[ceejayoz]

No. Per the ruling:

> Where a voter is entitled to vote by virtue of being both a resident and as an owner of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote; where a voter is entitled to vote by ownership of two or more parcels of real property, that voter shall be entitled to only one vote.

However, that seems to get messy with multi-owner LLCs where you might give 1% of each LLC to a bunch of your buddies and have them each vote as POA for theirs.

[SoftTalker]

The POA is to vote as a proxy for the entity. The entity gets one vote. Not one vote per shareholder.

[setr]

If you’re a shareholder in 5 companies, each owning 2 parcels of land, each with their own PoA, and you yourself hold land — then you have “influence” into 6 votes, though only direct ownership of 1 vote

[pseudalopex]

1 person 1 vote does not mean in each city where they own property.

[ceejayoz]

"One person, one vote" is clearly a per-race thing, or I'd violate it by voting for President and Senator at the same time.

[pseudalopex]

This did not refute what I said.

[ceejayoz]

You said:

> The owner votes as themselves, and again as the corporate entity.

Per the opinion, which I quoted above, this is not the case.

(I do think it gets instantly messy with multi-owner corporations, though.)

[pseudalopex]

Refreeze5224 said what you claimed I said.

You quoted Fenwick's charter. Where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by virtue of being both a resident [in Fenwick] and as an owner of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]; where a voter is entitled to vote [in Fenwick] by ownership of two or more parcels of real property [in Fenwick], that voter shall be entitled to only one vote [in Fenwick]. You dispute this meaning?

Refreeze5224 did not say in Fenwick.

[ceejayoz]

The context is clearly "in Fenwick".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48295844