View Single Post
Old 03-02-2021, 09:28 AM   #13
Senior Member
MAXUM's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 2,734
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,907 Times in 796 Posts

Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
I would rather have the non residents dependant on MY sense of reasonableness and fairness rather than me dependant on them and having to live with the their "I don't use it so I don't want to pay for it" outcomes.

There you illustrate the very problem - those that are voting aren't paying the lions share so they don't have to care paying pennies on the dollar of what they vote for. Those that are paying the majority are forced to sit down, shut up and don't whine or complain, you chose to buy here. But why is that? Why not say hey full time residents chose to move into a town where the majority of property owners are non-residents? Those are the people that are paying the majority of the tax burden so sit down, shut up and enjoy the nearly free ride? LOL of course the latter is frowned upon yet interesting the former is perfectly fine but equally obscene.

I guess I have a fundamental problem with people being taxed and have zero say in decisions that directly effect those tax bills.

Again I do not believe that if allowed non-residents would be an overwhelming voting block against any town spending initiative. It is simply not in their interest to do so. What do you think would happen to property values in a town that is poorly run because it is cash starved? On the other hand I think a lot of these big ticket items with multi million dollar bottom lines might just receive far more scrutiny than they do now. That I see as a good thing. Nobody is going to vote down a new fire truck if it is needed.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: