Then you're moving into tautological territory. Those rights are held by your landlord. If he proxies them to you, then you have them, if he doesn't, you don't.
I am thinking of instances where a landlord's interest are aligned with tenants generally. For instance, fighting neighborhoods who use political connections to oppose rental development in central city neighborhoods ("mini dorms").
Discrimination is discrimination. These are public neighborhoods. Protecting one's property value does not make discrimination noble or any less discriminatory.
I think it's still true that you have somewhat less rights since you're not (directly) paying the property taxes.
If you are a voter, you have the same rights by law, and this would apply to the issues you brought up.
If you are not a voter, you do not and should not have the same rights because your social and economic investment in the community is not as great as your landlord's, or your underwater neighbor's.
I am speaking of my rights in the community, not to the property. That is, should there be a speed bump on the street, should a WalMart be allowed to build on the condemned lot around the corner.