A city isn't just for the long-term residents. It must serve short term residents too. Those interests must be represented.

In the US, people get to vote where they live. We used to require silly things like owning land or being male or being white, but that was a really bad idea.

It is not debatable at all if short term residents should had the same voting rights as long term residents. It is very settled constitutional law in the US, and a completely radical idea to suggest changing a principle that has been fundamental for the period of time when the US has been a strong country.

> Per your example, university students would vote against allocating funds toward schools or playgrounds, because they know they're not going to be raising a family there

I think you have very bad intuitions here. In my college town, long term residents get upset that college students vote in favor of school funding, because the long term residents have kids that have already graduated and they don't want to pay for it anymore.

Shorter term residents have significant disadvantages in local politics, as local politics is largely a function of long term relationships and getting the word out on obscure elections where there's almost zero coverage of candidates, and for positions where few know what they do. Depriving short term residents of even using a vote is a huge perversion to the idea of democracy in the US.