Give local voices priority

We would be remiss if we let the move to give nonresidents a voice in community councils pass without comment.

But we are of two minds on the topic, finding both good and bad in Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilibiss’ proposal.

On the one hand we have no problem allowing nonresidents to have a say. People with vacation homes in an area should probably have a say in the direction the community takes.

If, for instance, an area has a majority of nonresident landowners who use the area in their downtime, it would seem unfair to let a minority of residents decide the area’s fate.

In fact, we have less of a problem allowing nonresidents to vote at the community council level than we do for things like road and fire service. In those areas, nonresidents without any plans to develop their properties can, if they choose, often hold up much-needed improvements, essentially denying people who actually live there paved roads and fire protection.

Community councils, by contrast, are much more toothless, acting in an advisory capacity to the borough assembly rather than as lawmakers. That’s another reason we don’t find the ordinance terribly troubling. There isn’t a whole lot at stake here.

On the other hand, the ordinance gives corporations a seat at the table through designated representatives with voting rights.

This we find very troubling.

Far be it from us to advocate the status quo, but we are more comfortable with the current arrangement in which corporations come to councils to give presentations and tell neighbors what they plan to do with their holdings rather than take a seat at that table to decide the direction a community will take.

We like the idea of a community council as a check, albeit a small one, against too powerful corporate interests. With the U.S. Supreme Court having already decided that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, we are reticent to give corporations yet another hallmark of personhood, especially if that hallmark happens to be the right to vote.

Corporations have many other avenues to get their way, even some that we as individuals lack. To give up one more individual-exclusive avenue is a bridge too far.

Given the deeply conservative and business friendly nature of the current borough assembly, we hold out little hope that the body will eliminate that clause pertaining to corporations.

But hope is not lost. The measure is written so community councils can decide whether they want to change their eligibility rules. We see nothing in it that would prohibit councils from taking the changes on piecemeal, giving voting rights to nonresidents but not to corporations.

So if, like us, you don’t believe corporations should be granted a vote, your best bet is to take the matter up with your community council.

Get involved and stay involved. There are issues at stake that require your attention.