residency requirement for city workers issue (Chicago, Ohio: real estate market, apartment, rental)

[bigvan98]

I currently am a city worker. I only rent an apartment, I do not technically own a property yet. I have my Il drivers license here, foid card, Il plates and of course my expensive Chicago city sticker all registered to my apartment. However, my issue is that I want to buy a small vacation place out in indiana. Will the city go after me saying i dont meet the residency requirement no longer if they find out I "own" in another state yet only "rent" in Chicago?

[chirack]

I doubt it, so long as your offical legal residence is where you rent. However talk to the HR department(or who ever handles that).

[ofcjim40]

This is quite the wrong place to be asking this question. I'm sure you have Supervisors, HR and a Contract to consult.

[woodworkingmenace]

As long as you maintain a Residency in your City, then you wont be penalized for buying another home someplace else...(Vacation Home).

The reason they require Residency is, Political, and, because they want you to be available to work, and not have excuses that you couldnt get 'to' the City

Ive worked for the City in Ohio, and we have Residency Laws, and it was after I retired, that they finally voted it out, but, those were the reasons they always gave us. A lot of City Employees had other homes, outside the City, but they always maintained thier home 'in' the City and Residency Status.

I wish you well...

Jesse

[bigvan98]

Thank you guys for the follow ups.

[chet everett]

I have relatives that are employees of City of Chicago. Several of them have vacation homes out of state. Not a problem as long as you don't make it a habit to ALWAYS stay at your vacation home. If you have a spouse stay there full time and the kids enroll in school out there it will get back to your boss and they will report it and it will get investigated and you will have to prove that you are not using your rental address just to satisfy the residency requirement. That is big no-no...

The folks that "turn in" their co-workers tend to be ones that have been "busted" previously and their attitude is "the city messed up my life, I am gonna make sure nobody else gets away with anything".

It is rule that will likely not change ever, or at least until the city workforce is more evenly distributed throughout all the City and not clustered around on the NW & SW sides. That clustering is indicative of how many city workers really would rather live someplace where their kids can have access to better school and a better environment. As it is now the real estate values are so depressed that any change in the rule would be destabilizing to the real estate market and hurt the same folks that would prefer to choose where they live...

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by chet everett

It is rule that will likely not change ever, or at least until the city workforce is more evenly distributed throughout all the City and not clustered around on the NW & SW sides. That clustering is indicative of how many city workers really would rather live someplace where their kids can have access to better school and a better environment. As it is now the real estate values are so depressed that any change in the rule would be destabilizing to the real estate market and hurt the same folks that would prefer to choose where they live...

If the NW and SW Sides are a cluster of cops, firefighters, and other city workers (all of whom would rather be somewhere else where the schools are better)... Then shouldn't the schools on the NW/SW Sides be models of success? Since all the families are cops/firefighters/city workers? Why would they need to move to the suburbs to get a good school?

[chirack]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

If the NW and SW Sides are a cluster of cops, firefighters, and other city workers (all of whom would rather be somewhere else where the schools are better)... Then shouldn't the schools on the NW/SW Sides be models of success? Since all the families are cops/firefighters/city workers? Why would they need to move to the suburbs to get a good school?

Actually city workers live all over town. There are clusters there because thoose areas look suburban(bigger house, bigger lawn, less traffic).

[chet everett]

Most city workers understand that "it ain't what you know, it's who you know" when the way things work is "we don't want nobody that wasn't sent by somebody". To them school is not an important path to a better life. To the more enlightened and well off city workers to whom education does matter the preferred choice is to utilize private schools.

Interestingly an article that came out today highlights how the corrupting influence of government employee unions makes the financial problems of cities and states so untraceable: Fred Siegel: 'The New Tammany Hall' - WSJ.com

[gomexico]

Public employee unions didn't unilaterally grant themselves increased salary and/or benefits. It takes two to tango. The manner in which Gov. Walker and others are attacking them runs contrary to the best interests of the nation. You don't 'negotiate' by wiping-out the other side's structure which makes that possible.

Regarding public employees of the City of Chicago: They do segregate themselves, to a degree. Many white employees - police and fire specifically - are largely found in groups along the south, southwest and northwest city limits. Bordering suburbs. They stick together and they do that because they don't want to live amongst blacks and Mexicans. It's something most Chicagoans have known about their entire lives. Those employees would leave the city for suburbs, if they had the right to do so.