Opinion: Large land owner's vote carry more weight than small land owner?

[MNBobcat]

We're having an interesting debate in our township. I don't want to discuss the specifics of the topic, but I'm hearing from large acreage land owners who say that because they pay more in taxes and allegedly have more invested in the township than someone who, say, owns a house on 1 acre -- that the large land owners desires should be given more weight than the opinion of someone who doesn't own a lot of land.

I would really love to hear your opinion on this. And I would love to hear your reasoning behind your opinion.

 

[Kenneth in Texas]

yep thats generally the way it is in life. Those with more money usually have more pull than ones that dont, the same i would imagine with land, if you owned one acre and the next guy owned a 1000 the larger land owner will have more weight in things. May not be right in life but seems to be the way it is.

 

[bcp]

Might consider two different voting systems depending on if it is a land issue or a people issue.

Bruce

 

[MossRoad]

We're having an interesting debate in our township. I don't want to discuss the specifics of the topic, but I'm hearing from large acreage land owners who say that because they pay more in taxes and allegedly have more invested in the township than someone who, say, owns a house on 1 acre -- that the large land owners desires should be given more weight than the opinion of someone who doesn't own a lot of land.

I would really love to hear your opinion on this. And I would love to hear your reasoning behind your opinion.

That's not a vote. That's a consideration.

Every adult gets one vote in an election (Chicago being the exception). Every county councilman, board member, etc... when voting on an issue takes in the considerations of his/her constituents and is supposed to vote based on what the majority of his/her constituents have expressed their desires to be. If the elected official votes against the majority of his/her constituents there's a good chance he won't be re-elected (again, Chicago being the exception).

On who pays more in property taxes... the farmer chose to be a farmer and own lots of property that is taxed. He knew that going into farming just as any business owner knows that going into any other business; assets of their businesses will be taxed. It doesn't entitle you to get special treatment from elected officials, although you probably will, because that's just the way things are. For ever and eternity, it has always been who you know, not what you know.

It would be interesting to know the gist of what your township situation is.

 

[Garandman]

We have a house in NH and pay taxes there. But I can't vote at town meeting because I'm not a resident, while the people who used to rent the place could.

If I don't like what they do, I can sell the place...

 

[Wagtail]

It all depends on what the debate is about, however my immediate thought was the quote from the book 'Animal Farm', "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others."

 

[fishheadbob]

There are two concepts here. One being "One man, one vote". The other is called "The tyranny of the majority". Sometimes a happy balance doesn't happen.
Sometimes a farming community gets gentrified; lots of little houses (and voters) pop up changing the balance of power from a few farmers to a larger electorate. There's a town near me where a lot of subdivisions went in not too far from a 3000 cow dairy farm. While the farm has been there since white men arrived and has what you might think of as seniority, 3000 cows worth of manure can really hit the fan with the suburbanites.

 

[redman135]

Large land owners locally are used by council to subsidise the town amenities. ie swimming pool,(most farmers are to far away) library, etc. What farmers want are better roads (gravel and grade) and reinstate the annual used chemical container pickup that was stopped. I pay several thousand in rates. I am not in the 10k club ($10,000 + in rates) thank fully. Being told I have pay for thing that I can't use is quite irritating, then then pleading poverty when my priorities come up is plain infuriating.
I can see where MNBobcat is coming from. BUT quid pro quo. Not one way street,

 

[redman135]

hello fishheadbob, a large town about an hour away expanded its boundaries to a tea farm. The townies went ape when he used choppers (4am-7am)to save a years income ($8,000,000) from being destroyed by frost, this only happens every 3 or 4 years. They believed that $500,000 gave them peace and quiet??? They were the ones who moved next to a working farm. The councilors who moved the boundaries are the real criminals.
The tea farmer was forced out, and years of work was destroyed. - tyranny of the majority.

 

[Avondale]

In our province, farm land owners get a reduction in property taxes (75%) on farm land, (minus 1 acre that their house sits on being taxed at the Rural Residential rate in effect), since the farm land is actually vacant, no one is using services such as schools, refuse collection, etc. Elections are done by residents so even if a farm corporation owns large swaths of land, they do not get to vote, except for those corporate staff that live here. This is not to say that some elected officials do not have electoral support from the wealthy and that they will be inclined to run the municipality in a farm friendly environment. It is also true that the corporations pay taxes that benefit the community, such as income, sales and capitol gains taxes.