If I want to live in a place and I can't afford to live there because "reasons" and that means I can't vote there, but due to work, etc I'm "stuck" commuting there, how do I affect change there? Property rights trump all and I can eff off? I mean that's clearly not the case; zoning exists so property rights aren't the end-all, be-all thing.
In fact, zoning is what is keeping people from building the kinds of buildings that people who can't currently afford living in city $X from living in city $X. Does one particular unit of government deserve more respect than all others?
Well, zoning is still determined largely by the local voters, albeit on the aggregate level rather than the individual property owner level. (For the most part, subject to legal challenges, etc.)
So, no, as a non-resident you don't have much of a say. Although, if you're working in a city, your company that is making you "stuck" working there presumably has some sway as a taxpayer.
I understand that "owns property here" is a reasonable approximation for "should have a voice in what goes on here" but there are lots of cases where it breaks down. Places that you "have" to travel through, places that you work but don't live, etc. Should a person who owns two houses and splits their time 51/49 REALLY only be allowed to vote about things at one of those houses? I'm strictly speculating; I don't own any properties so it passes me by completely. But it would certainly seem not entirely in line with democracy to do that to people.
