Many folks of varied means divide their time between two homes, perhaps working at one so they can play at another. Some fly south in winter, others drive north in summer. New York law recognizes that it is hard to make an outside judgment about which home means more for voting purposes. It is left to the voter to decide.

TRR’s editorial “The Cochecton voter question” recognizes the Appeals Court ruling as consistent with New York law, but TRR feels this law may be unfair to single homeowners or renters, mirroring Judge Schick’s complaint that some voters have “more rights than other citizens have.” I respectfully suggest that TRR has not thought this through. The law was fashioned to increase fairness and allow individuals with competing interests to choose where their vote will best protect those interests. They still possess rights to only one vote in only one place. Phrasing this in terms of rich versus poor is a false narrative.

There may be wealthy landholders in Cochecton with large single homes, or low-income city workers who’ve scraped together enough for a country getaway, concerned with preserving its property value. Second homeowners are welcomed for their business patronage and tax payments but are resented when they desire to influence local political decisions. As for those with one residence not being able to vote outside their community, why would they want to? They also vote where their interests lie.

Citizens should be able to vote where they determine their greatest interests are, where they invest time, energy and dreams in the community and feel at home. They should not be restricted to voting where someone else decides they belong. I am a single homeowner in Cochecton and I value all my neighbors’ participation in local decision making.

Allan Rubin

Cochecton, NY