Should the residency rule for city workers be repealed? (Chicago: crimes, home)

[Tex?Il?]

Chicago (and Milwaukee) are two of the few big cities left that have a residency rule for city workers (and most specifically) cops.

Here is an article that talks about it.

Basically in the days of white flight and blockbusting, it was an appropriate and necessary rule that helped to stabilize neighborhoods and provide a stable tax base.

However, in this day and age when city living is at its most popular and gentrification and revitalization has been happening in cities all across the country, is this really necessary anymore? Should it be repealed?

I think so. It totally is not necessary and may even drag Chicago from progress.

Many city workers, and especially cops and firefighters really don't place a high premium/priority. They are children and grandchildren of more conservative white working class people, that may have left the city years ago, if they could. Although, I don't want to steretotype, much of that subculture is the last bastion of the racial tensions that plagued the city back then.

And the fact that they are always around the harsher realities of urban life, they may be happier if they could move theire family well out of the city (especially to the south and southwest) where suburbs with large semi-rural lots are cheaper) where they would be happier rather than forcing them to stay in neighborhoods that are changing anyways in ways that they aren't crazy about.

ESPECIALLY in Chicago, that has such a huge tax base, and young professionals and empty nesters. Detroit, Cleveland, and St. Louis, three cities that could have used the tax base of city workers to stay within city limits repealed their laws over a decade ago, and other cities never had them to begin with ( I don't think LA ever did, today many of them live in places like Simi Valley just west of the San Fernando).

What do you think? Should we let Edison Parkers move them and their families to Prospect Hts if they want to? Or Garfield Ridgers out to Orland Park if they want?

[Tex?Il?]

BTW: Here is the suntimes article.

Does it matter where city workers live? Rethinking the residency rule - Chicago Sun-Times

[Drover]

I'm ambivalent about the repeal for city employees. I default toward less government restriction versus more unless there is a compelling public policy interest for more restriction. I'm sympathetic toward the argument that tax revenues paid mostly by city residents and businesses in the form of wages and salaries should be encouraged to stay in the city as much as possible. But I'm not convinced that's a compelling enough reason to keep the residency requirement in place

I also think you underestimate how many neighborhoods are still basically held together by the residency requirement. If it ever gets repealed, I'm getting the hell out of my neighborhood and probably the city altogether. On the other hand, I'm not comfortable using city employees as tools of social engineering.

I'm definitely in favor of repealing the residency requirement for teachers. It's hard enough persuading good teachers to teach at CPS, especially long-term. Making it even less appealing for them strikes me as bone-headed.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

However, in this day and age when city living is at its most popular .....

Well right there you're mistaken. So I stopped reading any farther.

[Halsted]

Shouldn't those jobs be for real Chicagoans?

[Chicago60614]

Many areas of the city would collapse. I'd prob look into moving if they repealed it. Sure downtown and up north would be ok, but huge other areas would be TOTALLY destabilized.

[Savoir Faire]

Originally Posted by Chicago60614

Many areas of the city would collapse. I'd prob look into moving if they repealed it. Sure downtown and up north would be ok, but huge other areas would be TOTALLY destabilized.

Pretty much most of the outskirts, such as the southwest and northwest, as well as the far south. Some say that the southwest is already in decline. This will be the nail in the coffin.

[chet everett]

If the neighborhoods are in decline the way you address that is through sorts of options than sane political leaders often pursue -- less tolerance for petty crimes, more incentives for new development, nicer amenities for existing residents as well as the kinds of things that attract young families: schools, parks, libraries, well programmed parks .

Having ridiculous residency rules only hurts the desirability of City employment, which launches a vicious cycle of dependancy and corruption. Folks that are coonnected see regular City dwellers as "marks" ripe for being taken advantage of. Hardly the kind of "civil servant" that wants to provide high quality work at a competitive wage!

Yes, it would be short term destabilized for the handfulmof city neighborhoods that are on the fringes and loaded with cops, firefighters, streets and san foremen and assorted muckily mucks of other city departments, but over the long haul,miff it forced the city to IMPROVE and COMPETE it really pays off -- if the kinds of investments that need to be made to make outlying neighborhoods as attractive as places on the northside lakefront happen the city would ultimately gain from increased densities and tax revenues.

This is not rocket science -- ask folks that chaffe under draconian rule if they'd be happier having a home that os not propped up by artificial demand driven by rules for residincy OR having a nice solid place inside or outside the city limits and I can guarantee there is no magic inn the minfdsmof most city workers to loving. "on the safe side" of boundary that residence on the far side riis termination if discovered...

[pvande55]

I believe the Mayor is considering relaxation of the residency rule in exchange for concessions on pay and benefits. Most suburbs do not have such requirements except for police and fire. But if the city wants to keep that restriction it is their business.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by chet everett

If the neighborhoods are in decline the way you address that is through sorts of options than sane political leaders often pursue -- less tolerance for petty crimes, more incentives for new development, nicer amenities for existing residents as well as the kinds of things that attract young families: schools, parks, libraries, well programmed parks .

Having ridiculous residency rules only hurts the desirability of City employment, which launches a vicious cycle of dependancy and corruption. Folks that are coonnected see regular City dwellers as "marks" ripe for being taken advantage of. Hardly the kind of "civil servant" that wants to provide high quality work at a competitive wage!

Yes, it would be short term destabilized for the handfulmof city neighborhoods that are on the fringes and loaded with cops, firefighters, streets and san foremen and assorted muckily mucks of other city departments, but over the long haul,miff it forced the city to IMPROVE and COMPETE it really pays off -- if the kinds of investments that need to be made to make outlying neighborhoods as attractive as places on the northside lakefront happen the city would ultimately gain from increased densities and tax revenues.

This is not rocket science -- ask folks that chaffe under draconian rule if they'd be happier having a home that os not propped up by artificial demand driven by rules for residincy OR having a nice solid place inside or outside the city limits and I can guarantee there is no magic inn the minfdsmof most city workers to loving. "on the safe side" of boundary that residence on the far side riis termination if discovered...

Were you drunk when you typed this?