"Judge Corrigan rules in favor of the little man, city workers. Rules against big business, the city!!!!"

 

No - that didn't appear anywhere in the article - those are your words.

 

I wouldn't pack the U-Hauls yet - that's all I'm going to say.

"a few" is from 3132. To be exact, that would amount to .00048% of Clevelanders. How pathetic that a city is relying on such a minuscule amount of it's population.

 

MayDay--I do happen to know a number of city workers. Most are following your advise,, MOST.

 

I do not want to see neighborhoods go down hill. Between my wife and I, we have moved to several different neighborhoods in Cleveland. Collinwood, Payne, Slavic Village, & Old Brooklyn-- three different streets. I have never lived next to a CPD nor CFD employee. I never lived in the neighborhoods you mentioned. But, maybe this will force the City of Cleveland to realize they no longer can count on people living here. Maybe they will change things to make it desireable....... not a 25 year sentence. That's all I can hope for. I think it is fundamentally wrong to force a person (a law abiding individual) to live in a particular area. Obviously, my view is seen by the folks who voted this unconstitutional in Columbus, and by multiple judges.

Nobody makes anybody live anywhere. If you are not forced to take a job as a Cleveland police officer. If you choose to do so, its your choice.

Sure, agreed. But to have this as a criteria for any job is fundamentally wrong. Lets face it, there is a population of young, educated professionals who are leaving Cleveland. With this newly enacted freedom, maybe some will stay in at least Northeastern Ohio. Plus, how many qualified individuals wont even think about working for the City of Cleveland because they would be forced to uproot their families? Or, they simply don't want to live in a city.  Now, they will have the luxury of filling out the applications and actually accepting positions. That cannot be bad for the city.

 

 

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:    I wouldn't move tomorrow if there were no appeal nor would MANY of my coworkers...but I am glad to have a choice for the future for what I want to do as an individual.  I am not even going to argue the point with most people on here who do NOT understand my point because they are NOT in my shoes.  I am just glad to have my personal freedom upheld in this court.

3231--

 

 

The following is a reprint of the last paragraph of Judge Corrigan's ruling.

 

  Having considered and reflected all the City's arguments, this Court grants summary judgment in favor of the State and the safety forces and denies summary judgment in favor of the City.  In so ruling, this court specifically determines that R.C. 9.481 was lawfully enacted by the General Assembly to provide for the general welfare of employees of Ohio's political subdivisions and is a matter of statewide concern.  Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution is the controlling constitutional provision, and conflicting local laws passed pursuant to the city's home rule power found in Section 3, Article XVIII must succumb to state law.  R.C.9.481 is constitutional and is upheld.

                 IT IS SO ORDERED

 

                                                    Peter J. Corrigan, Judge

Date: February 23, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to read the judge's opinion and see his explanation of why a state legislative act can trump the state's constitution. That's unconstitutional.

 

Hope this helps a little. It's all I could find. By the way, this was drawn up by Sen, Grendell (sorry on the spelling, but if it's wrong, it's close) who is a constitutional lawyer.

How pathetic that a city is relying on such a minuscule amount of it's population.

 

Lets face it, there is a population of young, educated professionals who are leaving Cleveland. With this newly enacted freedom, maybe some will stay in at least Northeastern Ohio.

 

Or maybe they will leave because they can’t be around people who are constantly negative about their city.

"I am not even going to argue the point with most people on here who do NOT understand my point because they are NOT in my shoes."

 

Au contraire...

my argument stands that I have no tolerance for people that don't mind taking a local government paycheck funded by Cuyahoga Cty taxpayers (in my case I work for a County agency which has no residency laws) and they trash talk Cleveland and its citizens and wax poetic over Shefield, Avon, North Ridgeville (the horror) etc.  They do nothing for this community and I wish we could boot them all to the curb and give the job to a resident let em' find some landscaping job in suburbia for Ryan Homes . I agree with 3231, you don't have to be a cop or fireman or judge, get another job and get the heck out. Or stuff your cake hole with your applebees and be a resident fireman in Shefield 

From the 3/15/07 DDN:

 

 

FOP joins firefighters to fight residency rule

By Lou Grieco

Staff Writer

Thursday, March 15, 2007

 

DAYTON — — Turned down by the Ohio Supreme Court, the Dayton Fraternal Order of Police will continue its fight against the city's residency rule by joining a lawsuit filed by the firefighters union, an FOP attorney said Wednesday.

 

The FOP had sought a writ of mandamus to force the city to allow its workers to move out of the city. The Supreme Court denied the writ 7-0, ruling that the FOP could seek relief in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.

 

In January 2006, then-Gov. Bob Taft signed legislation that bars cities from forcing their employees to live within their employer cities. City officials, including Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin, have said the law is unconstitutional and continue to require that employees reside in Dayton.

 

Susan D. Jansen, the FOP's attorney, said the city's two safety force unions took a two-prong approach, with Firefighters Local 136 filing in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court and the FOP filing in the Supreme Court.

 

The FOP decided to try for the writ "to see if we got a quicker decision," Jansen said.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/03/14/ddn031507residency.html

 

 

 

I wouldn't pack the U-Hauls yet - that's all I'm going to say.

 

 

I checked with a couple friends and they both said 1 member of CFD and 2 members of CPD have moved out of the city, advised the city with a Change of Address Form, and all 3 are still on the city payroll. I can't verify this because I do not know those 3 individuals, it's just what I was told. If this is true, they just may be able to start packing the U-hauls.

i believe that along with councilmen, state reps, congressmen, and any other person paid by tax payers in their city, state, village, district, etc...it should not only be law but a duty to live in the said boundary lines of the people who pay their salary...the tax payers.

As I understand it, a judge in Summit County ruled against the city of Akron, ruled in favor of the workers regarding the unconstitutionality of residency requirements.

I noticed that job postings for the City of Cleveland still state you have to move into the city within six months of being hired.

Some residency requiring cities in Ohio still have a Stay on the overturned law. My advise for anyone who is/was recently hired by an Ohio city with these soon to be illegal requirements is to move into an apartment or rent for a few months. Soon, all citizens will have the right to choose. "PRO CHOICE!!!" Gotta love that saying.... I'm sure most here agree with it.

Dayton to appeal residency ruling

June 9, 2007 | ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

DAYTON - The mayor says the city will appeal a court ruling rejecting a requirement that all city employees live in Dayton.

 

The city had sued the state, arguing that a new law curtailing residency requirements violated the city's home-rule provision and should be ruled unconstitutional.

 

But Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Froelich disagreed, issuing his ruling Wednesday.

 

"City employees do not move. You move at your own risk," Mayor Rhine McLin said. "We are going to fight residency in support of our city."

 

the right to choose where they live? they already have the right to choose where they work. as these cities tax paying citizens should have the right to choose where their tax dollars go. they took these jobs knowing the criteria. i say let the local voters say where they want their tax dollars to go, its their money not the states. 

Boo hoo  :cry:

valid points bring you down?? im sorry :shoot:

I'm just throwing this out there, but if we're talking about people who are public employees having to live where they're employed, shouldn't teachers be included in this?

^the teacher's union has more negotiating power. Does it have something to do with the fact that they are employees of the Board of Education?

 

You're right about that ^, but let's use the Cleveland Public Schools as an example. Even if you're technically employed by the BOE, is your job still not funded by Cleveland taxpayers, same as city workers? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious as to why teachers always get left out of this discussion. That's a sizable chunk of people with nice incomes (and enormous political power, I know) that could re-energize many city neighborhoods. I would be curious to know what % of Cleveland teachers live in the district.

What does everyone else think? If the city's good enough for city workers, than why not teachers? :wtf:

Also, does anyone know of any city district in the state or nation that has a residency requirement?

Chicago also has a residency rule for cops and teachers, unless they changed it lately...

From the 6/15/07 DDN:

 

 

Challenger to Dayton's residency rule gains support

Victor Pate went back to work Thursday without any problems

By Joanne Huist Smith

Staff Writer

Thursday, June 14, 2007

 

DAYTON — Victor Pate says it was business as usual the day after he informed the Dayton City Commission he planned to move to Jefferson Twp. and challenge the city's employee residency rule.

 

Pate, a traffic signal engineer, said he fully expected to be fired Thursday. Instead he just carried out his job.

 

Another surprise, Pate said, is the support he's received from fellow employees.

 

"I have yet to have an employee say anything negative about my decision to move," Pate said. "I'm totally in awe at the support."

 

Pate said other employees told him they plan to follow his lead, if the 17-year-employee doesn't get fired.

 

"One fellow said he plans to put up a (for sale) sign in his yard," Pate said.

 

Last week, the city lost a battle in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to require that all city employees reside within Dayton's boundaries. After the ruling, Mayor Rhine McLin warned employees not to leave the city. "City employees do not move. You move at your own risk," she said.

 

The city had sued the state, claiming a new law curtailing residency requirements violated the city's home rule provision.

 

Dayton officials sought to have the state law deemed unconstitutional. That didn't happen, but the city is expected to file paperwork in the Second District Court of Appeals next week to continue the fight.

 

Dayton voters approved the city's residency requirement in 1987. Pate feels it may be time to reconsider the requirement at the ballot box, if the city is successful at getting the decision overturned in the courts.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/06/14/ddn061507residencyfolo.html

 

West Park Story

If the cops and firemen flee, the neighborhood's obituary will follow.

By Lisa Rab 

Cleveland Scene

Published: July 11, 2007

 

Most of the lunch crowd has already cleared out of The Public House in Kamm's Corners. A gray-haired waitress emerges from the kitchen with some bad news: "I have an announcement to make. There's only one piece of shepherd's pie left."

 

Retired cop Ed Kelly, a wisecracking woman named Joyce, and two firemen have begun nursing beers and providing the afternoon's entertainment. Today's topic is a sore one: Cleveland's rule forcing its workers to live within city limits ...

 

... More at http://news.clevescene.com/2007-07-11/news/west-park-story/1

Is it really asking too much to ask the director of the Dayton Art Institute to live in the Dayton area?  Good riddance, Dr. Brigham.

 

 

DAI director loses job for living plans

 

By Meredith Moss

Staff Writer

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

 

DAYTON — David Brigham, the 43-year-old Ph.D. from Allentown, Pa., who was selected as the new director and CEO of the Dayton Art Institute, will not be coming to Dayton after all.

 

DAI board chairman Joseph A. Zehenny announced Tuesday that the museum is resuming its search for a new director because of Brigham's desire to live in the Cincinnati area instead of Dayton.

 

Brigham had been scheduled to take over his new duties Aug. 20.

 

"We are deeply disappointed that David will not be the next director of the Dayton Art Institute," said Zehenny. "Everyone who met David thought he would be an excellent director. Unfortunately, David chose for personal reasons to not live in the Dayton market."

 

Zehenny said the job was always described to candidates as one in which the museum director was "the face of the community."

 

He said he anticipates having a pool of candidates by early fall, with a new director appointed by the end of the year. In the meantime, Brad Tillson, former publisher of Dayton Daily News, will continue as interim director.

 

Brigham could not be reached for comment.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/08/01/ddn080107dai.html

Bah.

I agree with the Mayor on this.

---

 

Mayor Jackson fires four workers for violating Cleveland's residency rule

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Susan Vinella

Plain Dealer Reporter

Mayor Frank Jackson fired four workers for violating Cleveland's residency rule, despite a new state law that says city employees do not have to live in the city where they work.

 

The city accuses the two firefighters, an economic development administrator and a Water Department employee of living in suburban Cuyahoga County.

 

"Anyone who wants to leave the city of Cleveland while still in employment, we will fire," Jackson said earlier this week in a phone interview.

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/118664826699160.xml&coll=2

This is not new news, however, this is the first time it has been put out there to the public.  These employees were accussed of not living in the city BEFORE the state law was passed.  What about the people who have gone to city hall and openly changed their place of residence to outside of the city AFTER the law was passed? (I know of three people)  From what they told me, they haven't even been looked into. 

So now we finally see the missing mayor? 

I must say that I have read this thread and many of you are debating an issue that has come and passed.  You see, the policy side of this debate took place in C-Bus a couple years ago.  The court battle has nothing to do with policy, i.e. the detrimental effects R.C. 9.481 will have on the Cities.  The only issue that is up for debate now is whether the legislative action violated the home-rule section of the Ohio Constitution.

 

Now, putting the whole policy debate aside, I can tell you that the Cities will lose unless they convince the Ohio Supreme Court to overturn its own precedent.  The Supreme Court not following stare decisis (the bedrock of our judicial system) is a pipe dream for the Cities to hang on to.  You see, back when the the Home Rule provision was included in the Constitution, the people also ratified a provision which overrides the home rule powers of local governments.  That would be Art II, Sec 34 and it empowers the state legislature to enact laws for the general welfare of employees across the state.  As long as the court finds that the prohibition on residency requirements is for the general welfare of those employees it benefits (municipal workers) then the law will stand.  Now, there might be some collateral effect on the Cities and its residents, but that simply does not matter.  When it comes to matters affecting the general welfare of employees - i.e. collective bargaining, minimum wage, hours and, now, residency requirements - the state legislature has discretion with which local ordinances cannot conflict.  That is the way the law is.  If you do not like it, I suggest you seek measures to amend our constitution.

 

The Court battle is really about Civil Rule of Procedure 62 (or 61, I forget) which allows the Cities to obtain a stay on judgment of any order issued up until the Supreme Court rules.  That way, they can temporarily keep the employees within the City (still debatable) and justify that measure on their ongoing court battle.

 

Five courts of common pleas have ruled on the issues and, not suprisingly, have ruled in favor of the State and the Unions.  The Cities really have no argument.  So, you have to wonder whether the City is acting properly by going to such expense to fight this battle, which it will inevitably lose.

 

As far as advice, if you are a city worker you SHOULD STAY PUT.  Do not put the strain on your union or your own pocket in defending any action the City will bring.  Personally, I think the unions should leave these guys out to dry if they do not follow such advice and make them pick up their own legal fees.

 

Like I said, no policy arguments here (that time has passed)... I am simply clearing up the law and apparent confusion on what the courts are going to review b/c THE COURTS WILL REFUSE TO REVIEW ANY BOO-HOO LOOK AT WHAT THIS LAW HAS DONE AND/OR WILL DO TO MY CITY ARGUMENT.

umm...thanks and welcome! :wave:

Umm.... your welcome and thanks!  :wave:

The cities are down 0-7 in the trial courts.  Every jurisdiction has found in favor of the State and/or Unions upholding the constitutionality of R.C. 9.481.

 

The Ninth District Court of Appeals (Summit County) just held its oral argument last week and the first appellate decision should be issued shortly.  Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals will probably decide in early 2008.

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A state court judge has upheld an Ohio law that nullifies residency rules for city workers. The decision opens the door for nearly 7,200 Cincinnati employees to join the exodus leaving Hamilton County for the fast-growing suburbs that have sprung up in Butler, Warren and Clermont counties. The ruling is sure to be challenged, but it declares the city's requirement employees must live within the boundaries of Hamilton County is now illegal and cannot be enforced.

 

In a shocking turn of events, the 3rd District Court of Appeals (Allen County) has overturned the decision of their common pleas court and, basically, declared the state prohibition unconstitutional.  The distinction to that court was a difference between conditions "of" employment and conditions "for" employment.  The appeals court held that the former was open for state regulation under Art. II, Sec. 34 of the Ohio Constitution, while the later is not.  The decision breaks new ground in the interpretation of this provision and should make the Ohio Municipal League very happy.  The public employees' unions just shat themselves... collectively.

 

For those of you opposed to the state law, this decision is a shimmer of light in the darkness.  For those of you who hope to put your kids in a decent school system AND keep your pension... don't sweat it as you are still up 8-1 and the decision really is not based on any binding precedent but rather a break from the traditional understanding of legislative discretion that the other courts who have decided the issue have recognized.

 

Like I said, the Ninth District (Summit) is expected to chime in soon.  The Eighth District (Cuyahoga), as usual, is taking their sweet time to even set an oral argument.  In all fairness, that Court is overworked.

 

In the end, we will know who will win after the makeup of next year's supreme court is decided and all these other decisions will not matter one bit.  It's all political down in C-Bus folks... even at 65 South Front Street.

Another pro-residency requirement decision in the 9th Ohio District Court of Appeals addressing Akron's law.  PD article below:

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/119995749565760.xml&coll=2

The Ninth District just pulled a Scalia.... outsmarting precedent to come the conclusion it wanted to.  Even the dissenter seemed to want to agree but felt compelled to follow the interpretation of the law the Supreme Court has previously announced.  Both Allen County and Summit County just wrote new law.  This whole issue is going to come down to who is on the high bench in Columbus come next year.

 

A conflicting court of appeals opinion is forthcoming.  It would be absolutely unheard of if every single common pleas court found in favor of the unions/state and every single appeals court found in favor of the cities.  Conflicting opinions will send this issue straight to the SC without all the red tape. 

 

The 8th District (Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals) will hear oral argument on 1/22 at 9 am for those of you who wish to observe.

Does anyone know if there is a concise list of cities in Ohio that require their workers to live within their borders?

I don't have a concise list but it is alot, something like 113 political subdivisions.... that would include counties, cities, villages and townships.

 

The Cities that are outwardly thumbing their nose at the state law are:

 

Cleveland

Toledo

Youngstown

Dayton

Warren

Akron

Cincinatti

Lima

 

 

Cuyahoga Appeals court should be weighing in any day now.  For city workers who want to move, the fact that the Court has taken this long to issue an opinion might be bad news for you.  A simple written decision could easily find in favor of the unions.  But a lengthy and complex analysis is needed to skirt past prior precedent.

^ Very true...this long deliberation makes me wonder what side they are going to rule for.  The length in comiong to a decision makes me think that they are going to rule for the city, but at the same time, why would the same court rule in favor of a fired employee that was fire BEFORE the state law was in effect?  This case will be going to the state supreme court anyway, so all involved may as well get used to waiting.

It seems like it is the larger cities that have the requirement which makes some more sense IMO. It would be hard for example for smaller cities to expect someone could live in city limits. Beyond the obvious benefit of requiring city workers to live in city limits, some of my reasons for supporting this are more subjective. I really burns me up when county/local employees that live out of county trash Cleveland/ Cuyahoga.  Trust me I hear it all the time and believe is poisons the spirit of the area slowly-literally biting the hand that feeds you. They pollute the environment to drive in everyday and put their greedy paw out for a higher paycheck than they would make in their county of residence, if they could even get a government job in the bedroom exurb in which they live.  I cannot imagine having the nerve to drive to Lorain county, pick up a paycheck and insult that community endlessly.

 

Still my mind I can conjure a few possible exceptions to the rules such as:

Spouse or domestic partner has a municipal job in another city that also has residency requirements.

 

Parent of child with very special needs that may not be adequately met by local, charter, private school etc.

 

Same goes for elder care or care of someone with needs that cannot be met elsewhere.

 

Peabody99, there are two sides to that argument.  Trust me, A LOT of the hate for the City that comes from City workers is because they are required to live there and feel trapped.  Residency requirements also seriously dwindle the talent pool from which the cities can hire, arguably adversely affected the City services that are rendered to the citizens.

 

Keep in mind that, regardless of any state law, the City can offer as incentives to encourage residency such as tax abatements or perhaps even extra points on civil service exams.  The only thing that the state law prohibits is making residency a condition of "continued" employment.

 

JDD, you could look at it another way as far as your concerns in the Court taking so long.  Allen County (3rd District) wrote a very long and intellectually complex opinion to strike down the state law.  The 8th Dist might be taking the time to properly counter the conclusions drawn in that opinion.  If they were going to come to the same conclusion, it would not take them this long to write the decision.  Of course, the most likely cause of delay is the overload of cases the 8th Dist has on their lap.

Lucas County (Toledo) Court of Appeals announced its decision in favor of the cities.  That makes it 8 courts of common pleas in favor of the state and unions vs. 3 appeals courts in favor of the cities.  This is weird.

Rumor has it that the 8th District panel will decide (2-1) in favor of the City.

Cuyahoga County Appeals Court has issued a decision in favor of the cities........ the decision was 2-1 in Cleveland's favor.

Eleventh District Court of Appeals found in favor of the state / unions and against the city of Warren.  Appeals court tally is now 4-2 in favor of the cities.  The Cincy and Youngstown cases are still pending in those repsective districts.  The Akron and Lima cases are before the Supreme Court and could be joined by this latest case and the Cleveland case.

 

C:\Documents and Settings\dapowell\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK26\Crain's_Morning_Roundup_Link (2).htm

 

Another blow to residency law

 

Published:Tuesday, August 5, 2008

 

By Tim Yovich

 

The residency requirement will ultimately be determined by the Ohio Supreme Court, the mayor says.

 

WARREN — The 11th District Court of Appeals has thrown another roadblock in front of the city’s residency law.

 

The appellate court ruled Monday that the residency requirement violates the Ohio Constitution, upholding a September decision by Judge Andrew Logan of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.

 

(Full Story in Link)

 

Why wait til the last minute?  Doesn't make sense...oh well, too bad so sad.  :clap:

 

If the City of Cleveland deserves a pass like Westlake, then maybe city employees of Cleveland deserve a pass like Westlake's employees...they don't have residency restrictions, yet they seem to be doing fine.  In fact, I know a few Westlake safety service employees that don't live in the city, yet low and behold, they actually DO care about their work.

^ wow.  do you realize what lifting that requirement (which is supported by the ohio state constitution) would do to the city of Cleveland?  Strong neighborhoods would be vacated, the tax base would get crushed... which in turn would eliminate many of said jobs.  I really don't understand how anyone thinks they support the city of cleveland and applaud things like this.