Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* You’ve probably seen this already…

Mayoral hopeful Gery Chico said Tuesday he’s open to abolishing the residency requirement for city employees, arguing that Chicago’s middle-class tax base can survive without it.

Chico dropped the political bombshell as he accepted the endorsement of a Chicago Firefighters Union Local 2 that has long advocated allowing firefighters and paramedics to live outside Chicago.

The Fraternal Order of Police, which has also chafed at the residency rule, has also endorsed Chico. Together, the two unions represent nearly 25,000 active members and retirees. […]

After the state state Senate voted earlier this year to lift the residency requirement for teachers in the Chicago Public Schools, Daley lambasted the idea as the beginning of the end for Chicago’s middle class.

From Carol Moseley Braun’s response…

“Mr. Chico’s support for lifting the city’s residency requirement poses a direct threat to our city’s middle class. Our neighborhoods are maintained through a strong and reliable tax-base and lifting the residency requirement endangers this important resource.

* The Question: Do you agree or disagree with ending Chicago’s (or any city’s) residency requirement for public employees? Explain.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:23 am

Comments

If CMB is against it, I have to believe that the reasoned position is in favor of it.

Comment by The Dark Horse Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:35 am
I agree with keeping the current policy.

Comment by David Aubrey Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:37 am
The residency requirement addresses two issues.

#1 In a time of extreme emergency/disaster you want your emergency personnel to be able to get to the scene in a very short time. If itis necessary to call in staff who are off, the residency ensures they will be fairly close.

The benefit to having teachers close really only applies in inclement weather where you would hope that bad weather would not prevent too many teachers from getting to their class. In that case the students might not be able to make it in either and school might be closed. So that point might be moot.

#2 If your city employees are required to live in the city then they share in the tax burden that their contracts put upon the residents. This is a big issue to resident taxpayers. They do not want to see a city employee get a lucrative contract and then reside in an area where the tax burden is less.

Both of these arguments are valid and the employees should reside in the city. In a like situation would anyone allow a state employee to work for the State of Illinois yet live in say, Wisconsin? In some instances a State of Illinois employee might work within a mile or two of the border with another State. It is conceivable that they might reside in another State with a lower income tax, if not for the residency requirement. It would never be tolerated.

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:38 am
Totally DISAGREE with eliminating. It’s not only a public safety issue, it simply makes sense to expect public employees to live in the jurisdiction they are supposed to serve. Plus having a cop or firefighter in the neighborhood means the person is always helping the community, even when the person is in bed asleep at home. It’s a huge service to the community. There’s the whole deterrent factor for starters.

If anyone hates the requirement so much all they have to do is find another line of work where they can live anywhere. Plenty of people out there who would love to have these jobs and would love to stay in the communities served. Those are exactly the people we want anyway.

Chico’s always been a big pander bear.

Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:38 am
Disagree strongly. I think all public sector employees should live in the jurisdictions where they work. They would then experience what all the other residents experience and help pay their own salaries with their tax dollars.

Comment by "Old Timer Dem" Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:38 am
It pains me to say it, but Braun is right on this issue. The tax base of the city is at issue as is the viability of many neighborhoods.

Many solidly middle class areas filled with city employees would soon see a huge drop in demand for housing. Those cops living in Mount Greenwood are generally not doing it for the fine architecture.

The black city and school board employees who dominate Chatham would likely follow much of the rest of the black middle class out of the city and into the south suburbs.

Residency is necessary to the viability of many city neighborhoods.

Comment by IrishPirate Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:40 am
City employees should have to live where they work and with what they work on.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:41 am
Irish — I think there are in fact state employees who live in other states. But keep in mind — you pay income tax based on where you earn it, not where you live. So these employees pay Illinois income tax.

Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:42 am
Disagree

Seems like all the candidates are working on a laundry list of giveaways intended to buy the votes of a voting block.

I’m with Dark Horse

Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:43 am
I see it for police, fire and public works, but not for other employees. Those three categories of employees may be summoned to immediate duty in case of emergencies.
Some towns have through collective bargaining changed from mandatory residency to a residency stipend for employees who choose to live in town.
New employees who are required to move into town within a certain time frame are getting extensions due to the difficulty in selling houses.

One wonders if Detroit has a residency requirement and if not, whether that is partially responsible for the ghost town condition of some of the neighborhoods. Hmm.

Comment by Jake From Elwood Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:44 am
The other commenters have already listed some goods reason for the residency requirement. That being said if lifting the residency requirement threatens the existance of the middle class tax base in Chicago, that indicates some pretty serious problems in Chi-town

Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:45 am
The city of Elgin eliminated its residency requirement a number of years ago as part of negotiations of union contracts. The elimination has had little adverse affect on municipal services, especially in the areas of police and fire protection. Mutual aid agreements have nearly eliminated the need for emergency callbacks, and systems are in place to recall of duty personnel. Elgin did maintain a residency requirement for senior management level employees, with hires being required to establish residency within 18 months.

Comment by WRMNpolitics Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:47 am
As a City resident for nearly 25 years, I must say I don’t see the merits of FORCING people to live in the City.

If it’s a safety issue then make it a distance requirement which is far more relevant than a residency requirement. For example, if I was a cop in Rogers Park, I could live five minutes away but be in Evanston, or I could live at 95th Street and be an hour away in traffic.

If that’s just a straw man (which I suspect it is), then focus on the real issue. Because it seems to me that what people here and the Mayor are saying is we have to hold people captive or they wouldn’t live in the City. That’s a very East German attitude.

There are reasons people choose not to live in the City. I suggest we’d be better off focusing on those reasons rather than creating urban prisoners.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:48 am
No, city employees should live here for the reasons stated.
That being said, is it too late to draft a write-in candidate? This looks like Brady/Quinn. Either way, the voters lose. There is nobody running that should be mayor.

Comment by Jasper Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:48 am
- soccermom - 11:42 - Yes I agree, that was not a good example. Change it to Property tax and then it would matter. And since property tax funds a lot of those city needs it would be more appropro.

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:49 am
Interesting. If it is a political pander then presumably you get votes in this election, but do those voters then flee the city and come off the rolls if you end the requirement?

I could see ending it for no other reason that this City lacks decent neighborhood schools and so you are forcing an additional cost of private school tuition on many families.

Comment by truthteller Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:50 am
As a city resident I am all for the requirement. I want employees invested in the success of their work. This is the egg/bacon breakfast idea. The chicken likes the idea but the pig is committed. I want committed employees.

Comment by jeff Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:53 am
“One wonders if Detroit has a residency requirement and if not, whether that is partially responsible for the ghost town condition of some of the neighborhoods. Hmm. ”

I have no idea if Detroit has residency requirements or not. If it doesnt I suspect that has very little do with the ghost town conditions have far more to do with economics and/or social issues. If a major city needs residency requirements in order to maintain its middle class tax base that already indicates there serious problems.

Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:54 am
Urban prison, Cynic? That’s kind of harsh, don’t you think?

I’m with Irish. Keep it in place. You want to work for the city? Live here. It gives city employees more skin in the game, an extra incentive (albeit small) to care a bit more about their jobs. I don’t see any good reason to change it, other than helping Chico get some endorsements.

Plus, if they end the residency requirement, my precinct captain will have to drive in from Channahon or God knows where to not knock on my door. We can’t have precinct captains living in the suburbs, can we?

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:55 am
Long past time to eliminate it. Remember a year or so back when the fire fighters union started agitating for an allowance to offset the high cost of living in Chicago? The residency requirement creates a captured constituency at the back and call of the mayor and alderman. Furthermore, allowing the city to hire from cheaper cost of living areas may help lower employee costs and therefore taxes. The “spend it where you earn it” argument makes no sense and smacks of an authoritarian state. If you want to hold to that propostion, then retirees too musy live in the governmental unit pating their annuity.

Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 11:59 am
If city employees don’t can’t vote for mayor and alderman in the city what is the point of having them?

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:01 pm
Totally agree.

The idea should be hire the best employees. Where they reside (or is it reside in?), as long as it’s close, should have no bearing.

In NYC, police and firefighters have to live in an adjoining county, but not the city. It greatly increases the number of qualified applicants for the jobs.

CMB seems to believe that you have to hold folks hostage to keep them in the city. That’s self-defeating thinking. Have better police, fire and schools, and the middle class will grow.

Police, fire and teachers are too important jobs to just rely on the same small pool of municipal pawns (many probably beholden to some ward baron for a job).

Oak Park used to require its police and fire (overwhelmingly white back then) to reside in the village (like living in Berwyn or Cicero would harm their response time in emergency). The real reason was fear of block-busting that occurred on the West Side and in Maywood.

The requirement’s been gone for years. Nobody noticed as housing prices continued to soar.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:03 pm
Urban prison might be a bit of a strong term, but the poster does make a point. If there is a realistic chance that removing the residency would led to a sigificant number of city workers leaving the city that should be a pretty strong indication that the city is facing more serious problems.

Comment by RMW Stanford Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:05 pm
Completely agree with CMB. Neighborhoods like Mount Greenwood and Beverly on the SW side, and neighborhoods like Edison Park on the NW side will see their property values plummet if the residency requirement is lifted.

When the law was first enacted there may have been a lot of opposition, but city workers have come to accept and enjoy the fact that they and their families are Chicagoans through and through.

It might play well with a slim majority of city employees, but other people who live in those neighborhoods who DON’T work for the city will be completely against it. The few white enclaves on the fringes of the city will become a shadow of what they are now.

This could be the achiles heel of Gery Chico.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:05 pm
The state state senate? Nice editing, Sun Times (no offense, Rich).

I think it would make more sense to end the residency requirement piecemeal. Look at specific departments and positions and if we need to import talent from elsewhere, do so. If not, I see no reason to end a policy that gives a slight bump in employment opportunities to the constituents of the City.

Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:06 pm
If you’re going to be paid by an entity, you should live in the entity and pay taxes in that entity. Springpatch did away w/ it and it should be reinstated. It’s like a chef not eating his own food; GM pres driving a Ford; etc. etc.

Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:07 pm
Several cities in Ohio lost the last bit of their middle class when the residency requirements were abolished - not only because the city employees moved, but their flight destroyed housing values in the few remaining middle-class neighborhoods in Dayton, Cleveland, and Youngstown. It’s a bad idea. Bad, bad, bad. Although the Dark Horse has a point.

Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:11 pm
People have families. Two career couples are more the norm than the exception. Why should a couple’s residence be legally determined by where only one half of the couple works? What if a Chicago employee wanted to marry an employee of another city which also had a residency requirement? The person who said NYC got more nd better applicants for jobs once they relaxed the residency requirement has a good point — Chicago should be seeking the best people to work for it, not treating jobs like favors to be repaid in geographic and political loyalty.

As for the emergency argument, how many such disasters have occurred in the last 25 years?

Comment by Muskrat Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:16 pm
“Urban prison” is a hyperbolic argument suitable for Rush Limbaugh, please take it elsewhere.

I’m a city resident. When the city hires someone, they are making an investment in that person and I want that person to make an investment in the city if they intend to collect my tax dollars. They need to have skin in the game. If we have 50,000 city employees who live elsewhere, is there really any guarantee they’re going to give a crap about what happens in the city or how well they do their jobs?

Comment by Thoughts... Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:16 pm
===If city employees don’t can’t vote for mayor and alderman in the city what is the point of having them?===

They can still round-table.

Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:23 pm
Chicago is a big and diverse city with many interesting and nice neighborhoods to choose from. City employees should live in one of them, commute from one of them, pay taxes back to the city from one of them, and vote from one of them. Chico is wrong to push this idea.

Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:28 pm
As a resident of a suburb bordering Chicago, I am all for abolishing the live-in requirement.

Comment by Frank Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:30 pm
Of course, people should be able to live where they wish as long as they can perform their job duties. Residency requirements are contrary to a free society.

Having said that, it seems to be a bad time for Chico to be championing anti-residency laws when his only chance of winning would be if his competition is kicked off the ballot for non-residency.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:35 pm
Muskrat @ 12:16 -

I live in a community of about 20,000. I would say in the last 5 years we have had at least 6 - 8 instances where all the firemen, ambulance, personell available on duty responded to a situation and off duty personel were called in to staff the stations. It was important they could get there ASAP. I’ll bet it happens in a city like Chicago more often than you think.

And to answer the question, it really only takes one.

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:36 pm
I like the idea that if you work in the city you should should live in the city but……I also like, and prefer the idea that you can live and work where you like. Perhaps an exception to this would be emergency responders and only a distance consideration at that point without regard to city, county, or state.

Comment by Justice Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:39 pm
The CPS offers a waiver for residency that includes science teachers, math teachers, reading teachers among other ’special needs’ teachers that are needed. I think once you start giving waivers for one type of city employment, you may as well has waivers for all.

Comment by JGatz Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:48 pm
Sometimes people forget how big and crowded Chicago is. If your argument is regarding emergency responders, there are plenty of suburbs which are closer and more accessible for emergency personnel to respond to from outside Chicago than inside.

For example, a Chicago cop living on the Northwest side who works on the far South side might prefer to live in the South suburbs where he can get more for his money and respond to his district in a much shorter time.

Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:48 pm
Speaking as a widow of a Chicago police officer - he worked in and for the City - we paid our bills and lived comfortably because the City paid him well - he died before he could enjoy retirement but he never quibbled about the residency requirement - he was proud to serve and protect the City.

Comment by persnickety Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 12:53 pm
If the city ain’t good enough for you to live there, then you’re too good to work their either.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:10 pm
most other communities in the area that have any sort of requirement do so with a distance proximity rule - not a “within the corporate limits” rule.

Comment by titan Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:22 pm
Keep the requirement. I don;t want city emplioyees screwing up my suburb by voting here too. Plus, you get paid by the city, the least you could do is live there. Chi is a huge place and it is not like space is limitted.

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:46 pm
===most other communities in the area that have any sort of requirement do so with a distance proximity rule - not a “within the corporate limits” rule.===

That makes the most sense to me.

Comment by SR Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 1:58 pm
“If there is a realistic chance that removing the residency would led to a sigificant number of city workers leaving the city that should be a pretty strong indication that the city is facing more serious problems.”
Agreed. Why is there an implicit assumption that so many employees would choose to leave?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:08 pm
I’d tighten requirements on beat cops, firefighters and teachers to live in the neighborhoods where they work. Shouldn’t the people maintaining safety and education in Roseland be tied to the Roseland community? Beyond that, why pay middle-class workers to pay taxes to some other municipality?

Comment by Boone Logan Square Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:36 pm
–Having said that, it seems to be a bad time for Chico to be championing anti-residency laws when his only chance of winning would be if his competition is kicked off the ballot for non-residency.–

He didn’t get those police and firefighter endorsements for his good looks.

I doubt he could get it through the City Council, anyway. The Ward Barons would lose a lot of power without the residency requirement.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:39 pm
Re safety and timliness - imagine living in the Beverly neighborhood (a favorite among many police and firefighting personnel) and being posted to the Uptown. Now, imagine living in Evanston and reporting to the same station. Red Herring.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 2:52 pm
As long as they intend to reside in Chicago, that’s all that really matters in my book.

I suggest the Chicago Firefighters Union buy a house in Ravenswood and every single firefighter list it as their home address.

Since 70 percent of voters believe that residency is based on “intent” under the Municipal Code, that should be good enough. But they might need to store some junk in the basement.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 3:44 pm
YDD, don’t be daft. The election code and the public worker residency laws have completely different standards - or they did before this goofy appellate ruling.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:02 pm
I’m all for allowing people to choose where they live. But, if you want to see what happens to communities that drop the residency requirement, take a long look at Waukegan the past twenty years. I believe over two thirds of workers employed in Waukegan and making over $30,000 per year do not live there.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:22 pm
BTW, I don’t know offhand how many city employees there are, but I’m guessing its less than 5% of the total population of Chicago. Most aren’t going anywhere if they are home owners anyway, so this would only really impact new hires.

Seems like the economic argument, short term anyway, is pretty farcical.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:23 pm
““Urban prison” is a hyperbolic argument suitable for Rush Limbaugh, please take it elsewhere.”

I think you’re missing my point. Daley’s argument is that if we did away with the residency requirement, the middle class would flee. For a guy who’s run this City for 22 years, he sure doesn’t seem to have much faith in its appeal as a residential destination.

I’m a proud Chicagoan who CHOOSES to live in the City. There are a whole lot of great reasons my wife and I CHOOSE to live here. Maybe I just have a heckuva a lot more love for the City than the Mayor, since I know people want to live here out of CHOICE.

Forcing someone to live here is kind of like putting up a virtual Berlin Wall to prevent them from leaving. If it doesn’t impact the job someone does, it shouldn’t matter. As a few others pointed out, a proximity distance test makes a heck of a lot more sense.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:37 pm
“if you want to see what happens to communities that drop the residency requirement, take a long look at Waukegan”

With all due respect, Chicago is NOT Waukegan.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:41 pm
“With all due respect, Chicago is NOT Waukegan.”

Not yet…

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:50 pm
Irish is right they should live in the city. And city business’s should get perfrence over out of town business’s.Plus minority participation is a joke. We should not discriminate against any one regardless of race or color.

Comment by mokenavince Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 4:57 pm
When everyone working at the restaurant refuses to eat the food at the restaurant, you shouldn’t eat at that restaurant either.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:03 pm
To Chicago Cynic’s point, a firefighter could CHOOSE to go work in Evanston, or Naperville, or Frankfort instead of CHOOSING to work in Chicago, if he or she CHOOSES to live somewhere else. The deal is that the pay is better in Chicago than in most other suburbs, in part because the work is harder and in part because the union is stronger.

Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:12 pm
–When everyone working at the restaurant refuses to eat the food at the restaurant, you shouldn’t eat at that restaurant either.–

Most suburbs don’t have residency requirements. Does the fact that a River Forest cop lives in Berwyn mean that he’s down on River Forest? That’s silly.

Seriously, this is America, right?

Residency requirements were instituted a) to keep public employees under the thumbs of and as campaign workers for political bosses and b) as we rolled into the 60s, to keep predominantly white work forces from fleeing the cities during block busting.

I work in the city. I eat in the city. I live in the suburbs. I eat in the suburbs. The city border is eight blocks from my house? What difference does it make?

It’s a feudal, boss culture that long ago that should be chucked in the bin.

You want good firefighters? You want good cops? You want good teachers? Who cares where they live as long as they do their job well.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 5:36 pm
I strongly disagree. A Chicago public employee directly benefits from Chicago tax monies/assessments, and many of those jobs are cush jobs which MANY residing outside the City would ache to hold. No way.

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 7:36 pm
VanillaMan, thank you! A Chicago police officer could not have said it better.

Comment by BF Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:34 pm
Agree it should be eliminated. The City casts a giant shadow, and most often as the City goes, so go the nearby ‘burbs. It’s time for the City to embrace the other municipalities that are part of “Chicagoland”, respecting their existence and competing for residents based on community qualities rather than as a job qualification. The requirement serves no one.

Comment by JustaJoe Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 9:36 pm