Should Non Resident Tax Payers vote?

[Steveo]

It just wouldn't work because the non-resident is always going to vote down town expenses that he does not utilize. The biggest being the school system. It is typically the largest budget item and one that the non-resident doesn't use in any way, so he will vote against any expenditure for it.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

It just wouldn't work because the non-resident is always going to vote down town expenses that he does not utilize. The biggest being the school system. It is typically the largest budget item and one that the non-resident doesn't use in any way, so he will vote against any expenditure for it.

I don't agree. Using your logic, any resident of the town without kids or grandkids of school age or under will always vote against education spending.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but I think it's in everyone's interest to have well-educated citizens, no matter where that education is obtained. If I was allowed to vote in local elections as a non-resident, I would absolutely support local education, even if my family didn't "utilize" it.

[Rusty]

NH HB 1161 was introduced on January 4th, 2012 for an act establishing a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections. The bill was sponsored by House Representative Mark Warden (r) Hillsborough.

Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Status Date: 2/8/2012
Current Committee: ELECTION LAW
Committee of Referral: ELECTION LAW
Date Introduced: 1/4/2012
Due out of Committee: 2/23/2012
Floor Date: 2/8/2012

http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...nyear=2012&q=1

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

I don't agree. Using your logic, any resident of the town without kids or grandkids of school age or under will always vote against education spending.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic, but I think it's in everyone's interest to have well-educated citizens, no matter where that education is obtained. If I was allowed to vote in local elections as a non-resident, I would absolutely support local education, even if my family didn't "utilize" it.

I don't agree. While some residents without kids will want to have good schools because it increases their property value and other values, I think that some residents without kids will tend to vote against school expenses. Either way they are counter balanced by the residents that do have kids. All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side. And because the non-residents are a fairly large number they would skew the numbers to the against side considerably.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

I don't agree. While some residents without kids will want to have good schools because it increases their property value and other values, I think that some residents without kids will tend to vote against school expenses. Either way they are counter balanced by the residents that do have kids. All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side. And because the non-residents are a fairly large number they would skew the numbers to the against side considerably.

Well, then I guess that we'll agree to disagree. My main objection is with your use of the word "always," as in "All non-residents don't have kids attending the schools so they will always side to the "against" side." Using absolutes in any argument can be tricky, and if I were allowed to vote in a local election as a non-resident, I would not "always" vote against school expenses. Who knows, maybe I'm the one exception to your rule, but I doubt it.

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I like to think that voting for or against stuff that takes taxpayer dollars isn't always about the individual taxpayer's immediate bottom line; it's also about what you get, as a citizen, and not directly, for the money spent. Good schools and well-educated kids are a good thing for everyone, not just the parents and families of the school kids. If you're not homeless, do you automatically vote against spending tax dollars on homeless shelters and other assistance? If you don't ever use the town parks and recreation facilities, do you always vote to defund those programs? I hope not, because otherwise, why live in a community?

[MAXUM]

I was recently talking to a family member of mine who has owned waterfront in Wolfeboro since the late 60s. They attended a town meeting and was insulted by the fact whoever it was from the town that was speaking referred to the water front owners as "cash cows". Sure you can sell and move on, but that's not the point.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I was recently talking to a family member of mine who has owned waterfront in Wolfeboro since the late 60s. They attended a town meeting and was insulted by the fact whoever it was from the town that was speaking referred to the water front owners as "cash cows". Sure you can sell and move on, but that's not the point.

"Cash Cows" are a product, business, etc, that generates a continuous flow of money or a high proportion of overall profits.

Wolfeboro gets @70% of it operating revenue from "water front" property owners.

I would say that the term "Cash Cows" that was used by someone at the "town meeting" was/is pretty accurate.

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Rusty

"Cash Cows" are a product, business, etc, that generates a continuous flow of money or a high proportion of overall profits.

Wolfeboro gets @70% of it operating revenue from "water front" property owners.

I would say that the term "Cash Cows" that was used by someone at the "town meeting" was/is pretty accurate.

From what I've been told Gilford is the same way. Most of their tax money comes from waterfront homes.