From the 8/2/05 Toledo Blade:

 

 

Bill would revamp Ohio voter residency law

30-days-a-year residence not enough, foes assert

By STEVE MURPHY

BLADE STAFF WRITER

 

A bill introduced in the Ohio House would settle a long-simmering dispute on Kelleys Island over what qualifies someone as a resident with local voting rights.

 

The legislation, sponsored last week by state Rep. Jim Trakas (R., Independence), would allow someone with multiple homes to choose one as his primary residence for voting purposes.

 

A person would have to have lived in that residence at least 30 days within the previous year to qualify as an elector.

 

...

 

Contact Steve Murphy at:

[email protected] or 419-724-6078.

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/NEWS24/508020358

 

I declare my bedroom (as part of an apartment I now share with a roommate) to leave Louisiana and join Ohio!  :-P

I know this topic comes up in a lot of forums.  While this article deals with Cleveland, we might as well open it up to all Ohio cities.  The article appeared in the 8/11/05 PD:

 

 

Can cities require workers to live within borders?

Cleveland to fight to keep residency law

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Mark Naymik

Plain Dealer Politics Writer

 

Already battered by job losses and a distressed school system, Cleveland could soon face a fight over its law requiring employees to live in the city -- a law that city leaders say is vital to protecting neighborhoods.

 

Ohio legislators, who for years have debated whether to repeal residency laws statewide, are closer this time to actually doing so. That would be a blow to cities like Cleveland, where the residency law keeps middle-class workers in city neighborhoods.

 

State legislation banning residency laws would likely lead many of those workers to migrate to the suburbs.

   

Many of the workers in Cleveland are clustered in the city's more prosperous neighborhoods, such as North Collinwood and West Park...

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1123752789290461.xml&coll=2

 

"If the city's good enough to put a paycheck in their pocket, then it should be good enough to live in,"

 

'nuff said.

cleveland heights has the same deal. Its nice to literally have a cop living on every other block (for the uniformed CH PD supposedly has the highest cop/citizen ratio around)

This is hardly a "rights" issue, the way I see it.  Living in the city you serve is a condition of employment, and a reasonable one.  No one has to work for the city.  Workers who live in the city they serve are more apt to care about the city.  There is still a wide variety of neighborhoods and housing that the employee can choose.

I believe the cities should be able to require residency, especially for police, however, you have to ask yourself if forcing people to live within the city limits is really the best way to build a successful city.

From the 1/13/06 Dayton Daily News:

 

 

Bill would prohibit residency mandate

Legislation clears committee; House vote may come soon

By Laura A. Bischoff

Dayton Daily News

 

COLUMBUS | Legislation that would prohibit Dayton and other cities from having residency requirements for employees cleared an Ohio House committee Thursday, taking it one step closer to becoming law and a possible constitutional challenge.

 

Dayton is one of 125 Ohio cities and 13 villages that require some or all of their workers to live within the city or within the nearby area. Often, including in Dayton's case, these requirements were approved by city voters, but they have remained an irritant for some workers.

 

Dozens of cities, including Dayton, Youngstown, Toledo and Cleveland, oppose the bill that would strip them of their authority to require residency. Union groups representing police and firefighters support it...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0113residency.html

 

"We have heard too many stories about how residency policies are ruining people's lives to ignore this matter any longer," he said. "We eliminated indentured servitude in the 19th century and the company town in the 20th century. It's time we eliminated indentured public servitude in the 21st century."

 

 

A tad melodramatic.

Our New Mayor in Youngstown decided in his 2nd week how important it was so he testified before the legislation:

 

Panel OKs end to residency rule

By MICHELE C. HLADIK

 

VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT

 

COLUMBUS — Local government employees may soon be able to live anywhere they want and still keep their jobs if legislation eliminating residency requirements passes the Ohio General Assembly.

 

The measure was approved 14-2 Thursday by the House Local and Municipal Government and Urban Revitalization Committee.

 

Mayors or representatives from several Ohio cities, including Youngstown and Toledo, urged the committee not to pass the measure.

 

Youngstown Mayor Jay Williams said the legislation is unconstitutional and would severely harm Ohio's urban areas.

 

more at: http://www.vindy.com/

"We have heard too many stories about how residency policies are ruining people's lives to ignore this matter any longer," he said. "We eliminated indentured servitude in the 19th century and the company town in the 20th century. It's time we eliminated indentured public servitude in the 21st century."

 

Hilarious.

Gee, between relentless highway building, inequitable school funding policies and now this, could the state try *any* harder to hurt Ohio's cities?

Why don't we let our representatives in Columbus live outside of their districts too?

It's funny to red how so many of you are "for" the residency requirements...why?  I am a firefighter for the city of Cleveland, and for now, must abide by the residency requirements.  What are your reasoning's for the requirement?  Do you think that I should live in the city so YOUR property value will continue to be artificially overpriced.  Do you believe that public employees should continue to make parochial/private schools rich because we don't want to send our children to the crappy schools our tax dollars pay for?  Maybe EVERY employer, public or private, should impose residency.  That would be nice if your employer made you live within a certain mile or block radius of your job.  Then you would have no real choice of picking a community or school system.  Does it make sense to make police officers live in the same community that they make arrests in?  That just gives criminals the chance to more easily access their homes, family, etc for retaliatory reasons.  Some people think that firefighters should live close to work for the reason of "emergency recall" reasons.....hate to burst your bubble people, but that never happens in the city of Cleveland.  Not once in my 10 years as a firefighter have we ever been recalled. 

  Even with the residency in place, the city has hired investigators to check on employees to make sure they live in the city...but guess what, those investigators do NOT live in the city.  You would be surprised to hear how many people are given exemptions from this rule.  No place in the city charter does it say this is allowed.  Even our wonderful mayor, Frank Jackson, when asked why some exemptions are made, stated he needed to find the "best qualified person" for the job.  Shouldn't EVERY job have the best qualified person?  I wonder why Cleveland Public School Teachers do not fall under this requirement....they DO work for the city.  I could go on and on, and cite many reasons to all of you about why residency is an unjust and archaic rule.  I think the bottom line is, you people don't care about MY rights.  It funny to me that before the residency rule was put into place, the city was more populace and better off economically.  Since the residency rule has been put into place, the population has fallen and the economy has taken a dump. I am not saying that residency has caused this, I am just saying, don't use this rule to try and save the city.  The city should be a place that people WANT to live or move to, not a place that FORCES you to live there.  For those of you that are so for the rule, I urge you to go to some of the meetings in Columbus and listen to the testimony and reasons of why residency is wrong and how it has negatively affected peoples lives.  You might hear some things that you never thought about before.  Just think if I met and wanted to marry an employee from another city that also had a residency rule, that would mean one person would have to give up their career.  Imagine if you had a special needs child that could only get the kind of care they needed in some place other than the city of their parents employment, but you weren't allowed to live near that facility.(this DID happen to a friend of mine...his wife and child moved and he HAD to remain within the city...which made it costly and inconvenient)And please..PLEASE do not tell me I should get another job if I don't like the rule!  Number one, I love my job.  Number two, just because there is a rule in pace, it doesn't mean it is right.  If you remember history, at one time it was okay to own slaves, at one time it was okay to NOT let women vote, at one time it was okay to have separate drinking fountains.  If home rule is so strong, then maybe we should just build casinos in Cleveland...who needs the state telling us what to do, right?  Trust me on this one folks, this is a BS rule that has been struck down in other states already and the appeals were NOT overturned.

If I am understanding how the Cleveland residency law was enacted, it was grandfathered into effect in the early 1980's.  I fail to understand how one would feel that their rights were being violated when they accepted the job with the understanding that they would be required to live within city limits.  I am sure that the city of Cleveland made all persons who considered a job that fell under the residency requirement well aware of the requirement before hiring proceeded.  From how it sounds, it wasn't as if city employees were uninformed of the residency requirement until 6 months into the job, which is where I have trouble understanding the controversy over this.

What are your reasoning's for the requirement?  Do you think that I should live in the city so YOUR property value will continue to be artificially overpriced.  Do you believe that public employees should continue to make parochial/private schools rich because we don't want to send our children to the crappy schools our tax dollars pay for?

 

Come on, its mainly because cities want their employees to take pride in their city and care that the work they are doing is important. With today's lazy workforce, its hard to find employees who care about their employer and making people live in the jurisdiction they would have direct effect over helps to reassure employees will be driven to put their best foot forward. That being said, I can see where this rule can hurt both sides, the city and the employer, so I'm not so sure if I think it should be kept.

I am pro-resident employment requirement, as a parallel to what the private sector can dictate outside work. State of Ohio for instance does not protect the "rights" of the smoker (for the record I'm not a smoker and have really nothing at stake here). As such, companies can put policies in place that employees can be fired for smoking at home, because it affects the bottom line health insurance costs. I can see parallels between what effects the bottom line of cities and businesses, and how employers can dictate what people can do outside work. As such, there should not be two ways of doing things; one for government employment and one for private sector employment.

Making people live in the jurisdiction they would have direct effect over helps to reassure employees will be driven to put their best foot forward.

 

Right. It's the idea that city employees will have a greater stake in the city itself if they live there.

JDD, you and all other city employees are welcome to leave the city -- you just can't take your jobs with you. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. As someone else said, you knew what you were getting into when you took the job.

  I see that most people didn't take the time to read everything I wrote earlier...  I never stated I didn't know, all I am saying is that I don't think it is the right thing for a city to impose.  It has nothing to do with "pride"....trust me, I am very proud of Cleveland as a city, and before I ever moved to the city proper I was proud of the place.  If I moved out of the city, it wouldn't make me work less harder on my job.  And as for the person making the statement "lazy city workers"...you can go screw yourself...sorry to have to go to that level, but until you walk in my shoes and do what I do and see what I see...you can just keep your mouth shut.  I see things everyday I go to work that would amaze you.  You have no real idea what happens in the part of the city where I work.  Just because something isn't on the daily news, doesn't mean it isn't out there happening everyday.  You people are very uninformed on this subject, because YOU don't have to deal with it.  I guess the city has the right to tell me who I can and cannot marry....or my future family where they must live.  Did you ever think about the idea of a time frame...maybe 5 or 10 years, then you can move out?  Wouldn't that be a fair deal?  That way there would be an influx of new people in the city, but you aren't bound there for 25 or 30 years?  I love the idea that people that aren't affected by the rule are so for it and love to tell the lowly public employee what is right for them.  Just because it is a rule, doesn't make it correct.  PLEASE reread my earlier post and think of a few of those situations....how would YOU feel?  I wonder how in the world other large cities WITHOUT the residency rule haven't crumbled into ruins?  How can a city operate without forcing their employees to live there?  How did Cleveland survive pre 1982?  Maybe if you work downtown, and your business is part of the local economy, you should have to live in the city as well.  Just think how nice it would be for all of you when you would no longer have to commute from Lakewood, Parma, North Ridgeville, North Olmstead...all of which have NO residency rules......Hmmmmm

The employees who accepted gainful employment with the city did so with full knowledge that residency was a requirement. Other private sector buisnesses may require that their employees not engage in other various activities outside the workplace. Its not illegal for employers to fire people for viloating those polocies, there is no law against it. Like I said, people have been fired for smoking off duty, people that work for budweiser get fired for drinking coors outside work, strippers get fired for gaining too much weight.

 

Why should government employers be unable to have any polocies reguarding off work activites, as it reguards to gainful employment?

JDD,

 

YOU are the exception to what we are talking about, and problably alot of your profession, but you can't argue that there are people who wouldn't take pride in a place or care one bit unless they lived there. Yes, you suffer because you have the ability to care about your employer, but again, you accepted that.

 

I'm not going to go "screw myself" because I never made the statement of "lazy city workers." I did call the general workforce lazy and that includes everyone. IMO, people don't have the same work ethic as they used to. That doesn't include everyone and that doesn't just mean city workers. You should be glad you said that to me and not a mod. I never doubted that unbelieveable things happen in your part of the city, I just gave the opinion that cities are afraid that workers will not put forth the effort that they would for their own home. I hope that opinion is wrong, but I doubt it. Down here in SW Ohio, during a storm last Christmas, the City of Hamilton went days without seeing plows in a complete collapse of the snow removal crews. Where was the Public Works Director? - in his home in Dayton, a city 35 miles away. I'm not saying a majority of city employees would even represent this lack of responsibility, but I don't think it would have happened if he lived in town.

 

That being said, once again, I hear what you are saying. There are times when the rule can cause problems for an employee. There are employees that could live in a competing city and still come to work everyday and work to make that city a better place. Cities may lose the less qualified if they don't make exceptions and then their other employees get jealous. Yes, its kind of unfair, but would a city lose more without the rule?

 

Just take a second and think about who might enact this law. Envision a struggling city with low self-esteem, depressed housing and quality of life. City Council is putting all they have into turning the city around and they are looking for staff to carry out their goals. How can they possibly trust someone in the adjacent booming city who is stealing their jobs and businesses to put as much heart and soul into something? And I'm not talking firemen, I'm talking about economic developement, planning, public saftey top officials, etc. One can understand the other side too.

JDD, if employees can't get exemptions for the kinds of examples you are giving (many of which would seem reasonable to give exemptions for) then what are they getting exemptions for?  Is it just a matter of who's connected?

put me down as pro-choice on this topic. it is nuts for the state to get involved in city business like that. requiring residency or not is an issue best decided at the local level.

From the AP, 1/18/06:

 

 

Laws forcing city workers to live in city challenged

But if residency rule struck down, courts may see 'home rule' battle

The Associated Press

 

COLUMBUS - Local governments would be banned from requiring their employees to live within their boundaries under a bill set for a vote today in the House.

 

If the measure becomes law, Speaker Jon Husted and constitutional experts said it would surely wind up in a court dispute over the constitutional rights of cities and towns to set their own rules.

 

"It's the most blatant violation of home rule that has been before the House and Senate in a very long time," said John Mahoney, deputy director of the Ohio Municipal League...

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060118/NEWS01/601180386/1056/rss02

 

Well it looks like the bill has passed both the House and the Senate and now it is on to the Governor's desk.  I think the battle is about to begin! :argue:

Thanks for the update ella! Can't say I'm surprised -- sigh. Looks like we have our work cut out for us. :type:

I'm pissed.  As a resident of Cleveland, who lives and works IN Cleveland (by choice) I want my police, fire, EMS and teachers to live in Cleveland as well!

 

If they are good enough to collect a check from the city of Cleveland...they should be proud to live in the city limits as well!

Communities still could pass laws requiring some workers to live in the same county or a neighboring county.

Well hell, if you remove the city residency requirement, you might as well let them live wherever they want.  Whether an officer/firefighter/employee for Dayton lives in Centerville or Springboro, I don't really give a damn...I want him or her living in Dayton. 

 

Sen. Timothy Grendell, the Geauga County Republican who wrote the bill, says another part of the constitution trumps the home-rule provision - allowing lawmakers to pass laws governing workplace safety, health and welfare.

This seems like quite a stretch here...this thing is definitely going to end up in the courts.

  You are absolutely on target with something you stated Mytwosense...."by CHOICE"...you have, so should I!  What you don't know is that certain people are exempt from the rule.  Teachers do NOT have to live in the city, council aides do not, certain city hall employees do not.  No place in the "carter" does it say that residency rules onlyapply to certain employees.  Not only does it take away from my personal CHOICE, but it is also enforced unfairly by the city of Cleveland.  The funny thing is, the two investigators, hired by the city, to check on employees to see if they live in the city...are NOT residents themselves!  Sounds pretty fair.  All the people that seem to want residency requirements aren't bound by it.  I wish the private sector would try the same thing.  If a business moves to a city, then the worker for that business should have to move to that city as well, right?  Like I have stated before, there are MANY reasons why this rule needed to be changed.  Marriage between workers of different cities with residency rules, special needs for children that can only get that care in another town, safety for police and their families NOT having to live in the same neighborhood they arrest people, etc, etc  As far as property values go...Do you really think a property owner is going to sell their $200,000 house for $150,000 just to get out?  The only thing that might happen through this is property values won't be artificially driven up like they have in the past, they will just level out.  If a city employee moves out of a city, they will still pay taxes to the city.  Being a city employee, trust me, not everyone is going to leave.  There are plenty of people who like the private or catholic schools their kids go to, or they love the neighborhood they live in because they grew up there.  Non-city employees have a choice where they live, so why can't I?  There are many more issues going on here than just wanting to move out.  For those of you that are so quick to want to impose residency (and aren't bound by it), you should have taken the time to have heard the months and months of testimony from workers all around the state, that state many more reasons why residency restrictions aren't fair.  It's very easy to pass judgement when you don't know the facts, and when a rule doesn't restrict YOUR rights

Some of the arguments that you present are valid - I do think that if a residency law is on the books, then it should applied and strictly enforced equally across the board (council aides, cerrtain employees). I personally think that there should be restrictions on safety personnel (i.e. required to live no more than a certain distance from their post), if only because of logistics in case of emergency.

 

The thing that concerns me is that we see a tremendous effort from the politicos AND the police/fire/city employees to get the residency laws abolished but I doubt we're going to hear them putting all this energy towards reforming Ohio's school-funding laws (which have been declared unconstitutional at least FOUR times).

  You are absolutely on target with something you stated Mytwosense...."by CHOICE"...you have, so should I!  What you don't know is that certain people are exempt from the rule.  Teachers do NOT have to live in the city, council aides do not, certain city hall employees do not.  No place in the "carter" does it say that residency rules onlyapply to certain employees.  Not only does it take away from my personal CHOICE, but it is also enforced unfairly by the city of Cleveland.  The funny thing is, the two investigators, hired by the city, to check on employees to see if they live in the city...are NOT residents themselves!  Sounds pretty fair.  All the people that seem to want residency requirements aren't bound by it. 

 

Marriage between workers of different cities with residency rules, special needs for children that can only get that care in another town, safety for police and their families NOT having to live in the same neighborhood they arrest people, etc, etc 

 

I only used the groups I mentioned as an example.  I think ANYONE who works for the city government should live in Cleveland proper (county employees should live in Cuyahoga county) and it should be ENFORCED properly across the board!

 

Its a logistics and operational issue for me. For example, how can an EMS/fire fighter/Police Sgt. stationed in Detroit-Shoreway, get to their post during a storm, natural disaster or an emergency, quickly and efficiently if they live in Mayfield Hts. and streets and expressways are severely impacted?

 

Look a NoLa, during the hurricane many employees that didn't live in the city itself could not get to their post.  I don't want that to happen here in Cleveland.

 

Having said that, it is an applicant/employees choice to work for the city of Cleveland.  Upon applying for AND accepting a position with the city of Cleveland, said applicant (should) know the rules and regulations governing employment.  Its the applicants/employees choice to decide if this works for them.

 

Personally, its smart to hire an investigator from outside the system (sort of like internal audit provision) so that they is no connection to anyone in or in city government.  Are you 100% sure that the investigators do not live in Cleveland?  If so, how?

 

Some of the arguments that you present are valid - I do think that if a residency law is on the books, then it should applied and strictly enforced equally across the board (council aides, certain employees). I personally think that there should be restrictions on safety personnel (i.e. required to live no more than a certain distance from their post), if only because of logistics in case of emergency.

 

The thing that concerns me is that we see a tremendous effort from the politicos AND the police/fire/city employees to get the residency laws abolished but I doubt we're going to hear them putting all this energy towards reforming Ohio's school-funding laws (which have been declared unconstitutional at least FOUR times).

 

I totally agree!

City residency rules in peril

Legislature OKs bill to let workers live in other places

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Reginald Fields

Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus- The Ohio House on Wednesday passed a bill that will eliminate residency rules passed by local voters, like the one in Cleveland requiring municipal workers to live in the city.

 

One Cleveland lawmaker said the bill - once it is law - could devastate the city's hopes for an economic recovery, while a fire official blasted city leaders for not making the city a desirable place for firefighters to live.

 

The vote was a victory for police and firefighting unions across the state, members of which filled the public seating area of the House chamber to witness the vote. The unions had lobbied for the better part of a decade for a state residency statute that overrules local laws.

 

House lawmakers obliged them, approving Senate Bill 82 by a vote of 66-38 even though many supporters questioned whether the measure will stand up to a legal challenge.

 

more at: http://www.cleveland.com

Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland police union, said city police will do a better job because they will be happier.

 

"We're going to be able to go home and get out of police mode and get away from our jobs while we're home," Loomis said. "And not worry about somebody I put away for 15 years getting out and coming to visit me, you know."

 

How outrageous and, frankly, inane! If he and the rest of the police were doing their jobs well in the first place, he wouldn't have to worry about someone "getting out and coming to visit" him. Two, why wouldn't this person be able to find him in the suburbs, if the person were so determined? Three, despite the absurdity of this fear, it's one reason why he should live in the city -- it gives him more incentive to protect his own backyard, and thus the backyards of all city residents.

Steve Loomis, president of the Cleveland police union, said city police will do a better job because they will be happier.

 

"We're going to be able to go home and get out of police mode and get away from our jobs while we're home," Loomis said. "And not worry about somebody I put away for 15 years getting out and coming to visit me, you know."

 

How outrageous and, frankly, inane! If he and the rest of the police were doing their jobs well in the first place, he wouldn't have to worry about someone "getting out and coming to visit" him. Two, why wouldn't this person be able to find him in the suburbs, if he were so determined? Three, despite the absurdity of this fear, it's one reason why he should live in the city -- it gives him more incentive to protective his own backyard, and thus the backyards of all city residents.

 

AMEN!

Well...I guess ANY rule that has ever been written is, in essence, has been written in stone and should NEVER be challenged or changed.  Hell...why not over turn the law making slavery illegal?  With all the obvious one way thought processes I seem to be reading, there is obviously no way to make any of you look at any other way of thinking.  I have loved some of your points of view on other topics...developement, trnasportation.....but when it comes to this subject...your opinions are all about YOU...not what other people may think..the people that are forced to abide by this rule.  You have your thoughts, I have mine.  And as far as having Police, fire, and EMS recalled quickly for emergencies...it has never happened in modern times in this city.  During the Woolen Mills fire on Broadway Ave in 1993, the largest fire in Clevelands mordern history....not one firefighter was recalled....there are enough firefighters on duty to handle the situation.  I wish more people knew the REAL inner workings of their safety services...and the REAL truths for residency and the REAL reasons that fire and EMS have not merged......it seems most people just listen and eat the pile of crap that the city likes to offer as reasons...but when you have a direct pipeline of information from city hall...it becomes eye opening.  LOL..you won't have to deal with my rantings anymore on THIS blog subject, I hate to argue with people that I admire and listen to on other subjects...but this one is very personal to me...I can listen to others on this...but until people walk my path, it'll be hard to sway me.

"it seems most people just listen and eat the pile of crap... but when you have a direct pipeline of information from city hall"

 

You really don't know who you're addressing when you say something like that.

JDD,

 

One of the things I love about this forum is each individual posters undying love for their respective city and that people can agree to disagree and still respect what posted on/in various forums.

 

Well...I guess ANY rule that has ever been written is, in essence, has been written in stone and should NEVER be challenged or changed.  Hell...why not over turn the law making slavery illegal?  With all the obvious one way thought processes I seem to be reading, there is obviously no way to make any of you look at any other way of thinking.  I have loved some of your points of view on other topics...developement, trnasportation.....but when it comes to this subject...your opinions are all about YOU...not what other people may think..the people that are forced to abide by this rule.  You have your thoughts, I have mine. 

 

Rules....As i've stated before, currently the residency issues is in affect.  It is an applicant/employees choice to work for the city of Cleveland.  Upon applying for AND accepting a position with the city of Cleveland, said applicant (should) know the rules and regulations governing employment, yes or no?   I'm a resident tax payer and I want my city workers to live within the City limits.  I'm glad you enjoyed others point of view and I hope this issue will not stop you from contributing here, however, the rules are the rules....they are what they are.  You mentioned earlier that not all city employees have to live under the same guidelines as say police or fire, I myself think that is unfair and belive EVERYONE employeed by the city of cleveland should live within its borders.

 

And as far as having Police, fire, and EMS recalled quickly for emergencies...it has never happened in modern times in this city.  During the Woolen Mills fire on Broadway Ave in 1993, the largest fire in Clevelands mordern history....not one firefighter was recalled....there are enough firefighters on duty to handle the situation.

What's to say it will not happen in the future?  Why wait for something to happens to again make a change?!  God forbid another 9/11 , Blackout or Katrina hit NEO!

 

I wish more people knew the REAL inner workings of their safety services...and the REAL truths for residency and the REAL reasons that fire and EMS have not merged

Please enlighten me, maybe you teach me (and possibly other clevelanders) something we don't know and we could find a way to change it.

 

it seems most people just listen and eat the pile of crap that the city likes to offer as reasons...but when you have a direct pipeline of information from city hall...it becomes eye opening.

 

It's unfair to insult others intelligence and their working knowledge and/or business relationships with the various goverments in the metropolitan area.

 

LOL..you won't have to deal with my rantings anymore on THIS blog subject, I hate to argue with people that I admire and listen to on other subjects...but this one is very personal to me...I can listen to others on this...but until people walk my path, it'll be hard to sway me.

 

Who's arguing?  We've just stated our opinions.  You say this is personal to you, maybe your to close to the subject to understand those of us not walking in your shoes.  What is it that you do?  Maybe giving us a lil bit more informaiton will help me (us) understand your position a little better.

 

In my earlier post I asked you about the investigator...any answer?

From the 1/21/06 Dayton Daily News:

 

 

Officials decry bill's approval

Residency ban trumps home rule, some contend

By Jim Bebbington

Dayton Daily News

 

DAYTON | Dayton-area government leaders say the state legislature crossed into dangerous ground last week when it voted to restrict the ability of local communities to require their employees to live within city limits.

 

In the Miami Valley, many communities have some form of a residency requirement.

 

Dayton requires all city employees to live inside the city...

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0121residency.html

 

I thought about this for a little while and there are definite benefits to having some type of residency requirement for various types of city employees, however it will vary largely depending on the physical size of the community, and it's economics.  My mother is a teacher in Aurora and her younger colleagues will typically live in Streetsboro because of cheaper housing be it a home or apartment. 

 

As their careers progress and children become part of the equation they will usually move to another community Aurora, Hudson, Bainbridge, etc.  In a city the size of Aurora physically and economicly if all the teachers had to live in the city then the younger teachers would all be hudled into a couple geographic areas of town.  Plus Aurora is a small geographic area that isn't very dense so the same policies wouldn't make sense for say Parma, or Lakewood.

 

Emergency recall might not happen in Cleveland but I imagine it would happen more often in a smaller community.  so how should one go about enacting policies that do make sense for some communities but need to be (not)enacted/(not)enforced differently depending on the communities needs? sounds like HOME RULE to me.

I have to be careful what I say about this here, because I have to report on this issue for Sun.

 

But I will comment on erosion of the home rule provisions in the Ohio Constitution, particularly as it may someday relate to land use and urban policy. First of all, I find the Ohio General Assembly (particularly its leadership) to be downright anti-urban. Most of the issues they tend to address are of greater importance to rural areas (school prayer, gay marriage, etc). Yet pressing issues for urban areas (school funding, redevelopment, per-capita transportation investment fairness etc) are often ignored.

 

If the Ohio General Assembly believes that Article II of the Ohio Constitution (which deals with the health/safety/welfare of citizens) is of greater importance than home rule -- and it may well be though the courts will affirm/set aside that one -- what about an individual municipality's ability to decide its land uses in the context of the overall urbanized area? If a municipality promotes development on agricultural, natural or vacant land and it's a "wealthier" community with respect to the average wealth for the whole urban area, should that development be permitted under Article II? Shouldn't a metropolitan government be established to redirect that investment to a municipality that is "less wealthy" when compared to the urbanized area's average? Under home rule, this is not permitted. But if Article II of the Ohio Constitution takes precedence, as Ohio's General Assembly has been saying, perhaps this regional land use governance should be permitted.

 

I doubt this is what Senator Grendell (a former development lobbyist) had in mind when he advocated that Article II should take precedence over the home rule provision in consideration of SB82. But I can see some urban interests making that case. Perhaps even some rural interests (such as the farming and agricultural lobby) might make that case, too, in order to slow the alarming loss of Ohio's farmland.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens next. As often happens, a change in governmental policy often has unintended consequences, and in ways the original advocates of that policy would not have wanted.

I often am against 'home-rule', but this is a time when I hope that it takes precedence. 

 

Good synopsis, KJP.

^Home rule has often been the rallying cry preventing any form of regional land use planning, afterall.

 

I am also worried that fighting to keep residency requirements could end up causing even more damage because it keeps the idea that "_______ is such a horrible place to live that they have to force their own employees to live there" in the limelight.  I think that is how alot of people are perceiving this whole issue.  That could cause more damage to our neighborhood revitalization than losing a few city workers.

Why not just offer more perks for those willing to live in the city so that they will want to live there?

By lifting residency, it does not mean the employees are being forced to move out of the city. They all still have the choice to remain residents. When it comes to a city like Cleveland, there are just under 500,000 residents. Out of those, approx. 9,000 (at least that's what the news reported) are employed by the City of Cleveland. Out of those 9,000 employees, many can't afford to live in a suburb due to the wage the city offers. There are approx. 1,500 police officers and approx. 700 firemen (my numbers may be slightly off-- but not by much). Those are the city emloyees that realistically can move outside of the city due to thier pay scale. Even if all 2,400 employees are willing, wanting, and in a finacial position to move, that's only .0048% of the cities population!!!!!!! A major city would be worried about .0048% of its population moving??

    Second to that, what legally defines a resident? What if every city employee rents a cheap apartment in the city but has a house in a suburb? I guess the employee would be a resident because he/she has a "place" in the city. They would have the best of both worlds in this forum.

You are not fighting the right argument. Of course that doesn't mean they have to move out, but it does mean they can and that is what we are not too crazy about. Second, we arn't worried about the percentage of population, we care about what that actual population is, city employees. And, even if the employee lives outside the city but also holds an apartment, thats fine, they still have some investment in the community that their position can make better.

 

It seem to me the Constitution that our forefathers constructed stated we have the right to pusue life, liberty, and happiness. I understand the point made stating the emplyees took the job knowing they had to live in the city or a radius. But, I think the residency rule alone violates "liberty". Another thing that is ironic, it's strange to me to see many Democrates who are against residency lifting. These are the same folks who proclaim they are for the small guy, they're against big business, they're for union workers, they stand up for individual rights, they are pro-choice. Well, I guess not in this case.

What other liberty does it violate?

^

I know this is beginning to sound redundant, but the city employees that fall under this restriction accepted these positions with the full knowledge that their address would need to fall within the city limits of Cleveland.  This is no different than the Clinic hiring persons with the knowledge that they cannot smoke on the campus, or any other host of firms in the area that require a certain manner of dress for the workday.  This rule wasn't some surprise that was pulled on city employees after the fact, they had to opportunity to take or leave the job with the restrictions attached to it, and they opted to take it.

But, I think the residency rule alone violates "liberty".

 

Keep thinking. You need the practice. If you're a city safety worker have no other choice but to take that job, then it violates liberty. Show me how that applies here. Furthermore, the safety workers have unions, which give them more power than other voters to influence who their bosses are. Getting the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters or the Fraternal Order of Police is worth a lot to other voters. How many other workers in the world get that much power to choose their bosses? But with the state government's heavy-handed rewriting of voter-approved city charters, why should a locally elected official care as much what safety worker union says at election time anymore? Their political power has been weakened. So much for liberty.

 

Another thing that is ironic, it's strange to me to see many Democrates who are against residency lifting. These are the same folks who proclaim they are for the small guy, they're against big business, they're for union workers, they stand up for individual rights, they are pro-choice. Well, I guess not in this case.

 

Oh boy, here we go with the partisanship again! Political parties -- mankind's greatest contribution to group-think (an oxymoron), laziness, and normalizing prejudgment of an individual's beliefs.

 

Check the voting record on SB82. Democrats and Republicans voted to weaken residency laws, and they voted against the bill, too.

 

Judge a human being one at a time. It may take longer, but you'll find the results are much more satisfying.

I do understand that when the employee took the job, he/she understood that during thier employment, being a resident was a requirement. As of this date, I'm sure all of the employees have followed the rule or they would have been fired. But, the rule itself is what I question. We all have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. How does one have liberty if they are told where to live and/or denied the freedom of choice? That, to me, is a basic right of evey American. If Ohio passes this law in favor of employees, then I say they did a good job. I am sick of hearing the ACLU and others go to bat when a convicted child molester is denied access into certian communities. It's about time some law abiding citizens get a bone thrown their way.

Also, if you (KJP) think an endorsment from the International Association of Firefighters is that great, do your homework. Here are the last 4  mayoral elections in Cleveland. In reverse cronological order- F. Jackson, J. Campbell, M. White, M. White -------all elected. The firefighters endorsed the loosers in every election. Wow, what pull those firefighters have!!!!!!!