posted on November 24, 2000 10:09:38 PMDr. Beetle,
Yeah, I know. I was questioning why krs thought it mattered in his earlier post.
Thanks for posting the Wyoming residency law. It just so happens that's the very state I reside in. (Which has absolutely no bearing on my feelings for Cheney. I know very little about him.)
krs,
ah, but now we're getting down to intent.
And unlike the ballots in Florida, where intent is unknown (after all, we don't know who's ballot is whose), Mr. Cheney did in fact live as a resident of Texas for awhile, but has since stated his intent and legally named his residency in Wyoming.
And no, I've never decried anybody's history of lies. I have stated that both major political parties pretty well suck (in not so many words) with cantidate choices.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:14:22 PM
Did you chose to ignore these sections?
E) If a person removes to another state with the intent of making it his residence, he loses his residence in Wyoming; except that in a general election year, if his registration is valid in Wyoming when he
leaves this state and [b]he is unable to qualify under the laws of his new state of residence to vote at the primary or general election, he shall be deemed to have retained residence in Wyoming for purposes of voting
by absentee ballot in the primary or general election[/b];
I guess you mean that by his running for office he is unable to register in Texas? How else could his 1996 voting and residency have no bearing?
(F) A person who takes up or continues his abode at a place other than where his family resides, shall be a resident of the place where he actually abides.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:20:24 PM
Actually KRS I was careful to cite section E as you will see if you go back and read my unedited post. And if Cheney doesn't continue his abode in Texas, which doesn't appear to be his intent since he has (according to an earlier post here) placed his Texas residence on the market for sale, then he will almost certainly be abiding in Wyoming.
If I was choosing to ignore any portion of the law I would have provided a fuzzy attribution rather than an actual link.
Dr. Beetle
Edited to correct my section citation from D to E.
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Nov 24, 2000 10:24 PM ]
posted on November 24, 2000 10:23:21 PM
I felt that Cheney's 1996 residence and voter registration has no bearing because Wyoming law (as cited in my previous link) has no time requirements for residency. As long as Cheney intends to reside in Wyoming, along with his immediate family as you correctly pointed out, then he is by Wyoming's law a resident.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:25:00 PM
ha. Argue like heck, then agree with me.
We can nitpick the wording, spin it around the table and bounce it back and forth.
But. You can change your residence legally rather easily. And it's frequently done for a variety of reasons. Mr. Cheney's change is obviously one of political need. There's no statute against it. You may not think it's right or what the law intended. You might think it makes him a shady character. I see it as dotting his i's and crossing his t's. A necessary legal change to validate his politcal stance.
I see what you're saying. I just don't think it's a valid mudball.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:34:02 PM
I'm sure that his REAL intent is to establish residency somewhat east of either place. As to his intention to reside in Wyoming, only time will tell. However, that he has placed his Texas home on the market as I posted above can work to various purpose. To establish intent to leave Texas, perhaps, though pricing it at twice the valuation may mean that he has no intention to sell at all.
posted on November 24, 2000 10:47:53 PM
If I had wanted to post “facts” to this thread that conform to the apparent fashion now prevalent of providing inadequate identification of the source or attribution intended to veil rather than enlighten I would have posted the following:
From the Tennessee voter registration laws:
A person can have only one residence.
A change of residence is made not only by relocation, but also by intent to remain in the new location permanently, and by demonstrating actions consistent with that intention….
The place where a married person’s spouse and family live is presumed to be that person’s residence, unless that person takes up or continues abode with the intention of remaining in a place other than where the spouse and family resides.
I could have then used the above incomplete citation to argue the case that Gore voted illegally in Tennessee because he:
1. Intends to remain (he wishes) in his current abode, namely Washington D.C. permanently.
2. His family resides in Washington D.C. with him.
This would, of course, have required me to conveniently omit the following section:
No person gains or loses residency solely by presence or absence in the state while employed in the service of the United States or this state, or while a student at an institution of higher learning, or while kept in an institution at public expense.
I am really fond of the final part, keeping him in an institution at public expense. St. Elizabeth’s in D.C. comes to mind. I certainly wouldn’t object to this expenditure of my tax dollars.
Also, I look forward to the posting of the appraisal of Cheney’s Texas residence so that we can all see the same “intent” that KRS points out. Anyone that is so skilled at reading intent is sorely needed as a dimple reader in Palm Beach.
posted on November 24, 2000 11:01:47 PM
As most homeowners in the US are aware, a tax appraisal is not the same thing as a market appraisal. If they were the same we would see a tidal wave of real estate tax reform. I am personally thankful that my tax appraisal doesn’t come anywhere near the market value of my residence.
I admire you tedious adherence to your opinion without letting contrary facts or inconvenient contradictions sway you.
posted on November 24, 2000 11:02:40 PM
Did you say oops yet, dr bug?
Pay particular attention to the exemption status. Now, here in CA that's called the homeowner's exemption and it can only be claimed for one home, that home which is claimed as the primary residence of the owner. If you ain't livin' there, you better not let the tax assessor find out.
I'm leaving now, so feel free to fling your petty little remarks without rejoinder.
posted on November 24, 2000 11:07:52 PM
As does my tax apprisal, as does almost everyone's. A tax appraised market valuation is not the same as the actual market value of a home.
posted on November 25, 2000 12:21:06 AM
Almost everyone's?
Does that supposition give you all the FACTS that you need to conclude that market value as applied in the document supplied here applies to that house?
Is that a tax appraisal? Does it say that it is? Looks like one, but is it?
You persist in demanding facts and find the game of connect the dots to be beyond your capabilities yet now speak of "almost everyone"?
Sorry to have to tell you, bugwheat, but none of the tax appraisals in counties in CA that I know contain the word market as regards valuation. The tax value is determined by the purchase price at the time of purchase plus a nominal 1% per year increase set by law. The tax appraisal hasn't a thing to do with market value. Does that mean that I'm not 'almost everyone'? No. It does not. Though the different counties use different formats I'm pretty sure that no CA tax assessment value has much to do with a market value. Since CA is quite populous, there goes your 'almost everyone'.
posted on November 25, 2000 07:15:34 AM
Sorry to have left so abruptly last night - circumstances beyond my control.
Bet Marilyn Monroe's dress wasn't worth $40,000. either. Someone may very well pay twice the value (as named by krs) for a former residence of a vice president.
Maybe not all people, but many people do list their homes for more than the appraised and/or tax value. And have you ever had a real estate appraisal? Ask three different people, get three different results. Tax valuation as a source? ha.
If I make an investment in real estate, you're darned tootin' I'm going to try for a substantial return when I sell it. After all, if you sell a primary residence it is exempt from capital gains if you roll it over into another primary residence within two years.
I don't think your bucket's holding water. But it's been nice talkin' to ya. It's always interesting trying to understand the otherviewpoint.
posted on November 25, 2000 08:10:08 AM
I don't mean to jump in on this private little grumblefest but I'm curious.
If this tax thingy you posted is for this past year, how come it has the homested value?
I am from Texas and when we claimed the homestead exemption I was told it could only be done for a primary residence and that if I started a business from home I would have to drop it, which I did when I went on ebay.
So if they are refering to this property as a honestead someone at the tax office thinks it is his primary residence.
I wouldn't put to much time fussing about it though. If Bush senior can run for president using a Houston hotel room as his address for residency than this is nothing.
(there were some mad Texans when that happened)
How refreshing it is to have an appearance by someone brighter than a box of rocks who prattle on and on about profits and such.
So if they are referring to this property as a homestead someone at the tax office thinks it is his primary residence.
Exactly so. And if it's Dick Cheney's primary residence then the Texas state electors cannot vote the republican ticket, because Boy George also lives in that state.
