Should the residency rule for city workers be repealed?

[chet everett]

Nope. Fingers greasy from BBQ and too busy to double check the iPad's auto correct

As to the content I don't see how anyone that really cares about improving the quality of City neighborhoods can disagree -- if there are parts of Chicago that , but for the residency requirement, are not desirable then the sane way to address that is to make the kinds of investments / improvements that would make those neighborhoods desirable. Doing so, especially in a way that demonstrates a commitment to investing in the far off neighborhoods (as opposed to using TIF districts in areas where developers don't need incentives to invest...) would have much better long term stabilizing effects. Imagine if Rahm had a little press conference and said something like "I have received a report that details the negative consequences of requiring City employees to reside inside the limits of Chicago. It makes it harder to attract and retain the high quality workforce needed to best serve citizens of our great City. To address this I am embarking on series of initives to ensure that City workers and others WANT to live in parts of Chicago long considered "enclaves of those that would move away if they could". That is unacceptable. I have seen the corrosive effect of those who feel entitled. The ugly effects of segregation and racial / ethnic isolation first hand when I served in the IDF, no City or state should be forced to create walls, physical or legal, to either keep out unwarranted residents or compel others to be entrapped. Starting today the level of investment my administration will make in the "border wards" will be unprecedented -- I will personally extend a challenge to city workers that currently live in Garfield Ridge or Beverly or Edison Park or along the Oak Park border that if they see "greener grass" on the other side of those divding lines they can call my office and tell me exactly what needs to happennto keep them as Chicago residents. The clock is running. In three years from this date I WILL have legislation before the City Council to end the mandatory residency rules. I am confident that with the investments we will make before those changes go into effect the neighborhoods targeted will become some of the most desirable in Chicago not just for City workers but for anyone that sees the benefits of city living. We will have better transit options. We will have better schools. We will have a parks program rivaled by none. We will increase the desirability of building new shopping and dining options in the neighborhoods. To those that would engage in destructive blockbusting real estate practices be warned: the City's law division as well as the US Dept of Justice will prosecute such abuses. Of course some families will choose to leave, and they are welcome to do so. If they remain committed to delivering high quality work at competitive wages I welcome them to remain part of our workforce. I know just how strong the pull of one's love of Chicago can be even when you put your head to sleep on pillow some miles away.... "

Maybe he could toss in something about his grandfather's stuff being reunitied with his too.

People would suck up that kind of emotional tie in.

[Chicago76]

Corruption in city govt has nothing to do w/ the residency requirement and everything to do with the pay and benefit scale of many city jobs v. comparable ones in industry.

The city has no shortage of applicants for these jobs within the city limits, which is why there is a stack of resumes/applications sitting in someone's office right now to replace a retiring file clerk, etc.

Opening up the application process will do nothing to change who gets those jobs. It will still be the same person living in the city with connections to certain communities that can help during election time.

Look at statewide jobs that are still filled by the politically connected for proof. McPier is an example. They had a team in there that was starting to get a lot of traction there. That team had experience in running large facilities, experience in fund raising via public finance careers, experience with budgeting for a facility of that size, etc. They were replaced by someone whose only relevant experience is running a trade association with a budget of maybe a couple million bucks. He lasted 3 years. Things have regressed there (with the economy playing a major role, but still...). Anyone surprised by this?

[doublenickels]

No.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by doublenickels

No.

Agree!

[thePR]

I don't mind cities, especially large ones, having a residency requirement.

[NWINsouthsider]

I have a house in NW Indiana. My fiance lives in Chicago. I should not have to leave my home to take on a higher cost of living in Chicago to get married. This residency requirement is ridiculous and should at least be able to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

[thePR]

Originally Posted by NWINsouthsider

I have a house in NW Indiana. My fiance lives in Chicago. I should not have to leave my home to take on a higher cost of living in Chicago to get married. This residency requirement is ridiculous and should at least be able to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

No, you need to stick with one choice.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

I can honestly see both sides of this issue and that is why I would probably agree with a case by case scenario.

Seems there are times when an issue may come up that a resident would need to move. However I do think at minimum they should live in the state of Illinois.

There has been a situation where I have been aware of a cook co. sheriff who lived out of state and over the border into Indiana not sure if the county has the same rule but i am almost positive they do.


I can see why the tax payer would want his or her money to stay in the community in regards to a purchase of a home and other things. If your on a public payroll that is a very debatable issue

It is also reassuring to a lot of people to have a police officer living in their neighborhood