Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 269 posts

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#201

Post by singleshot_ »

mindslight wrote: post #189
SoftTalker wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is bought and sold in government-regulated parcels. You can't just split up an acre of land into square foot plots and sell them.

Yes, you can. The county does not appear to be registered land (Torrens title) where the Registry would have some say in whether a transfer is valid. So you can straightforwardly hire a surveyor to draw up a plot plan with many square foot chunks, and then execute and record a different deed for each of them.

What would happen if the deed (a contract) was an agreement to violate the law restricting minimum lot sizes and was therefor illegal?

It would be void and regardless of recordation, no transfer or subdivision would have occurred.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#202

Post by mindslight »

singleshot_ wrote: post #201
mindslight wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can. The county does not appear to be registered land (Torrens title) where the Registry would have some say in whether a transfer is valid. So you can straightforwardly hire a surveyor to draw up a plot plan with many square foot chunks, and then execute and record a different deed for each of them.

What would happen if the deed (a contract) was an agreement to violate the law restricting minimum lot sizes and was therefor illegal? It would be void and regardless of recordation, no transfer or subdivision would have occurred.

My point was that the laws regarding those minimum lot sizes are about buildable lots. Although now that I'm looking into this I think the snag would be trying to record that plot plan, where the Registry would be mechanically looking for a town approval stamp on the plan before they were willing to record it.

But a new avenue has occurred to me that actually saves money on deed costs - nothing prevents multiple corporate entities from jointly owning a piece of real estate on one deed, right? So you could conceivably create one Delaware Series LLC, create an unlimited number of distinct legal entities with that, and then write one deed that lists all of those entities as joint owners of the single piece of real estate. Basically similar to multiple residents living in one house, and each getting a vote (but applied to infinitely scalable corporate entities!)

The fundamental flaw here is the law framing the entity itself as having voting rights (also why this attracts so much attention!), whereas if it were framed such that every beneficial owner with over say 35% of the ownership interest could vote, that would be intrinsically limiting.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#203

Post by ceejayoz »

kulahan wrote: post #169
forgetfulness wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also what constitutes ownership here? Couldn't some Enterprising Individuals open 100 shell companies, pool together resources and form the Legalize Asbestos Consortium, the Consortium buys a plot of land and then each stakeholder of the Consortium counts as an owner of the plot of land?

Asbestos is still used today in some instances. Should’ve used heroin or something

So is heroin.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#204

Post by nullocator »

SoftTalker wrote: post #155
shimman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay sales taxes in other cities I travel in, I too should get a say in how they run their government. Money, after all, is the top virtue in a democracy; if it wasn't why did the founders ensure that slavers had equal representation?

I would say the difference is that as a property owner I have a long-term local presence and vested interest there, I am (in theory) motivated to make thoughtful decisions about local governance, as opposed to a disinterested bystander passing through and paying local sales tax on a soft drink.

I guess the Walton family has a long-term local presence in basically every mid to large town and city in america. Same with Mcdonalds Corp. They have vested interests there (crushing competition, raising prices, lower quality, profit!). And their bigly profits certainly show a more significant vested interest as opposed to just a small property owner or worse a bystander or citizen.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#205

Post by Henchman21 »

akramachamarei wrote: post #194
Henchman21 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice assertion. No. You should be able to vote where you live. Full stop. Nothing else. You don't get more than one vote .

What about the notion of No Taxation without Representation? With that in mind, shouldn't you get to vote wherever you are (substantially) taxed?

No. One person, one vote, with registration tied to where you live.

Now, to discuss No Taxation Without Representation: we haven’t had proper representation since the number of representatives in the house was capped because we ran out of space for more chairs, so personally I consider that ship has sailed. I would love to get back to a place where We The People had representation. Alas we do not. Let’s start by addressing the absolutely absurd chair problem.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#206

Post by Hizonner »

SoftTalker wrote: post #192
floatrock wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be armchair evil for a sec... What is the smallest subplot you can split a parcel into? And are we talking literally land, or would condo ownership suffice? (After all, you typically stack a few condos on top of one parcel of land). The smallest condo is probably dictated by some pesky human habitability rules, but what class of property has the fewest minimum-square-footage zoning rules? Retail probably has egr…

In most areas, especially any that are at all developed, land parcels and minimum lot sizes are under the control of a county or city commission, council, board, etc. Subdividing a property is as expensive and time consuming as you might imagine dealing with the government, you'll probably need a lawyer to do it properly, have to appear before at at least one if not several public meetings or hearings, etc. And they…

You mean under the control of the commissions, councils, boards, etc that are being elected in these very elections? Elections in which many actual humans may not be paying attention to positions on "arcane" land use rules, but the non-human legal entities in question (or their managers) will be?

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#207

Post by throwway120385 »

cogman10 wrote: post #185
SoftTalker wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land is bought and sold in government-regulated parcels. You can't just split up an acre of land into square foot plots and sell them.

Why not? Isn't it fundamentally the same idea as apartment complex tenets getting votes? Why couldn't a business sell off lockers to companies giving them voting access? Walk in Closets? Very small room apartments? What's the minimum size of real-estate needed?

Except if I really wanted to be an awful human being, I'd just buy property, subdivide it, and then multiply my votes in the town election by the number of property units I've individually sold to my various LLCs.

This is kind of a violation of the "one man one vote" ideal that is the bedrock of our society. It easily turns in to "money buys influence" which is exactly the opposite of what made the US a great country to live in. If you don't understand that and you're a US Citizen you should really retake the civics / political science classes from high school.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#208

Post by underlipton »

Henchman21 wrote: post #171
Gormo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It _seems true_ when the people represented by the organizational model never face consequences for their actions, using the corporation as a liability shield. Corporations don't function as a liability shield in the sense you're talking about. The idea that people can individually engage in criminal or tortious conduct without any direct accountability is a myth -- limited liability protects investors from financi…

Excellent reply thank you! So why then does it seem that corporations do in fact shield executives from criminal charges? Is this just collusion among the well-off? Money buys verdicts? I’m happy to take your word on limited liability as IANAL (obviously) but it sure as hell seems like executives ought to go to jail a LOT more than they do. Corporations do terrible things in the world and are seemingly never held to…

Laymen here: my guess would be that the financial and social resources corporate representatives have access to (both personally and through the entity that has a vested interest in them not going to jail) make the prospect of prosecuting them for criminal misconduct unappetizing. It would be a lot of time and money to send people with a lot of powerful friends to jail for a handful of years, at best. As a prosecutor, what's better for your career: that, or spending significantly fewer resources putting street-level criminals in prison for 5, 10, 20 years?

The issues at hand seem distinct but related.

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#209

Post by cogman10 »

throwway120385 wrote: post #207
cogman10 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? Isn't it fundamentally the same idea as apartment complex tenets getting votes? Why couldn't a business sell off lockers to companies giving them voting access? Walk in Closets? Very small room apartments? What's the minimum size of real-estate needed?

Except if I really wanted to be an awful human being, I'd just buy property, subdivide it, and then multiply my votes in the town election by the number of property units I've individually sold to my various LLCs. This is kind of a violation of the "one man one vote" ideal that is the bedrock of our society. It easily turns in to "money buys influence" which is exactly the opposite of what made the US a great country…

Totally agree. The argument I'm making is that this Delaware ruling is terrible for exactly the reasons you are outlining.

The judge effectively said in the conclusion "Trust me, there's no abuse and this is fine".

Re: Corporations can vote in some Delaware elections, judge says

#210

Post by bit-anarchist »

EnergyAmy wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they want the other benefits of the corporate form. Why should they have to choose between the benefits of the corporate structure and exercising the rights the municipality has given property owners?

Because corporations aren't people. Full stop.

To the extent that is relevant to law and ethics, they are. Juridical people, as it goes.
Post reply on HN