Friday, March 5, 2010

A strange suggestion

It seems to me, that there needs to be a change. If you are going to run for ANY political position in a city, state, you have to be a home owner. I mean, why would we want to vote for someone who rents and can leave at any time, right? If raising taxes doesn't affect the person who vote for them, but doesn't have to pay them, isn't this a conflict of interest? Since our economy is so shaky right now, I started to look at what our own city has. The mayor just got a condo, so he has only been ok for only about a year. But with Common Council, there are 15 members, 5 Democrats, 10 Republican, right? Well, I know for a fact that there are 2 people who rent, 1 from each party. Since I don't know several others, I'm not sure about the rest.

And then there is Chris Shay. When he was running for Congress, he had a home in CT but his family lived in DC which meant he rented it, maybe for a loss, but I don't think so. When he lost, he sold both homes and moved into a new home in MD. Now that he is thinking of running again, he is looking to rent a place in Bridgeport, CT. I feel that if you're gonna run, you have to have something to loose too. It's only fair, right?

Maybe if EVERYONE had something to loose when they vote, the votes would mean more to the voters, what do you think?


  1. Renters pay property taxes -- not directly, but no landlord is going to be eating the tax bill.

    Frankly the extent to which renting (as opposed to owning) is stigmatized in our society really bothers me. The funds used to subsidize homeownership (and by extension, sprawl and unsustainable land use policies) in our tax system could be put to much better use making life more pleasant, healthy, and economical in the urbanized areas where 80% of Americans live.

  2. A couple of centuries ago only landholders could vote. Wouldn't it be odd for us to go back to a system we once rejected as unfair? Stranger things have happened.