Post by LoveTrains on Aug 19, 2014 16:31:29 GMT -5
In some major cities, it is required that public employees - and sometimes that extends to public school teachers, cops and fire fighters - are city residents (or establish residency within six months or a year after getting hired).
What do you think about this requirement?
My city did away with the residency requirements. Some people have now stated that this means that those type of city workers - teachers, cops, fire fighters etc - are less invested in the city because they don't live here. Like for example, they are less bothered by declining school scores and rising crime rates because it doesn't affect them at home (only at work). Some people are suggesting that they bring back the residency requirements and that it will make these types of workers more connected to the city, know the neighborhoods better, etc.
Just curious to know what you all think about these types of requirements and if they are good or bad. It's become an issue in our upcoming mayoral election.
Post by Velar Fricative on Aug 19, 2014 16:48:32 GMT -5
On the day you're hired as an officer in the NYPD, you must reside in NYC, anywhere on Long Island, or within one of the four NY counties north of NYC that are closest to the city. So you can live in East Bumblefuck Orange County but you can't live across the tunnel from Manhattan in Jersey City lol.
I can definitely understand the concerns about not caring about the community you work in if you live further away, but having a 5-borough requirement for the NYPD would make no sense. The rent is too damn high.
Post by LoveTrains on Aug 19, 2014 16:51:14 GMT -5
I guess I also posted this in thinking about Ferguson. If the cops were integrated into the community or were community members, would there be better cop-neighborhood relations?
Post by litebright on Aug 19, 2014 17:19:03 GMT -5
I just heard on NPR this weekend that New Orleans is facing a pretty desperate shortage of police officers. They made big cuts after the population dropped post-Katrina and now the population has largely rebounded, numbers-wise, but there are so few officers that you can call 911 and not get an answer, and if you do get an answer, it might be hours before someone can come if they respond at all.
They've done away with their residency requirement and have a $600,000 marketing budget. I think the NPR piece said they were running film-noir style ads to try and attract interested candidates.
I *think* we have that in DC and we even have homebuyer programs for them because part of why many didn't live in the city is housing is costly here. I do think having them live IN the city and parking their car on streets and in driveways helps reduce crime because of the visibility factor.
And I have to think living in a community no matter who you are makes you more vested in it.
The one DC cop I knew didn't live in DC (but that was ~15 years ago).
In general, I don't think it's a bad idea but think there should be some sort of exemption process. The obligatory anecdote: my uncle lives ~10 miles outside a small rural town. He has lived in the same house for ~30 years and has worked for the town at some level for the entire time. He was even an elected official for the town/county for many years. He was the "acting" town manager for ~1 year and they wanted him to fill the role for real, but the town has residency requirements for this position. Another wrinkle, his wife works for the county, which also has residency requirements. The town eventually waived the requirement for him because it's pretty clear he's committed to the town and area where he lives within the town limits or not.
Post by redheadbaker on Aug 19, 2014 17:52:33 GMT -5
Philly has had residency requirements for as long as I can remember (my dad has been on the force since 1982). Their reason was like the one you mentioned above -- if cops are "part" of the city they're protecting, they'll have more incentive to make it a better place. My parents said it was to guarantee the city more money through the city wage tax.
Anyway, they were experiencing a shortage of qualified officers, so they changed the requirements. It used to be that you had to be a resident before even applying. Now you need to establish residency (if you're not already) within 6 months or a year of being hired (I forget which).
They also recently allowed more senior officers with a certain amount of years on the job to move OUT of the city.
Post by redheadbaker on Aug 19, 2014 17:55:27 GMT -5
Meant to add, I don't think they help. While Philly is "diverse," individual neighborhoods are very racially divided -- Roxborough is mostly white, Olney is mostly black. And officers are not allowed to live in the district in which they are assigned. So, they don't have any connection to the neighborhoods they patrol.
Post by irishbride2 on Aug 19, 2014 17:57:00 GMT -5
Dumb.
I get the intention of it. I really do. But in practice they do not work. Maybe back in the day when people started a job at 18 and retired with the same job, but we are a transient society. Are people expected to move every time they get a new job just to be within the borders of a district?
ETA: and it ends up limiting you, often, to promoting from within....which is never good. (not that you can't promote from within but you should never be LIMITED to that. )
Meant to add, I don't think they help. While Philly is "diverse," individual neighborhoods are very racially divided -- Roxborough is mostly white, Olney is mostly black. And officers are not allowed to live in the district in which they are assigned. So, they don't have any connection to the neighborhoods they patrol.
That is interesting. So that doesn't really bolster the concept of the officers being part of the fabric of the neighborhood. On the other hand I could see it being necessary for cut down on corruption. We have that problem in my city (see convicted felon running for re-election after resigning not one but two previous terms).
I think there are places where it would help but I think there are also a ton of places where it's mere lip service. So you live in Chicago but do you live in the neighborhood you are patrolling?
But I don't think teachers or other types of service personnel should have to.
On the day you're hired as an officer in the NYPD, you must reside in NYC, anywhere on Long Island, or within one of the four NY counties north of NYC that are closest to the city. So you can live in East Bumblefuck Orange County but you can't live across the tunnel from Manhattan in Jersey City lol.
I can definitely understand the concerns about not caring about the community you work in if you live further away, but having a 5-borough requirement for the NYPD would make no sense. The rent is too damn high.
I was under the impression that the residency requirement had to do with taxes. The theory being that NYC doesn't want to give you money to give to another municipality via taxes. Basically - if you are a receiving a NYC salary then you should pay NYC taxes. So now for certain NYC jobs (i.e., NYPD) if you live outside the five boroughs but in any of the other six allowed, you pay the 1127 tax - which is a tax payable to NYC in the amount that your NYC tax would be if you were a NYC resident. And even among the five district attorney offices in NYC - the Bronx was the last to do away with the residency requirement for Assistant D.A.s. and only did so a few years ago.
Post by penguingrrl on Aug 19, 2014 18:27:07 GMT -5
While I can definitely see how having public employees be part of the community can be beneficial, I think it's not a practical rule. Most teachers I know very purposely don't live in the district they teach in to allow some privacy in their personal lives, not to mention that many don't want to teach their own children (and in the school districts I'm from there's 1 teacher for each age per subject, so 1 8th grade English teacher; avoiding teaching your own children is impossible). I could see where a police officer would rather the anonymity of not living too close to work and being able to keep their spouse and children away from their professional lives (thinking about safety if someone is upset with the officer and seeks retaliation).
I'm also not sure you would attract talent in the highest crime areas and am equally sure that in very wealthy areas they wouldn't want to raise salaries to a level that would allow public servants to live there comfortably.
So you can live in East Bumblefuck Orange County but you can't live across the tunnel from Manhattan in Jersey City lol.
Ahem.
Eta; my whole town is cops and FDNY thanks to that law. Apparently we lost a load of people on 9/11. I didn't live here at the time and it never occurred to me until someone told me.
Cleveland had a residency law that got overturned fairly recently (by the state). Actually, there is a neighborhood that is filled with firefighters and police to this day.
A year or two ago they made the restriction to apply to the surrounding counties because a few firemen were living OUT OF STATE.
I can see the logic but I don't know if it really works in practice. You want to be able to attract the best, not just the best that are willing to live in city limits. (I do think you should live fairly close though. Like, not across the country).
Cleveland had a residency law that got overturned fairly recently (by the state). Actually, there is a neighborhood that is filled with firefighters and police to this day.
A year or two ago they made the restriction to apply to the surrounding counties because a few firemen were living OUT OF STATE.
I can see the logic but I don't know if it really works in practice. You want to be able to attract the best, not just the best that are willing to live in city limits. (I do think you should live fairly close though. Like, not across the country).
Eh, out of state isn't necessarily a huge issue in some places (if you live in a small state or close to the border). I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of the cops and fire fighters in my city live out of state, and hey, if we don't have residency requirements it doesn't bother me.
Cleveland had a residency law that got overturned fairly recently (by the state). Actually, there is a neighborhood that is filled with firefighters and police to this day.
A year or two ago they made the restriction to apply to the surrounding counties because a few firemen were living OUT OF STATE.
I can see the logic but I don't know if it really works in practice. You want to be able to attract the best, not just the best that are willing to live in city limits. (I do think you should live fairly close though. Like, not across the country).
Eh, out of state isn't necessarily a huge issue in some places (if you live in a small state or close to the border). I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of the cops and fire fighters in my city live out of state, and hey, if we don't have residency requirements it doesn't bother me.
I understand that for sure. (NYC vs. NJ). This was someone working in Ohio and living in California.
Eh, out of state isn't necessarily a huge issue in some places (if you live in a small state or close to the border). I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of the cops and fire fighters in my city live out of state, and hey, if we don't have residency requirements it doesn't bother me.
I understand that for sure. (NYC vs. NJ). This was someone working in Ohio and living in California.
Post by spidervain on Aug 19, 2014 21:52:54 GMT -5
Residency requirement annoy me. I work in a field that has the possibility for emergencies, so I've heard it argued that it is beneficial for my employer to have me reside within a certain driving distance for emergency response purposes. I disagree with this argument because the chances that I'm just hanging out at home when I might be needed are low. One city I worked for required me to live in the city limits and when I wanted to buy a family home from my grandma, I had to get permission to move since it was just outside the city limits (even though the drive time was the same). The city I now work for does not have a residency requirement. One of my biggest issues with a requirement is that I work for a city, my husband works for a school district. Both are suburbs within a 15-20 minute drive and if we both had a residency requirement to meet, we would not be able to do so. Seems silly to limit your employee pool for most positions, especially teachers, clerks, etc. who don't have any emergency or director responsibilities.
I understand that for sure. (NYC vs. NJ). This was someone working in Ohio and living in California.
How is that even possible?!?! That is insanity.Â
I know. It was some crazy trading of shifts thing? I can't remember specifics of how they did it, but that's why they went from no residency requirement to one that says you have to live within a certain radius. Which makes sense to me, in case of large scale emergencies, etc.
Post by spidervain on Aug 19, 2014 21:57:49 GMT -5
Our state code actually addresses this issue.
"Employees shall not be required to be a resident of the city in which they are employed, but they shall become a resident of the state within two years of such appointment or the date employment begins and shall remain a resident of the state during the remainder of employment. However, cities may set a reasonable maximum distance outside of the corporate limits of the city, or a reasonable maximum travel time, that police officers, fire fighters, and other critical municipal employees may live from their place of employment. Each employee residing outside the state on the date of appointment or on the date employment begins shall take reasonable steps to become a resident of the state as soon as practicable following appointment or beginning of employment."
Cleveland had a residency law that got overturned fairly recently (by the state)
Interesting. Does this apply to all residency requirements in the state or just Cleveland's?
Re: OP. I think it very much depends on the specific area you're talking about and the specific requirements. The attitude towards police really changed in the city where I grew up once they got more people policing the neighborhoods where they grew up. And this is a city that has had a race riot in this millennia.
Cleveland had a residency law that got overturned fairly recently (by the state)
Interesting. Does this apply to all residency requirements in the state or just Cleveland's?
Re: OP. I think it very much depends on the specific area you're talking about and the specific requirements. The attitude towards police really changed in the city where I grew up once they got more people policing the neighborhoods where they grew up. And this is a city that has had a race riot in this millennia.
Statewide. Applies to requirements to be in city limits.
On the day you're hired as an officer in the NYPD, you must reside in NYC, anywhere on Long Island, or within one of the four NY counties north of NYC that are closest to the city. So you can live in East Bumblefuck Orange County but you can't live across the tunnel from Manhattan in Jersey City lol.
I can definitely understand the concerns about not caring about the community you work in if you live further away, but having a 5-borough requirement for the NYPD would make no sense. The rent is too damn high.
I was under the impression that the residency requirement had to do with taxes. The theory being that NYC doesn't want to give you money to give to another municipality via taxes. Basically - if you are a receiving a NYC salary then you should pay NYC taxes. So now for certain NYC jobs (i.e., NYPD) if you live outside the five boroughs but in any of the other six allowed, you pay the 1127 tax - which is a tax payable to NYC in the amount that your NYC tax would be if you were a NYC resident. And even among the five district attorney offices in NYC - the Bronx was the last to do away with the residency requirement for Assistant D.A.s. and only did so a few years ago.
I am a wife to an NYPD Sgt. Of Detectives. This is the crux of the NYPD residency requirement. They have tried to frame it as the city needing immediate response to times of crisis because Orange County is so much closer than Hoboken, though. We do pay the penalty tax for living outside of the 5 boroughs.
H is a firefighter, and thank god his department doesn't have a requirement. We bought our house when he was on a different department, and there's no way we could have sold it when he started this position. It's also 40 min away from our families (who serve as our DCP for our child), has very few housing options that would be desirable to us, and other issues that make it not just easy to pack up and move. Their school system is pretty decent, but there isn't a single parochial school in the county, and H went k-12 in a Catholic school and is making rumblings that he'd like that for our son.
I'd argue that for fire fighters, teachers and other public servants excluding cops, residency requirements don't make much sense, at least not city limits requirements. Within 30 miles, or an adjacent county or something, ok, I can deal. But directly within the city is ridiculous.
For police, I understand the idea behind it, but firmly believe that education and positive exposure both to and from the public is far more important than simply living in an area.
My BIL (who I have loads of other issues with, to take this as you will) is somebody who works as a Town Manager, and has in several communities... but for some reason I continue to fail to grok, he's taken not one, but at least two jobs with residency requirements, where they gave him time to move into the community, he didn't, then he got fired and wondered why.
IMHO, as the freaking Town Manager, he should be living in the community. Full stop.
Others, I can see both ways. I wish police and fire did. Teachers I definitely see the argument against.
Post by LoveTrains on Aug 20, 2014 21:49:33 GMT -5
I just got back from a forum for mayoral candidates and they all mentioned that they want more officers living in the neighborhoods. Interesting. Two of them made direct comparisons to Ferguson and racial disparity and the sense that since the officers don't live in the city they aren't as invested in it. One candidate said our city is 60% minority population (so 40% white) but our police force is mostly white.
The tax issue also came up - that it would be better for city for well paid cops to live there, pay taxes etc.
Just interesting because no one brought up any of the negative points you all mentioned which I think are important to consider.
I think in theory it sounds good, but not in reality. Quite honestly, there are many teachers, etc. that just can't afford to live in the cities or towns in which they work.
Also, I know Boston has the residency requirement, and it seems to only "apply" to certain people.
this is true, which is why requirements for moderately priced dwelling units/workforce housing in zoning codes would need to go hand in hand with residency requirements in HCOL areas.
I don't know that a cop needs to live in the neighborhood to really do his job well, but the training in many areas probably needs a TON of changes to get rid of this us vs. them mentality. Like dude with knife in fergeson - a neighborhood cop who knows his beat would know that that guy isn't right. He'd probably know his name. He might be able to talk him down. Random PD from who knows where just sees "dude with knife" and fires away. I don't think you need to live down the street to get to the point where you know your neighborhood regulars and the local business owners and all that jazz.