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

[zzvyb6]

Here's a good example, you figure it out:

I live on a 'gravel' road mostly dirt. The north-end folks with 50' of frontage and a north-end subdivision folks wanted the road paved. Frontage residents pay $100 per foot of their property for curb and gutter roadway per side.. Sub residents pay nothing and get the full benefit. All the rest of us at the south end said no. I have 800' of frontage.

Why would I want to pay that much to make the sub residents happy?

We vote based on frontage. I win. This is a specific example. In other cases, on other roads, some wanted sewers because their lakes were starting to look, smell and taste bad. To eliminate the floaters, Township forced commercial grade water and sewers into the neighborhood. Cost is based on frontage. Voting was based on headcount. AND, homes with perfectly good wells and septic , not living on the lake but on the access route to the sewage plant were forced to hook up to water and sewer at $5,000 per residence and pay large fees for processing and maintenance towards the new water and sewer line. After every electrical outage, the sewage plant goes down and guess what happens....

 

[Sodo]

>>>>> 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.

Yes that's the cycle ! Everyone adjusts their perception to their own benefit.

I will add this one:

6. When they can't "do whatever they want" with the land, gov't is at fault. When they can't prevent other property owners from "doing whatever they want", gov't is at fault.

 

[gsganzer]

I recently had a similar discussion with some folks. I live in a town with two colleges. Most of the students aren't property owners, nor are they full-time year round residents. Some argued that the students don't have the same "skin in the game" that landowners and permanent residents do, so the conversation was pretty lively. Things became fairly heated about a year ago when there was a vote to prevent hydraulic fracturing in the City of Denton (first city in the nation to pass such a ban). The "no fracking" ban was mainly pushed by student groups, whereas most landowners didn't want a ban. We've had another recent issue with controversy over a civil war memorial on the town square. Student groups are petitioning to have it removed.

I can see both sides of the argument. As a landowner and property tax payer, some of the laws disproportionately affect us. At the same time, I don't believe in a "poll-tax" either. I don't know what the answer is, but you can see potential problems from any direction. I guess any system is imperfect and all you can do is try to find a reasonable balance.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

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

Steve

I can't presume to understand what those terms mean, but it is a reality that agencies do have to consider economic impact and feasibility. Some regulations are technology forcing and results oriented, so economics do not always win out forever. The fact of the matter is that politics and political forces are at work also, so these things must be considered.

Here's how I predict the final regulation would look:

For the most part, depending on the level of control needed, campfires, ceremonial fires, fireplace fires, fire training, land clearing, agricultural burning and emergency burns would be exempt, provided they did not create a nuisance or a fire hazard. Trash burning would be prohibited where trash pickup is available.

Affected businesses, such as power plants would be given a reasonable time to comply, and existing facilities would be given partial exemptions (i.e., low density smoke allowed) until units were rebuilt or replaced.

That is a highly simplified scenario of the way government regulations are typically promulgated.

 

[MikePA]

I remember it turning orange one year, the whole river was a dirty orange.

These days, the EPA has assumed responsibility for turning rivers orange.

 

[Jstpssng]

I can't presume to understand what those terms mean, but it is a reality that agencies do have to consider economic impact and feasibility. Some regulations are technology forcing and results oriented, so economics do not always win out forever. The fact of the matter is that politics and political forces are at work also, so these things must be considered.

Here's how I predict the final regulation would look:

For the most part, depending on the level of control needed, campfires, ceremonial fires, fireplace fires, fire training, land clearing, agricultural burning and emergency burns would be exempt, provided they did not create a nuisance or a fire hazard. Trash burning would be prohibited where trash pickup is available.

Affected businesses, such as power plants would be given a reasonable time to comply, and existing facilities would be given partial exemptions (i.e., low density smoke allowed) until units were rebuilt or replaced.

That is a highly simplified scenario of the way government regulations are typically promulgated.

I just googled it, Page Not Found
and still don't know what it means.

Actually, based on what I just learned I believe that the theorum is the basis for pollution credits, carbon credits, etc. (and the link works, despite what it says.)

 

[meos1]

I admit I did not read all the responses but the farmer would get federal subsidies as well so that is where the equitability comes from in regards to the 1 versus 1000 acres argument. Im not saying diminish the influence of vote to a 1 to 1 ratio, but 1000 acres of farm land is getting dispensation. If its merely vacant land then no additional sway should hold over the small acreage holder. I do believe that voting should be restricted to those who own land.

 

[ovrszd]

If it's been stated, I missed it. What's the township debate about??

I live under township government. I also run a township road grader as a "retired job". I'm in a very rural township with only 2 small towns partially in it's boundaries. I deal with house/small acreage voters, average size farmer voters and one very, very large (25,000 acres planted annually) farmer voter.

When dealing with residents requests for assistance I respond equally, whether to the small acreage voter or the large farmer voter. I think they all own a piece of the township roads, equipment owned by the township and lastly, it's one and only employee, me.

With that said, beyond all doubt, the best township resident I deal with is the large farmer. I am constantly on his land utilizing my maintenance right of way to maintain and improve roads and drainage. He bends over backwards to help me in any way he can. In my 26 years of employment with the township he has NEVER asked me for any favor. Also in that 26 years he has NEVER refused me right of way even when it's beyond the legal distance of 40ft.

So, if there was some sort of serious debate about changes in my township and the large farmer asked to be heard, he would get my undivided attention.

 

[300UGUY]

These days, the EPA has assumed responsibility for turning rivers orange.

Yeah, it will take awhile for that to die down. I'd hate to be the guy responsible for doing that!

 

[ovrszd]

Yeah, it will take awhile for that to die down. I'd hate to be the guy responsible for doing that!

If you or I had done that it would take awhile for it to die down. In this case, you'll hear no more about it in another week or so. Lots of hush money will be paid by you and I.