From a letter in this morning’s Day:
As nonresident taxpayers in Groton, we contact the town every fall to find out if there are any referendum items that would impact the general fund mill rate. We then make it a point to vote responsibly on the issue(s) come November.
To our surprise, we were told last fall that we are no longer eligible to vote. We contacted the mayor’s office, the Charter Revision chairman and an attorney for the town.
The answer to our query? It was an “unintended consequence of the last charter revision.”
Well, if it makes these folks feel any better, as a member of that Charter Revision Commission, I can say that, at least to my recollection, their sad plight was a fully intended consequence of the last charter revision. How sad that these folks, who live in Amelia Island, Florida, have been deprived of their right to “vote responsibly” on matters in which they have nothing but a financial stake. In this brave new world, however, they might consider going to the Supreme Court, along, perhaps, with Wal-Mart, to argue that they, along with our corporate property owners, should have the right to vote on the way in which our town is run, as I’m sure that responsible voting implies that they care, for example, that our kids have decent schools.
If it makes them feel even better, they might consider that things could be worse. My wife and I own a small piece of property in Vermont. As non-residents, our property taxes are approximately triple those we would pay were we residents. I’m not complaining. In fact, it’s something we might consider here.
Post a Comment