Don’t make some more equal than others

One person, one vote in one place of residence is a basic tenet of our democracy, right? Well, that could change if Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry Devilbiss’ proposal to allow nonresident property owners to vote in multiple community councils is approved April 3.

The more parcels of property someone owns in different areas, the bigger their voice in the public process, perhaps being able to vote in up to 22 different community councils. That’s not the equality our country has worked so hard to achieve.

Proposed Ordinance No. 11-157 would allow community councils to let nonresident landowners vote in council decisions, but the purpose of community councils is to provide a forum for people living within a given community to solve local problems and advise the borough on matters of local importance. Residence in the area is the same idea as being registered to vote in a given area.

Nonresident landowners and businesses are already welcome to join community council discussions. Council members already consider all the voices, resident and nonresident, that are heard during a meeting. All property owners have the right to voice their concerns at community council meetings, and also directly to borough boards, commissions and the assembly. Some property owners have condo or homeowner associations. The chamber of commerce and other business associations and advocacy groups are very effective at providing input to the borough government.

Many people choose to live in our more rural areas because they don’t like more city-styled rules. Often, nonresident landowners who may have vacation homes have different ideas about a community than the people who actually live there.

Some folks argue that without voting rights absentee landowners are subject to “taxation without representation.” That’s simply not true. Community councils are advisory only, they do not have the authority to tax or enforce compliance — those are functions of the borough. Nonresidents also have the ability to voice their concerns during the development of comprehensive plans.

People who have the advantages of wealth and ownership of multiple properties can decide where they want to vote. Beyond that, nonresident landowners can freely exercise their rights to be heard. For example, if you live and vote in Mat-Su and own property in Fairbanks you still have to pay Fairbanks taxes, but cannot vote there. There is still access to community councils and all levels of government in Fairbanks where one’s voice can still be heard.

Last night at our community council meeting, we had a long and thoughtful discussion about this proposed ordinance. (It was very civil, too, which I’m proud to say is the norm with this group!) People argued both sides, and I was honestly unsure how the vote was going to go. To my great surprise, the vote was unanimous against the mayor’s proposal. I hope the assembly listens!

If we tie voting privilege to property ownership, instead of residence in an area, does that mean a person gets one vote for every parcel owned? Does it mean corporations can vote, exercising their “free speech” rights? This proposed ordinance is fraught with problems, many of which surfaced in our community council discussion.

Some people should not be more equal than others. Our democracy is based on one person, one vote in one declared place of residence.

Help stop voting inequality in our borough at the April 3 borough assembly meeting. No one deserves an extra vote because they happen to own more land, cars or anything else.

Mark Masteller lives in Palmer.