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

[newbury]

<snip>and 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.<snip>

Yup, but how much does a desire weigh?
They have to work their desires into things others want, jobs, housing, etc.

 

[jack707]

That's the way it is the person with more money usually wins.

 

[randy41]

i think anything but 1 person 1 vote would be considered unconstitutional. See Reynolds v Sims, a 1964 supremes ruling.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

i think anything but 1 person 1 vote would be considered unconstitutional. See Reynolds v Sims, a 1964 supremes ruling.

Let's say you are a state regulatory agency and are considering a rule that would prohibit any "person" from emitting visible smoke from any operation within the state under any circumstances, subject to a $10,000 per day fine. Due process requires a public hearing so that those affected can have meaningful input into the process.

First the Boy Scouts say they can never have a campfire or ceremonial fire.
Dad says he can never charcoal a hamburger on the grill or build a fire in the fireplace.
The fire department says they can never practice their trade on an old dilapidated building.
The Health Department says they can never order health related nuisances burned.
The Local Utility says it will have to install $500 million dollars worth of pollution control on the 90 year old facility, so they will shut it down, and it is scheduled to be shut down and replaced within 10 years.

Miss Fussbudget says that the smoke from the grill makes her cough, and her eyes water, and the neighbor's fireplace does the same thing.

The local Environmental organization puts on evidence of the health effects of smoke, smog, dust, and its cost to society.


So, how does the agency handle this? Any takers?

 

[Country Geek]

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.

I've witnessed this in my own home area. It usually goes like this:

1. A large landowner in a rural/farming area sells to a developer
2. Developer's plans are opposed by the local gentrifiers who want to keep their surroundings rural, and supported by the local farmers because every other farmer fantasizes that he'll be the next one to cash in on a big developer (they usually don't say this of course, they usually just say "property rights")
3. Development is built, new residents move in, and then vote with the gentrifiers.
4. Original gentrifiers from 2 above are now firmly in control of the local government.
5. The remaining farmers complain loudly about how the place has changed while completely missing that their support of the developer in 2. above was the cause of that change.

 

[fishheadbob]

We can beat this to death; the point has been made. "... but you can't please all of the people all of the time" Lincoln.
There is no easy answer.

 

[tallyho8]

Our forefathers had this exact same dilemma when they were writing the constitution. The problem: Should each state get one vote or should the larger states get more votes?

They solved the problem by having a Senate where each state was represented evenly and a House where states with more voters got more votes.

I don't know how this could be worked out on a personal basis but it would be more fair.

Years ago, you had to be a property owner to vote on new property taxes, but this was found to be unconstitutional, so now if you live in a city where only a small minority are property owners, the majority can vote to tax you to death. This leads to the taxpayers fleeing from the city and the city becoming bankrupt with the federal taxpayers footing the bills.

 

[300UGUY]

Let's say you are a state regulatory agency and are considering a rule that would prohibit any "person" from emitting visible smoke from any operation within the state under any circumstances, subject to a $10,000 per day fine. Due process requires a public hearing so that those affected can have meaningful input into the process.

First the Boy Scouts say they can never have a campfire or ceremonial fire.
Dad says he can never charcoal a hamburger on the grill or build a fire in the fireplace.
The fire department says they can never practice their trade on an old dilapidated building.
The Health Department says they can never order health related nuisances burned.
The Local Utility says it will have to install $500 million dollars worth of pollution control on the 90 year old facility, so they will shut it down, and it is scheduled to be shut down and replaced within 10 years.

Miss Fussbudget says that the smoke from the grill makes her cough, and her eyes water, and the neighbor's fireplace does the same thing.

The local Environmental organization puts on evidence of the health effects of smoke, smog, dust, and its cost to society.


So, how does the agency handle this? Any takers?

I don't know. But I grew up a few miles from the Ford Rouge plant. Many worker's had work cars - only driven to the Rouge and back, every day, often ride shared with neighbors. You didn't want to drive a good car there, since the paint would be eaten off it in a year, the crap coming out of the stacks was pretty nasty. At times the rouge river would catch fire, sometimes they had to close bridges due to the fire. I remember it turning orange one year, the whole river was a dirty orange. I can't answer hypotheticals, but I know that before the EPA came around, things were pretty nasty.

 

[smstonypoint]

So, how does the agency handle this? Any takers?

Simple. Assume zero transactions costs and apply the Coase Theorem.

Steve

 

[murphy1244]

I don't know. But I grew up a few miles from the Ford Rouge plant. Many worker's had work cars - only driven to the Rouge and back, every day, often ride shared with neighbors. You didn't want to drive a good car there, since the paint would be eaten off it in a year, the crap coming out of the stacks was pretty nasty. At times the rouge river would catch fire, sometimes they had to close bridges due to the fire. I remember it turning orange one year, the whole river was a dirty orange. I can't answer hypotheticals, but I know that before the EPA came around, things were pretty nasty.

Good post!
We had a casting plant here that would turn the snow black in the whole area.