Saturday, October 20, 2007

City living

A debate has erupted over at the Burgh Report over whether Mark DeSantis' pledge to end the city's residency requirement for employees is a good idea. In response to someone who claimed the city school district has declined as a result of the end of its teachers' residency requirement, I posted this response:

First of all, no suburban district has a residency requirement. So the idea that teachers have to live in the communities in which they teach in order to be successful is ridiculous. Thanks to grandfathering and the exemptions that were handed out as part of the CBA, plenty of Pittsburgh teachers and administrators lived outside the city even before the residency requirement was lifted. And the reason it was lifted was because Philadelphia had problems recruiting teachers due to its residency requirement, and by state code only Pittsburgh and Philly had such rules.

I suppose the best reason to not require employees to live in the city is that it automatically increases the pool of potential employees. That may not matter much to the police -- I have no idea if recruitment is an issue, especially in light of the budget cuts. Perhaps police who live in the city do garner more respect from the citizens they ostensibly protect. But as the admiral noted, there are vast differences among Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and living in one of them may not give you an appreciation of the others. (I, for instance, live closer, in geography, to Dormont than to East Liberty.)

I don't like the idea of a change in policy being made strictly for an endorsement. But arguably the morale of an employee is better if they can live where they choose, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Yes, there is a cost, and I've certainly criticized past efforts to keep unions happy at the expense of taxpayers. Yet somehow I doubt we're going to see hundreds of for sale signs go up in the city as a result of this. I suspect there are plenty of police who like living in the city, or for other reasons aren't inclined to move.

And if we do see a mass exodus, then my friends we have problems. Because what does it say about our city if we have to force people to live here? (link)

Labels: , ,


Blogger Mark Rauterkus said...

I grew up in Penn Hills. My dad was a teacher for Pgh Public Schools. We were able to reside in Penn Hills because of a 'grandfather clause.' The rule was put into the teachers employment contract after my dad was already working in the district.

The rule was put into play. Then after some decades (I think) -- it was removed.

Teachers in Pgh Public Schools can live anywhere.

While there isn't a "RULE" about where teachers live in suburban areas. There is a big hurdle in that people who don't live in the district are at a big disadvantage. Those districts in the burbs want to hire those that live within the burb district. Bank on it. I've seen it in action many times in many instances.

The Firefighters say they like living in the city.

Just some trivia. I'm not saying EXACTLY what I'd want, for now.

4:21 PM

Blogger CapitolMAN said...

I know that some suburban municipalities have requirements for policemen. For example, in Elizabeth Twp you can take your cruiser home if you live within the twp.

3:01 PM

Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

Some communities require police to live no more than X number of miles from the municipality. I think that is a reasonable requirement for public safety workers.

3:45 PM


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home