This is a classic example of "lets ask only half the interested parties".
If you could magically track down every person who would in the future purchase a new-build home in Whitby, and did a vote of those people, then they would presumably be massively against having their home under a restrictive covenant forcing someone to live there the whole time.
This brings up an interesting point. Taxation without representation. If you have a house in the area you will be taxed on it annually via council tax. But if you aren’t resident there you don’t get any say in the local politics.
This is just ridiculous. This is akin to someone wanting to vote in a state or country that they don't actually live in, but plan on moving there in the future. Even if they have a job offer there, you still have to be a resident first before you actually get to vote in what happens.
> you still have to be a resident first before you actually get to vote in what happens.
Citizenship provides for voting rights while away for some countries. Eg in UK you can vote for up to 15 years after leaving the country. In NZ you can vote up to 3 years after you last visited. In Australia it’s 6 years.
It makes sense to me (maybe not for 15 years but 3-6 ok). As a citizen who will return home eventually, it makes sense to look out for the country by helping pick its stewardship.
Sure, for an ex-resident, partially because you might move back. The person I was replying to was talking about people who might want to move there in the future. This is more akin to being a UK citizen and thinking you should get to vote in the US now because you plan on moving there in a few years.
Quoted: ...track down every person who would in the future purchase a new-build home in Whitby, and did a vote of those people...
How about I arrive at a popular beach early one morning when it's nice and quiet, and hold an election of all people currently on the beach whether we want to allow more people onto the beach?
Obviously everyone on the beach doesn't want the beach to get crowded, so they'll say no..
But the democratic approach is to also ask those who were planning on arriving at the beach later, even though they haven't arrived yet.
A beach is obviously a different sort of use than housing, and you don't need a beach to sit on. You do need shelter, though, and in a lot of areas (which are far from any beach), you'll die without shelter.
But if you insist, this is more like folks wanting to make sure there is enough beach for everyone and that everyone can use it - so they make limits on the portions of beach that people can own.
If you could magically track down every person who would in the future purchase a new-build home in Whitby, and did a vote of those people, then they would presumably be massively against having their home under a restrictive covenant forcing someone to live there the whole time.