Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Feigenholtz; Tech; Althoff; Brady; Eppel; Reform; Giannoulias; Senger; Suicides (use all caps in password)
Posted in:
* The setup…
Rito Martinez was an award-winning teacher who won a plum of a job as a principal in what was then the most expensive Chicago Public Schools building ever constructed.
But for the last 2½ years, as principal of Social Justice High, Martinez has been living a lie.
Though he claimed to CPS officials that he was living in Chicago, Martinez was actually residing in Oak Park, in violation of the system’s city residency policy.
On Thursday, Martinez, 40, fessed up to stunned students and teachers and revealed that he has handed in his resignation
* Daley…
“City employees should live in the city,” [Mayor Daley] said in 2003. “If I’m mayor, should I live in Waukegan? If it’s good enough to work and earn your salary, it’s good enough to live. I’ve always felt that way. I believe in that.”
This is how city Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer Hoyle put it Thursday: “Requiring [workers] to be city residents gives them a greater commitment to what’s happening in the city of Chicago, a greater understanding of the needs and concerns of the city residents they would be serving as city employees.”
* The Question: Should all municipal residency requirements be abolished? Explain fully, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fight over IL civil unions kicks up some dust
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Feigenholtz; Tech; Althoff; Brady; Eppel; Reform; Giannoulias; Senger; Suicides (use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes. To limit the available pool of qualified resources based on an address is nonsensical and somewhat imperialistic.
Comment by The Doc Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:11 am
Yes, get rid of them…but I wouldn’t be against a requirement that you live X number of miles from the city limits instead.
Thinking about where I live…there’s a corner three blocks from me that could literally be three different towns, depending on where you happen to be standing. Seems stupid for someone to be eligible if they live on the NE side of the corner, but not on the NW side.
John’s right, that it’s telling that a Chicago principal lives in Oak Park so his kids don’t go to Chicago schools. I don’t think the second half of his statement necessarily follows, but the first part is a not-so-happy commentary.
Comment by Concerned Observer Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:13 am
whoops, I see that other statement was removed. Ignore the last paragraph of my comment, then.
Comment by Concerned Observer Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:14 am
Yes you should have residency requirements. Many off duty Chicago Police, Firemen etc. have been involved with helping citizens when they were off duty. Also neighborhood with high police residency have lower crime rates. Mt. Greenwood, Edison Park etc.
You need to spend off duty time in the area you are working in to have a better idea how things work, how things can be improved etc.
You also are taken more seriously when you change things (policies, structural, etc.)because they also affect you.
People wonder why you want to work in the City if you don’t want to live in the city.
Comment by thirdgenerationchicagonative Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:16 am
The residency requirement limits the pool of highly qualified applicants to those who either live in, or are willing to move to, the City. How does that benefit students who need the best qualified teachers possible? Under Daley’s status quo, students from the poorest families have, on average, the most poorly prepared teachers. Our system thus perpetuates inequality.
Comment by reformer Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:17 am
I don’t think that this is a 1 size fit’s all solution for either side.
For non-1st responders (Fire, Police) it is a much easier case to make. While I can appreciate the sentiment, I don’t think it really necessary for say a principal to have to live in the neighborhood of the school they work at.
For higher public officials, I do think it is a symbolic gesture to live in the city they serve. It would look odd for example for Daley to live in Naperville for example. Or the Gov to live in say…Chicago.
I do see a point to having 1st responders live in the community they serve however. Pay should also reflect that requirement (ie, it takes a lot more to live in Naperville versus Bolingbrook). If you expect your public servents to live in the neighboorhood, pay them enough to make it practical.
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:18 am
Should all municipal residency requirements be abolished? Explain fully, please.
No. If you want to lead a community as a public official, you have to live within that community. Chicago is a big city with enough homes from which to choose. There is no reason not to live in Chicago, if you wish to be employed by Chicago.
It isn’t a matter of logistics. It is a matter of principle. We all know about the residency requirements. It is a part of the job.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:22 am
I would keep residency requirements for elected municipal officials but not for educators, police and firefighters, etc… Plus, removing residency requirements may encourage greater competition when hiring new teachers, police, etc…
Comment by HoBoSkillet Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:23 am
I don’t think it should be so cut and dry. I think City/County/Municipal employers should have a policy that if a hiring decision came down to two people one resident, one non-resident, the resident would be hired.
I do think that in the case of hiring educators, there should never be a residency requirement.
Comment by Elliot Ness Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:28 am
It is awful that teachers and administrators would teach in a district that they don’t want their kids to go to school at. I guess it is common, now, though. I would be interested to know how this principal pulled this off, if he has kids.
If it is a rule, you have to live by it. I don’t see that changing in Chicago.
I am feeling, yes, you should live in the municipality that you represent. It sends the wrong message to do other wise.
Comment by Real Estate Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:31 am
As Daley makes the City of Chicago unlivable and unaffordable through his taxes, fees and fines, sells off it’s assets and privatizes it’s employees he has the audacity to demand the remaining workers he has not been able to get rid of remain under his thumb.
Daley has demonstrated contempt for his own employees and a lack of management skills necessary to get them to produce. The only employees who seem to thrive due so because of corruption regulated by his administration.
Because of the intolerable management of Chicago it would be appropriate to allow, at least temporarily, these employees to escape from Chicago.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:32 am
Of course. The requirements narrow the field of applicants. Each city wants to maximize the number of qualified applicants to its agencies, right?
Comment by Greg Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:35 am
If City residency is required, does Chicago also providing relocation assistance if they hire from outside the City? If not, prospective employees will negotiate for a higher rate of pay to compensate for the relocation expense.
In today’s housing market, selling a house to take a job can be an insurmountable obstactle to the best of candidates. Abolishing residency requirements will improve the pool of qualified candidates, and in a metro area such as Chicago’s, it’s pure bunk to say that a person is not committed to their job because of where they do or do not reside. A professional who is concerned about his or her career never compromises the quality of work simply because of where he or she lives. That’s ridiculous.
Comment by Economic Feasibility Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:38 am
Yes, I think if you’re going to work for the city, county or state, you should live in the geographic entity that pays your salary. I also think you should be a US citizen if you’re going to work for the government.
Comment by Marianne North Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:41 am
NOOOOOO!
Residency is what helped Chicago avoid the same backslide as every other urban center. It contributed to the repopulation of the central city.
From a pool of 3,000,000 there should be more than enough talent to staff police and fire and other services. Teachers and teh CTA should be in too.
Might not be popular with incumbent workers, but I bet they could be quickly replaced once they clear out.
In town workforce also means a nice group of middle class, well paid, taxpaying, homeowning families.
It worked for Richard J.
Stay the course
Comment by Reddbyrd Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:47 am
First.. I dont live in Chicago. That being said, I am a strong believer that public employees should live/work in the same jurisdiction.
On teh other hand IMHO Chicago is really defined as the area bounded by the Wisconsin border, I80, Lake Michigan and the first line of corn fields to the west..
So until a UniGov solution is adopted for the area (i.e hell freezes over AND the cubs win a pennant), I guess I stand by my call that he should live in the district.
Comment by The Horse Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:47 am
My family has a vested interest in this issue since we live in DuPage Cty (no surprise there given my nickname!) and my wife works for Cook Cty. There have been attempts in the past to change the residency requirment in Cook Cty but it has failed. Even if it were to pass, it appeared that it would not have been retroactive but only for new hires. Certainly, elected officials must reside in the district which they serve. Some affluent communities do not have housing stock that employees can afford. How do you handle that? I think that with higher level officials it makes more sense since you are the head of the agency. Expanded pool of candidates is a reality that can’t be ignored.
I do not have much sypmathy for Martinez. He knew the rules going in and lied about it. A poor example to set for your students.
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:47 am
But if workers from outside Chicago can compete for City jobs, who will do all the leg work of the Wards/Daley at election time?
Seriously, having workers live within a certain radius makes sense for first responders. Elected officials should live where they work. But, other City employees, I don’t see the necessity.
I like the idea of a previous poster of giving preference to City residents during the hiring process. However, the qualifications and experience of the applicant should be paramount - especially for educators.
The reality is the City is an expensive place to live. Plus many potential employees may not want to have to uproot their own kids/family for a job. I think this would greatly expand the pool of qualified educators, something Chicago desperately needs.
Comment by Velma D. Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:52 am
Since Daley is commited to selling city services into the private sector to make things more efficient will he/can he require employees of those private service companies to live in the city? I don’t think he can force a private company to hire only those who live within the city limits. And if the service improves once sold how does that square with the arguement that only residents can provide good service to the city?
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 10:54 am
Martinez case is ironic to me in that he chose to live in Oak Park.
Oak Park used to have a residency requirement for cops and firemen. At my first apartment in Oak Park, my neighbors were two cops who rented the apartment together to meet the residency requirement, but really lived with their girlfriends in — you guessed it, Chicago.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:04 am
Apparently the State does not have a residency requirement. You would think you could find somwhere acceptable to live in such a large area, but some state employees live in Indiana and Wisconsin.
Comment by Anon Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:10 am
No. it sends a message when you work in one jurisdiction and live in another…that you don’t want to be a part of the place where you work. the message has to be supportive. Keep the residency rules in place.
Comment by Amy Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:11 am
If salaries are paid for by city taxes (property, sales, etc), why wouldn’t the city expect you to live within the city boundaries with the expectation that you will likely spend your money in the city. The issue has two sides. The city may lose some very good workers with residency rules. Those workers are also choosing to work in the city and live elsewhere. Public employment comes with some issues and this is one of them. If the city requires residency then you need to live there or find another job. The city be a great employer with wonderful benefits or the cost of living may be too high to afford residence there. It is a choice each person and city has to make to decide where to work.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:11 am
Ask the Mayor why it’s ok for charter school teachers to live outside the city. They have no residency requirement.
Comment by double standard Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:14 am
Yes, abolish them. If the mayor can live in Waukegan and still get elected, more power to him. Did renting an apartment in Calumet City actually make Alan Keyes any more vested in Illinois?
And you get the people splitting hairs about “residency.” A home? A condo? An apartment? A room somewhere? What percentage of their time do they need to live there to count as a “resdience?” Who’s going to verify it?
“Requiring [workers] to be city residents gives them a greater commitment to what’s happening in the city of Chicago.” Frankly, that tired old argument is an insult to my professionalism and commitment to my job. I show up for work every day to do my best at what I do whether it directly affects me or not. (For example, should we require that people who work for the Dept. of Public Aid actually be on Public Aid?) Telling me that I am not going to give my full effort to my job just because of where I live is telling me I don’t have the integrity to do what I was hired to do.
Comment by What planet is he from again? Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:19 am
I can see both sides of the argument.
But I guess it bugs me more that teachers who draw public school salaries who don’t send their children to public schools.
If a teacher believe the public school system is not good enough for his/her child, what’s that say about the level of service and quality of education the teacher is delivering to her/his students?
Doesn’t it sort of imply, “No self-respecting parent of financial means would send their child to my classroom”?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:21 am
Reddbyrd said CTA employees should live in the city.
In case you haven’t studied a map, the CTA does serve a number of suburban communities.
Here’s an anecdote about a CTA employee who almost assuredly did live in the city who was working at the Forest Park Blue Line stop. I asked him about buses going to Broadview which is a nearby community. Not only did he not know the bus routes (a mix of CTA and PACE) the guy hadn’t even heard of Broadview.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:26 am
Abolishing the residency would crush city home values, so for that reason alone I say keep the residency rules. Plus the fact that if the city is good enough to provide a living for you, it should be good enough to live in. I’m really puzzled at the waiver that teachers at charter schools get. Maybe give them a one year grace period and then they move in or they’re gone. Oh, I forgot, charters are a mayoral priority, silly me.
Comment by James the Intolerant Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:31 am
i’m not the least bit troubled by residency requirements for a city as large as chicago. it is absolutely inane to argue that this requirement diminishes the talent pool for anything but the most specialized job. and i have no reason to believe that the city of chicago has any job so specialized that they could not be superbly served by a chicago resident.
i can only assume that those who argue against this requirement wish to partake in the pay and benefits of the city of chicago without having to pay the taxes, etc, used to provide such. iow, it’s a purely selfish argument. given the fact that our capitalist system is based entirely on mobility of the labor pool, it is actually an argument against the american economic model. if you want to work for the city of chicago, move there. it’s not any different than if you want to work at google headquarters. if you don’t want to move, tough. find a job more appropriate to your own lifestyle.
ftr, i don’t live in the city of chicago and have absolutely no interest in a city job. it’s pure logic…
Comment by bored now Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:34 am
–Ask the Mayor why it’s ok for charter school teachers to live outside the city. They have no residency requirement.–
That’s true. My neighbor in Oak Park teaches at Whitney Young.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:39 am
The residency requirment on a teacher and city administartors makes no sense. A residency requirement for inspectors, fire and health personnel make a bit more sense if you are hoping to catch the excercise of their official duties off hours.
As to Carl’s issues with teachers whose kids may dont go to the school they teach at, your view is to black and white. Fuirst, an individual teacher has little control over the quality of other teachers or curriculium at the school. They have no control over the availaibility of extra curriculur activites, computers, labs, school materials etc. its more an indictment of our education system then the teacher. Also a parent teacher may be concerned that their kid could become the target of violence because of the relationship. They may like the school, but not want to expose the child to potential harrasment, ridicule, hazing etc.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:43 am
No. Make the employees who get lavish pensions, great health care, and good wages live in the city. These result in the high taxes. They should pay the taxes.
Comment by Ken Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:56 am
I am all for it if the city/board officials are restricted to taking bribes, gifts and other graft from people who live in the same city, district ect.
Comment by Enemy of the State Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 11:59 am
“”I knew that to be principal, you needed to live in the city, and I made a personal decision not to live in the city,'’ Martinez told the Chicago Sun-Times. “I’m heart-broken and very sorry and need to figure out what my next steps are.'’”
He is heart-broken because he got caught.
All these postings and not one negative mention about this guy and his lying and cheating to keep his job. Especially since he’s supposed to be giving moral guidance to the kids in his school.
No lack of negatives on Burris.
It appears the posters have their own situational ethics.
Comment by True Observer Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:00 pm
New CTA hires are required to live in the CTA service area. Which includes many areas outside the city. Same with Cook County and Chicago Public Schools. Employees hired prior to the requirement are grandfathered “out” so to speak.
I’m for the residency requirement. It keeps hundreds of thousands of middle income people in the city when you add in family members. Think of what would happen to property values in parts of the SW and NW side and the middle income black neighborhoods on the south side if the residency requirement disappeared.
I believe in cities. Keeping cities viable means keeping middle class folks around. It’s also better for the nation if cities remain viable instead of folks moving further and further out till Miller’s godforsaken Kankakee becomes a bedroom suburb of Jacksonville National airport.
As for those employees who enjoy whining about it then quit your jobs.
Comment by IrishPirate Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:07 pm
Should all municipal residency requirements be abolished?
A qualified no. Rich, I assume by “all municipal residency requirements” you are extending the question beyond just Cook or Chicago and mean to include any city/county in the state.
If that is the case, some requirements should be lifted. Keep the residency rule for elected officials or “senior management” positions but eliminate the requirement for the lower levels like teachers, principals, typical city/county workers and even rank and file cops/firemen. I believe you open up a better pool of candidates. I also think that many of these employees while not living within the defined boundries, will have close ties to that area.
Comment by what the? Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Bored now,
The city currently enters into contractual agreements with outside vendors who employ staff with no city residency requirements. These contractual employees enjoy the benefit of working for the city without having to move. Why the uneven standards for direct vrs contractual employees?
Comment by Budget Watcher Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:12 pm
Theargument that first responders should live in the city of employment is a strong one.
But for Chicago public schools, this law severely restricts the availalble eaching talent to draw from. CPS employs 30,000 teachers and staff while nearly 60,000 teachers and staff work in the surburbs. None of these suburban resident teachers can teach in Chicago without moving, though many want to bring their skills to underpeformaing city schools. If improving chicago schools is the Mayor’s goal, why not draw from the talented pool of suburban teachers by lifting the residency law. Also, Chicago charter schools DO NOT have residency requirements.
Comment by yorfriend Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:49 pm
TO, the question was “Should residency rules be abolished?” Not, “how come no one is calling this guy out but everyone is picking on Roland Burris?”
Having said that, I can see in the city a residency requirement wouldn’t be much of a burden for the city to find people to fill jobs. With about 3,000,000 people, I would hope there would be some qualified candidates there.
However, for smaller communities, having these requirements thins the applicant pool, especially in this economic climate. People are less reluctant to leave current steady employment to relocate for new employment. Also, as someone pointed out, selling a house right now is brutal.
Comment by Anon in BB Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:58 pm
Let’s do away with it and expand the practice so we can elect out-of-state governors.
Comment by Frank Booth Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 12:58 pm
Elected officials need to live in the district/municipality they wish to represent. If you don’t like it, why represent it? But a job is just a job.
I can see the logic of having public safety personnel live nearby so they can respond to a disaster. But imagine there is an excellent administrator living and working in Naperville. If that is the best person for the job in Joliet or Chicago or Wilmette, why add the expense of forcing them to move? Maybe they can’t move (can’t afford the new house, can’t sell the old one, their home is midway between their job and their spouses job, the children are a year or two from graduation, etc.). If all municipalities did this, and both spouses wanted to work for a local gov’t agency (they are both teachers, both city managers, or a teacher and a cop, etc.) then what? Teachers and school administrators may want their children in a different district to avoid conflicts of interest.
There are many good reasons to do away with this meaningless requirement.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:05 pm
It may be fine for a small town to not have residency but not Chicago. Look at Detroit to see what happens when residency is not required in a big city.
I also think state of Illinois employees should be required to live in Illinois. There are more than enough options and no real reason to allow out-of-state residency.
I do think employees are more responsive if they have more at stake.
Comment by SE Lakeview Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:12 pm
Requiring [workers] to be city residents gives them a greater commitment to what’s happening in the city of Chicago, a greater understanding of the needs and concerns of the city residents they would be serving as city employees.
No one from the mayor’s office should be questioning the commitment of any Chicago public school teacher.
I challenge the city to produce a SINGLE study that links residency requirements to higher teacher performance.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 1:54 pm
It should be up to the municipality or county (whoever the employer is). If there was a residency rule for DuPage County, their ranks would be thinned out very fast, because few of their public employees can afford to live there. So they wisely do not have a residency rule (regarding DuPage’s lack of affordable housing in “nice” neighborhoods…I digress). However, if Chicago determines it’s in the best interests of its taxpayers to keep city employees living within city limits, OK by me.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:04 pm
Elected officials should maintain the statutory residency requirement.
First responders should have a reasonable distance to assignment sort of thing. Some adjacent suburbs leave a first responder closer to where he works that the in city housing he could afford.
non-first responders should not have a residency requiement - at most, a much less restrictive distance to assignment standard.
Comment by doc Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:10 pm
I have served on a rural school board. In the case of small rural schools the quality of teaching has declined with the removal of the residency requirement. Additionally, the community suffers as the teachers of a district no longer serve on the community’s village boards, Kiwanis, Womens Clubs, etc.
Comment by Dan Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:25 pm
Yes. Best people before best residence.
Comment by Shore Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:02 pm
As someone already said, it is not a one size fits all situation. I think some residency requirements actually hinder the hiring of quality people, teachers among them. What if you can’t sell the place you currently live in (hello, housing market), when you get a new job? What if you have a spouse working somewhere else where moving to the city would be a strain? What if you just can’t find a place you can afford? Is the new job, let’s say teaching since that’s what concerns me, going to give you a moving stipend or help you get a housing loan or what not?
And the idea that forcing teachers to be residents makes them automatically more committed to the community is a joke. I can attest from clinical site I was at that the attitude was “get the heck out” as soon as the bell rings. So the teachers didn’t stay late to help students. Is a teacher going to be seeing the students somewhere else? Not likely, because of the potential legal problems if you are unsupervised. Oh the times we live in.
Comment by DB Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:07 pm
“It may be fine for a small town to not have residency but not Chicago. Look at Detroit to see what happens when residency is not required in a big city.”
Are Detroit’s problems really because they don’t force city workers to live in the city?
Comment by Elliot Ness Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:17 pm
No residency requirements. Not for the city, not for the state, not for the country. If we want to elect a Floridian as governor, in this age of tele-commuting, why not?
And hey, if you screwed up the place you’re governing, why should you have to live there?
Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:58 pm
Should residency req’s be abolished? Absolutely. Encourage muni employees to move out of the communities in which they serve! The faster they get out, the easier it will be for elected boards to take action on bloated pensions. With employees not part of the voting public of Chicago or any other muni, for that matter, the City Council can bring pension costs in line without the fear of ballot box retribution by employees and union members.
Non-city payroll voters of Chicago should want muni employees to get out as quickly as possible.
Comment by SangamoGOP Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 3:59 pm
Residency laws in a city the size of Chicago are a good idea. The jobs are very good jobs and the city simply wants to keep as much money flowing in the local revenue streams as possible.
I believe that employees of a community need to have a stake in the quality of life of the town that pays their bills. The are more likely to learn what the problems are in their neighborhood and can use the insider tack to get things fixed in a way that an ordinary citizen cannot.
Smaller communities should have a access time requirement or distance requirement. Department heads should in all cases be residents.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:08 pm
@All those who support
I was intially against the idea. But now, swayed by the persuasive arguement that since the city/town/muni is paying the salary, they should have to live there.
In fact, that is such a good idea, lets go a step further. Lets make a “Chicago Grocery”, “Chicago Car Dealer”, and of course “Chicago Cable/Sat, Telephone/Cell/Internet”. And employees of these cities should be REQUIRED to buy from the company store.
That way NO money can escape from the system. And if you want to take a vacation, you should be forced to take it in the city where you work, lest any disposable income escape.
In fact, lets not even pay them. We could just indenture them. Free work, for free rent. Yeah….that’s the ticket!
Comment by How Ironic Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 4:37 pm
Wordslinger, please provide the name of your neighbor in Oak Park to the Inspector General, Whitney Young is not a charter school.
Comment by James the Intolerant Saturday, Mar 7, 09 @ 6:29 am
The Randian hand wringing is disingenuous. Spare us the missives about the free market.
I’ll tell you how it works in the private sector. Any resume that’s more than a 40 minute drive one way gets tossed into the trash. Long haulers take more days off (weather events and such), arrive later\leave earlier and are way more likely to leave for a job closer to home. Those factors have real costs associated.
The notion there is a pool of suburban teachers (the majority of whom are working mothers) ready to forgo better pay and 30 minute commutes to spend 2 1/2 hours a day in a car traveling to Englewood is pure fantasy.
Comment by HappyToaster Saturday, Mar 7, 09 @ 10:56 am
There is no reason for Chicago employees to not live in the city. It makes very little sense to let Chicago taxpayer money fund salaries of people who are not committed enough to actually live in the city (which, of course, DOES offer a number of solid working-class housing options).
The only case I see where this rule might be relaxed is in hiring teachers. But even then, what kind of a message does it send that public school teachers wouldn’t want to live in the communities where they teach? And are we really going to suddenly see Naperville teachers decide to leave their current jobs and teach in the city?
If you don’t have any qualms making a living off of a city salary, then you shouldn’t have to think twice about living there.
Comment by J S A Saturday, Mar 7, 09 @ 4:17 pm
and @ how ironic:
The difference with municipal jobs and the things you mention (grocer, car dealer, etc) is obvious: they are not city services or public goods. There is very little reason in that argument. Chicago has every right to require the people it pays to live within the city limits. Like I said, if you are willing to work in the public sector and contribute to a city’s overall welfare, then it’s hypocritical to not want to live there. Besides, keeping a middle-class presence in the city is also beneficial for its communities.
If someone wants to make an argument for lack of affordable housing, this is something that should also need to remedied by the city. But either way, the city helps teachers finds affordable housing (http://www.teacherhousing.cps.k12.il.us/). So that point is almost moot.
And even if it might present problems to couples who work in different places: tough. I don’t mean to sound rude, but dealing with jobs in different locations is part of what couples will need to deal with regardless of city policy. The city should not have to accommodate to these couples.
Comment by J S A Saturday, Mar 7, 09 @ 4:32 pm