she voted so the teachers could be paid more (she was a teacher in another district), even though she was moving because she thought the teachers were not competent. I always feel that one hand washes another. I help you, you help me. I helped her save money, but she didn't care how her vote was going to affect me. I would have felt differently if she was going to be living in the community.
Now, you may have gone back generations, but you also moved because of the high taxes. Didn't you state that in another thread?
How nice it must be for people to not have to suffer the consequences for voting to raise taxes. You have not been a property owner in VT in many years. My education taxes went up $500.00 a few years ago and $200. this year, even though the district consolidated the schools. I am not talking about small increases.
You're becoming a cranky old man, Harry. Arrgh, back at you!!
When you don't include relevant information, and a response is based upon the information you do supply, there is some responsibility you must bear for being less than forthcoming.
Even with the added information, it seems apparent that the person voted with her heart, and with the best interests of the community as a goal, not out of spite (based upon the new information you have shared).
No, taxes were not my reason for moving out of state. I have SADS, I had an undiagnosed low thyroid issue that made me intolerant to cold - almost to the point of Reynaud's disease, I had constant colds and nosebleeds from the dry winter air and exposure to people, I had no job opportunities in my chosen field, and a few other reasons. I had to come to grips with that I had to live south of the Mason Dixon line to survive.
I've always been one who is willing to step up and challenge. I remember when the F-4s were flying over my home at 4 AM and we were told in a community meeting that it was "the sound of freedom." I responded that no, the true sound of freedom was peaceful silence at 4 AM. I totally respect the need for training, and for strong defense, but in peacetime I expect testosterone fueled afterburners to be silenced rather than being used in attempts to impress and intimidate.
Yes, I am comfortable with challenging you, because I see you taking a personal offense and turning it into a reason for policy. You are playing from the point of view of a group. Your group is homeowners. You see homeowners as people with common values and needs. The person who "done you wrong" was a teacher and HER group with common values and needs was teachers, more than homeowners. She was being true to her group, even if she felt they were not to her standards.
People often vote according to group affiliation. There isn't anything inherently wrong in that. although Vermonters tend towards independence and having wild hairs and sometimes silence on how they voted. Will non-property-owning residents vote according to the groups they are part of? Sure. Most will continue to live in the area and be subject to their votes. The idea that they will vote out of ill-will towards property owners seems unreasonable, unless property owners in general have caused them some major slight.
When you don't include relevant information, and a response is based upon the information you do supply, there is some responsibility you must bear for being less than forthcoming.
Even with the added information, it seems apparent that the person voted with her heart, and with the best interests of the community as a goal, not out of spite (based upon the new information you have shared).
No, taxes were not my reason for moving out of state. I have SADS, I had an undiagnosed low thyroid issue that made me intolerant to cold - almost to the point of Reynaud's disease, I had constant colds and nosebleeds from the dry winter air and exposure to people, I had no job opportunities in my chosen field, and a few other reasons. I had to come to grips with that I had to live south of the Mason Dixon line to survive.
I've always been one who is willing to step up and challenge. I remember when the F-4s were flying over my home at 4 AM and we were told in a community meeting that it was "the sound of freedom." I responded that no, the true sound of freedom was peaceful silence at 4 AM. I totally respect the need for training, and for strong defense, but in peacetime I expect testosterone fueled afterburners to be silenced rather than being used in attempts to impress and intimidate.
Yes, I am comfortable with challenging you, because I see you taking a personal offense and turning it into a reason for policy. You are playing from the point of view of a group. Your group is homeowners. You see homeowners as people with common values and needs. The person who "done you wrong" was a teacher and HER group with common values and needs was teachers, more than homeowners. She was being true to her group, even if she felt they were not to her standards.
People often vote according to group affiliation. There isn't anything inherently wrong in that. although Vermonters tend towards independence and having wild hairs and sometimes silence on how they voted. Will non-property-owning residents vote according to the groups they are part of? Sure. Most will continue to live in the area and be subject to their votes. The idea that they will vote out of ill-will towards property owners seems unreasonable, unless property owners in general have caused them some major slight.
If you're last statement is meant to be directed at me, being the property owner, that's wrong. In a nutshell, this family just use people. At my age, I should have known better, but I am never too old to learn from bad mistakes. A new family bought the house a few years ago and I decided to keep to myself. I will have to look back on what I wrote, but I thought I was saying that both the property owner and a rental family were living on the property, so two families were voting that lived on this property. I still feel that the property owner should be the person voting in local elections though. If local taxes are being voted on, they are the people affected by the results. I don't think it is fair that people that haven't planted permanent roots in the community vote on local tax issues.
This is only my opinion. It wasn't meant to bait you or anyone else. I take offense to the sarcasm in your earlier response. I actually like to hear other's voices so I can weigh the facts as long as it is done in a respectful, non-demeaning way. I have changed my opinion in the past with other topics. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of people on the forum that personally attack posters that don't think the same way they do.
Why would you feel that the F-4s flying over your house were meant to "impress and intimidate" you? I understand if they were doing it every day at 4 AM, but I wouldn't take it personally. If the US was being attacked, that would be a comforting sound, but I understand where you are coming from.
If you're last statement is meant to be directed at me, being the property owner, that's wrong. In a nutshell, this family just use people. At my age, I should have known better, but I am never too old to learn from bad mistakes. A new family bought the house a few years ago and I decided to keep to myself. I will have to look back on what I wrote, but I thought I was saying that both the property owner and a rental family were living on the property, so two families were voting that lived on this property. I still feel that the property owner should be the person voting in local elections though. If local taxes are being voted on, they are the people affected by the results. I don't think it is fair that people that haven't planted permanent roots in the community vote on local tax issues.
This is only my opinion. It wasn't meant to bait you or anyone else. I take offense to the sarcasm in your earlier response. I actually like to hear other's voices so I can weigh the facts as long as it is done in a respectful, non-demeaning way. I have changed my opinion in the past with other topics. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of people on the forum that personally attack posters that don't think the same way they do.
Why would you feel that the F-4s flying over your house were meant to "impress and intimidate" you? I understand if they were doing it every day at 4 AM, but I wouldn't take it personally. If the US was being attacked, that would be a comforting sound, but I understand where you are coming from.
The F-4s WERE flying about every day, enough that all of us in and around the flight path were disturbed. The community meeting had somewhere around forty or fifty people attending. Some were obviously military or support personnel, and some were irritated homeowners. Very few had the temerity to actually speak. I did. When "good ol boy" actions are "justified" by attempts at not so subtle bullying, I react. Afterburners do have a legitimate purpose. Hot shot pilots using them like exhaust cutouts on a '56 pickup at 4 AM is not one of them. Somehow, I think someone higher up in command got that message. YMMV.
I use many verbal and literary tools when I write, including sarcasm. What I used was not sarcasm. It was a straight up response to the class and power oriented viewpoint that you put forth. I've got a house on my property that used to be used by tenant farmers. I've heard neighbors and others talk of the miserable lives they led because of their lack of power. I know all about how power naturally gravitates to the most wealthy and the most connected. Denying the vote to people who rent is, IMO, one of the most vile actions that can be done in politics. I am astounded that such an attitude is even suggested. I rose to the bait / got triggered because it goes against the core of my egalitarian values. It also is an attitude that has no respect for renters, and is therefore deserving of equal treatment.
I'll put forth some scenarios and information in hopes of giving you insight into the flaws of your opinion. Whether or not you change your opinion is up to you. I apologize in advance that this is not structured, but off-the-cuff and disjointed in nature.
1:
When you get much beyond the position of dogcatcher, just about every elected position is only achieved with money and the backing of those who already have power. Not only that, those who run under the banner of either party are instructed to toe the line or be excommunicated. The result is that those who frame the proposed laws and taxes are ALREADY those who are landowners and those with more power than the average Joe.
Your renter didn't frame the proposal she voted on. If you want to properly direct your outrage, direct it at those who wrote it and brought it up for a vote. As I repeatedly said, you are conflating your outrages.
2:
If your community is in part a bedroom community, it has property owners that have no business voting on taxes for schools. If people don't have children and own property, they have no right to vote on taxes for schools. I'm just extending your "logic."
3:
A community is made up of all the PEOPLE within it, not the property in it. Be careful what you wish for, as many property owners these days are foreign corporations, hedge funds, fast food chains, oil companies, and shell companies for investors. Just for a moment, consider a property ownership right to vote. I have a bottle of scotch that says I own one square foot of land in Scotland. Great! I want my vote! Along with all the other "landowners" we should be able to vote for cheaper scotch by voting out any taxation of the distillery. Hmmm, that doesn't quite work. How about voting rights based upon the acreage of land? Fantastic, if I am an owner of timberland and goat lots. I get to wield more power than any ten of my workers with chainsaws and bulldozers. I want my mansion to be tax free. How about by property VALUE? As banker, I am duty bound to step up and say "Ahem. My bank has mortgages on all the land in the town and the real "ownership" is my bank. We just rent the land to the mortgagees, with the promise that it will be theirs once they pay us off. Until then, we get to dictate that they have insurance to cover us, pay taxes, maintain the property to standards set by us. My bank should have all the voting rights." Of course that is nonsense, as the state, the county, the town all chime in to say - "We have the right of eminent domain, we have the right to tax, and if you don't pay taxes we get to take your property. You are, in effect, JUST RENTERS!"
4:
A community is made up of all the PEOPLE within it, not the property in it. People do stuff. Land sits there. I have never seen a mountain pick up a hoe and tend a crop. I've never seen a river build a plumbing system. I've never seen a willow branch educate a kid... well, maybe once or twice with a little help...
Commitment to community might be what you are driving at, but you are driving to Jeff from Stowe by way of White River Junction. (That is a type of sarcasm, BTW) When you live in a community, you have to experience the good and bad of what the community has to offer. That happens whether you own, rent, or couch surf. You have actions that impact the community. You may have a job, own a business, teach, shop, or just pay for taxes and utilities and drive to the next town over to do anything but sleep.
5:
Renters exist as people, just as much as property owners. Renters are every bit as enmeshed in the fabric of communities as those who happen to own property. Roughly 30% of households in Vermont are renters. Your opinion is poorly supported, and IME, poorly considered.
6:
The fact that some people/families are not productive community members is a fact of life that exists outside of any right to vote. Retired people, disabled people, military vets with PTSD, and drunks are still part of the community. If they have not been stripped of rights by having committed and been convicted of a felony, they have a right to vote. Now that politicians are recognizing that they too may get convicted of felonies, even felons are beginning to have the right to vote restored...
You felt betrayed by a family. Got that. To take your displeasure out on 30% of households in Vermont is a bit extreme.
Nylier's posts do illustrate one reason I've been advocating to abolish property taxes and replace them with the income tax for years now. Then taxes would be related to an ability to pay them, no one need fear losing their home, and there'd be no reason for a property owner vs renter divide as these comments give an example of. It would also in many ways simplify the administration side of things as it would eliminate the need for property appraisals, the appeals associated with them, etc.
Nylier's posts do illustrate one reason I've been advocating to abolish property taxes and replace them with the income tax for years now. Then taxes would be related to an ability to pay them, no one need fear losing their home, and there'd be no reason for a property owner vs renter divide as these comments give an example of. It would also in many ways simplify the administration side of things as it would eliminate the need for property appraisals, the appeals associated with them, etc.
Ooooff. This brings the discussion into progressive and regressive taxation, tariffs, economic stimulus, and a bunch of other stuff. You do know that income tax was initially ONLY for the ultra-rich? It was a way of combating the oligarchies of the early 20th century in a socially responsible way. Creating a merchant class with power (middle class is a nicety) was seen as good for the country and growth. To do that, monopolies had to be broken, and the ground made fertile for a group of entrepreneurs with more drive than money or power.
That discussion goes way beyond voting rights and beyond Vermont borders. The idea of primitive democracy in town meetings is an amazing and wonderful expression of community and the power of community values. The idea that any disenfranchised person can be heard in public forum, provided that they are succinct and cogent, is not only brilliant, it is about the best that humanity has to offer in the way of social justice.
The idea that on local matters, all of those who live in the area have both voice AND vote is respectful to all, while taking the overall needs of community into account.
The idea that a minority will sway popular vote, denies the idea of "popular." If a ballot item is contentious, then all those involved have input and access to a voice. The fear is that some group other than those in current power, will be usurpers. History has shown that power is fleeting and constantly shifting, despite the best efforts of the leaders of the Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians, Catholics, and so on.
I've been informed that the Vermont I grew up in no longer exists. I have not fought against that idea because I recognize some truth in it. Seems like I may have some companions now.
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.
