Don’t take community out of councils

Nonresident property owners and businesses could control community councils if Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss’ new ordinance is allowed to pass.

On Tuesday, the borough assembly is scheduled to dilute your right and your responsibility to vote. The mayor has proposed an addition to borough code (revised since introduction) to include property owners as voting members of community councils. Why would the mayor propose this change, and why would the assembly seriously consider it, when:

• a community council is the vehicle for residents to interact with the borough; and

• while the code refers to councils as “voluntary associations,” they are treated as quasi-governmental in official interactions with the borough, demonstrated by required council compliance with the Open Meetings Act, other public process detailed in code, and residence in the council area in which you vote — none of which is required of true voluntary associations or individuals that interact with the borough.

Something isn’t adding up when:

• property owners can already voice their desires and opinions in council meetings;

• property owners don’t need to speak through community councils, they can speak directly to the borough;

• property ownership as a qualification for voting would be an exception to borough, state and federal requirements that voters live where they vote (our assembly representatives even have to live in their districts);

• regardless of stated intent and ordinance language, this code change would negate the one-person, one-vote principle, allowing a vote in every council area in which a property owner owns property (this is nowhere in the actual revised code language, and even the intent neglects any indication of cost effective administration or enforcement);

• in any single community council area this would allow businesses and absent landowners to outnumber and outvote residents, even more so considering the provision for multiple owners of a single parcel of land each having a vote;

• and it raises the issue of the assembly’s authority to decide the question of individual voting rights.

Has the mayor presented us an exercise in Logic 101? Like having your cake and eating it too, the borough dictates the nature of what it calls “voluntary associations,” as it defines community councils, and then denies any relationship to the councils except for interacting with the borough, when they have to follow borough rules. A voluntary association forms itself and sets its own rules (the voluntary part), while a quasi-governmental entity like a community council follows rules the borough establishes in code. Those rules include one-person, one-vote and depend on residence in accordance with state statute.

While this ordinance raises several interesting questions about our borough governance and administration and how that relates to residents, maybe the most meaningful question to me is, what is the point, when giving business and other property owners a vote would bestow greater power on them than on permanent residents to determine both local community and borough direction? Property owners and businesses may well have agendas contrary to those of residents who actually live here. Especially in rural areas with undeveloped natural resources, votes of land and business owners could dictate the conditions of residents’ lives. Is this “open for business,” or “sold to, bought by and run by business?” By the way, how many extra votes would this code change extend to the mayor, individual assembly members and their families, as defined by the ethics code?

For whatever reason, this ordinance appears to be a diversion of limited taxpayer money and scarce assembly and staff time. While existing code isn’t great, this language further reduces its meaning and effectiveness. Seemingly redundant, illogical, apparently impossible to administer and a question of legality, I contend that it’s not good for residents, not good for community councils and not good for the borough. I urge you in the interest of good borough government to urge your assembly representative to reject Ordinance 11-157(SUB).

Patty Rosnel is a Mat-Su Borough resident who lives in the South Knik River area of Palmer.