Chapter 6 describes how some local governments have given rights of citizenship, including voting rights, to nonresident landowners; in some cases, municipalities have actually limited the franchise exclusively to landowners. Once again, this is indicative of the distinctive nature of local citizenship. Property ownership ceased being a prerequisite for voting in state and federal elections by the 1850s, as citizenship was coming to be seen primarily in ethno-nationalist terms as a matter of shared identity. Local governments, reflecting their history as commercial entities, have been more open to tying the franchise to landownership, and as a de facto matter, many cities today use zoning regulations to ensure that anyone who cannot afford to purchase a home cannot acquire residence, and therefore the right to vote. This de facto property qualification for local citizenship illustrates that local citizenship is constructed as purely private and liberal, predicated upon consumer choice, mobility, and self-interest rather than identity or civic activity.

Chapter 10 introduces the “postmodern” conception of local citizenship. On this view, the city is a “fortuitous association” where people come together in all of their differences, and where members of marginalized groups exercise a form of citizenship by appearing in public and challenging their formal exclusion from political power. Unlike the republican idea, postmodern citizenship rejects walls and rejects the idea that the city should isolate itself from the world; it is open and borderless. Yet, for that very reason, postmodern citizenship is necessarily fragile and ephemeral. A borderless city risks diluting the normative subgroups that make it possible to tolerate the impersonality and anonymity of the city; if they lose their ability to withdraw into their subgroups, people may flee the city entirely for ethnically and racially homogenous suburbs.