How does a City best address these issues to the "out of town" property owner who's decisions ultimately affect the renter resident?
We get this a lot in my home area where a large percentage of property owners are weekend-only visitors from the Twin Cities metro and/or snowbirds who don't live here year round and so are seen as not fully vested. There two ways I've seen this handled, both I am not a proponent of.
- Hold your elections when they are gone. That is basically what our school district does, holding their bond referendums in March/April when they are least likely to get turnout by those they consider non-vested (but can still credibly claim to be listening to them because it's not January/February when they are all gone).
- Apply shame. Make the case that they owe it to the whole to pay.
Both of these are premised on the notion that they are not vested, which I disagree with. They bought property in the community --- they did what we asked them to do when we approved their development -- and it's pretty unreasonable for us to now say they don't count. This would be even more true if they were simply renters of single family homes, as you described.
I don't have a good answer for this beyond the obvious: you need to find common ground to work from. That might be difficult, inconvenient, and ultimately less successful to one's objectives than finding a way to invalidate the opposition's vote (or right to participate fully), but I don't see another way to have a community of people do things that will last.
Sorry if that is not the answer you were looking for.