[derefr]

> In many areas this would effectively lead to the suburbs being able to dictate urban policy to the inner city

Then perhaps "urban policy" is an unnatural category, combining conflicting interests.

Why not just have two municipal governments—one elected by those whose business interests lie within the city, which would be in charge of the city's business policy (e.g. corporate taxe and grants, arterial infrastructure, commercial zoning); and a separate one, elected by the city's urban residents, which would be in charge of the city's civic policy (e.g. estate taxes and VATs, non-arterial infrastructure, residential zoning, etc.)? These are essentially orthogonal problems that don't really "run into" each-other much; you could have two separate sets of people working on solving them without those groups needing to communicate all that much.

Municipal government is already somewhat factored this way, insofar as e.g. school boards and park boards are separately elected rather than being appointments of the municipal executive; and some of those elections are defined by different political boundaries (e.g. catchment areas for schools) than the election of the municipal executive is. Why not just go one step further?

[MereInterest]

Because there is no division whatsoever between the policies that those groups may apply.

* Should a lot be used to build a park or a parking lot? The park is advantageous to the school next door, so it is a civic issue. The parking lot is advantageous to the businesses nearby, so it is a business issue.

* Arterial infrastructure as purely business? Utter nonsense. Placing a highway means that all houses within a block are now significantly noisier, a civic issue. It decreases walkability, as there is now one direction that cannot be walked, unless you take a mile-long detour.

* Residential zoning a purely civic issue? Nonsense. How would you ensure that people are close enough to reach a grocery store? How could you have mixed-used development, where the ground floor are shops and the higher floors are residential?

The only way this idea makes sense is if a city has already decided to separate out business and civic areas, which requires a significant investment into car-only infrastructure.

[iudqnolq]

What happens when the business govt wants low corp tax, and the residents govt wants high corp tax to fund programs? What happens when they disagree over zoning, ie which side gets to build somewhere?

I don't think you can segment that way.

One related idea that might work a little better (I think it comes from libertarian circles, can't remember exactly where) is representation by profession. So eg x% of the legislature is elected by residents, and other percentages by other groups like business people.

[mehhh]

Representation by industry has worked really poorly for Hong Kong, its a key part of why they have the majority of thr population protesting and demanding real democracy, not the corporate controlled legislature that currently presides over HK.

[iudqnolq]

Thank you for letting me know, I didn't realize it had actually been tried. It appears to have also gone poorly in Taiwan. I absolutely didn't intent to say it was a good idea, merely that it was a similar idea to the parent's that might work a little better.