In the last few decades, residency in some of the world’s desired destination cities has become a privilege, as housing supply has not kept pace with population growth. This has led to a significant rise in housing prices and consequently to the exclusion of middle- and low-income populations on a large scale. These developments have received only scant attention in political theory despite their prominence in local policymaking and their contribution to processes of redrawing the boundaries of inclusion into local political communities. My focus in this article is on the question ‘is it morally permissible for cities to sort members by economic means, and grant the better-off privileged access to residency?’ I explore this question by examining the main arguments used to support the city’s right to selectively admit would-be members. This allows me to delineate the limitations of the city’s general duty to be accessible to all segments of society and to present particular cases where the city has special obligations to incorporate nonmembers.

I N many places, the days when home, work, family, and social ties were linked together in one self-reliant and self-contained local community are long over. As transportation networks permit people to commute considerable distances, and create regional housing and labor markets of extensive territorial scope, many work outside their city of residence. Consequently, the amenities and economic power of numerous cities rely directly on workers who reside in other locations. These cities provide services and utilities for a residential population as well as a vastly inflated daytime population. Some of the city's regulations, actions, and policies-including keeping the streets safe, transportation arrangements, stimulating economic development, and policies related to issues such as working conditions, childcare facilities, or even recreation and retail issues-directly affect these individuals' well-being. 1 Commuters benefit from the work city's facilities, amenities, and services on a regular basis and develop thick and ongoing social and institutional ties with it. Some commuters even reside in the work city for part of the week, returning to their city of residence at weekends. 2 Furthermore, in some locations, commuters are obliged to pay local taxes, such as business and sales taxes.This article discusses the boundaries of democracy in the local context. Specifically, it focuses on a group of individuals who are not residents of the city, non-resident workers (referred to here as commuters), asking whether they should be part of the city's franchise. In so doing, this analysis endeavors to 1 Workplace childcare is an emerging model of childcare that has developed in response to the steady rise in the number of mothers in the workforce over the last three decades in many parts of the world. Workplace childcare can enable parents to participate more easily in the workforce; see, e.g., Hein and Cassirer 2010; Hunter 2018. 2 For the purpose of this article, I use the terms 'city of residence' to denote the city in which a person has her home address and 'work city' to denote the city in which a person works. This distinction reflects the fact that people often work outside the city in which their home address is located.