No I lived in Rennes for a while I couldn’t give the slightest damn about Parisian politics.

I am saying that for many around Paris, Paris is like their very own city center, and they cannot move anywhere or do anything without going intra-muros, every single day. And essentially, out of two equally concerned people, the one who’s richest can afford intra-muros and is the only one who has a voice.

It's not obvious to me that only the people who can afford to live in a wealthy city centre should unilaterally make decisions affecting the greater group of people whose destinies are tied to that city. Saying "that's just how it works" is not really a justification.

Then by what logic do you justify that transient workers would have more power than the own residents of Paris about how the city should run? Because this is exactly what is suggested as more people live around Paris than inside.

There are three groups here

- those who have a say

- those who have no say but should

- those who have no say but who don’t fill the conditions to have it

I am advocating for the second group

And it is not a spectrum, the third group’s condition is often orthogonal to the second group’s condition

Said an other way, "Paris" should be defined as a greater area, because the center has extreme day to day and structural influence over those, but there is a point where it stops being the case, of course there is a degree of ambiguity regarding where to stop, but it is definitive and unambiguous that the current state of affair is unfair

Is there a possibility for middle ground between "no say at all" and "some influence"?

Also, people who live in suburbs and commute to a city centre every day may object to being called "transient workers"!