arch13

Thank you for pointing that out Mbwuto. The pay rent, which makes them have an equal voice in their community.
For The Jolt's example, he is essentialy saying that those who rent property should have no voice.

Well here's an idea for The Jolt's example. Said college is built, and some land owners are mad enough that they sell their homes and leave. No problem so far. College's increased capacity and extended hours allows some of the renters to go back to school during off hours and increase their market skills. This allows them to procure better pay, thus purchasing more and having more discretionary income. This increased spending is far more than the property owners, thus easily offseting that insignifigant loss. As the eductaion level rises, so do the wages of those that persue that education. Thus, many of those that take the education initiative eventually buy houses, more than making up for the loss of a few disgruntled former landowners.

Now, The Jolt, I never connected you and Ann. I simply commented on two different topics in one post. If it looked like I was saying something else, I apologize, as I was not.

Those that rent or live in area are just as likely to be affected by anything that happens in their community. The basis for who votes, is who is effected by the vote.
Any city that ignores renters will die a quick economic death. Property owners property taxes alone will not ever support a city. In fact, a good percentage of those that rent are white collar workers who have chosen not to "settle" in a given area. They are there for a while to work, and then will move on to an even better job.

I fall into that catagory. I am an architect, and rent for $850 a month. While I may buy a house one day, I have no desire to yet. You are saying that despite being on the upper end of white collar income with a large state tax witholding for filling single, and a large portion of discretionary income that I spend, I count for nothing in a given area.
Well any area that acts that way, I would not choose to live. Nor would any person with an upper level degree that holds high value to the market.

From an economic standpoint, property oners are not nearly as importnat to a city as small business owners. Renters also pay property taxes through their rent, as the tax amount is added to their rent costs. therefor, under your logic, as the "property owner" passes the tax expense onto his tennants, the property was not the payer of the taxes, and therefor should have no vote as the cost was not out of pocket for him. There go people who invest in property to rent's voices also, to be replaced by their tennants who actually paid the bill.

You seem to actually be angry at the ignorance of voters.
I'm going to take a guess that the area you own a home in is having problems, and the solution you have formulated is that it's the non-permanat residents of your area that have caused recent tax increases and social problems.

As for my right to vote, it was defined as the right to choose my government, which is a natural right. Therefor, god given by our founding documents.

Now let me give you a couple hard knocks as an architect.
Do you live in a suburb? Then you owe me money. The cost of building the infastructure to create a suburb is paid by the municipal government and is paid for through sales tax and commercial taxes. Every cent you ever spend on property tax would not cover the cost of the roads, waste, water extraction, etc in your subdivision. Without local business's and state income tax, it would not have happend. (As an aside, many states are now changing their laws to make the developer build all the infastructure, which freezes development fast and on purpose, as the infastructure for a single subdivision of 4000 homes will cost 65 million to build and maintain for 20 years.) So by living in a subdivision, you should thank me for stimulating the ecenomy enough to be able to pay those costs as someone who spends a lot in income tax, as well as making a local business be able to compete by being a high-skill worker, therefor allowing the business to pay increased taxes thorugh my hard work to increase their gross income.

From a social standpoint, the economy and ability for a city to compete is dependendent on all it's residents. Property owners are afforded no more rights than the ownership of the ground they stand on. they are not more imporntant than another group in the economic or social sense. Their increased property tax expense is offfset by the decline in their discretionary expenses as they start paying a mortgage.

On this basis, the vote belongs to every resident, as the area will not survive without them all.
Therefor, your argument that land owners have a greater say makes no sense as they alone are not the central pillar of the economics of a given area. Using your argument, the greatest payers of taxes are business's, so they should get the only vote.

As for voting in my elections again, I also buy municipal bonds, therefor do I have more say in a vote than you? I aided the economy more than you did on another level.
Voter ignorance is a reality, but property owners are just as ignorant. Owning property does not make one better at deciding something, nor does it actually inspire said owners to educate themselves and vote.
And besides all that, often what the property owners want is not in the best interest long term for a city. Land owners come and go, but the city will alway need function on a much longer time frame and with broader needs than those that match a property owner who will only live on average for 78.5 years.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever