Residency!

[SWMAP]

Here's a story about three Detroit Firefighters injured today while fighting a fire on the east-side - possibly an arson. Luckily, they were not seriously injured when a staircase collapsed. A firefighter was paralyzed a few years ago.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Don't you agree with me that today's injured must all three be residents of Detroit?

After all, resident police and firefighters care more about about other residents and they do a better job in accomplishing their duties than non-residents - or so one argument for requiring residency goes. Only a resident firefighter would risk life an health for Detroiters.

[Shollin]

Here's a story about three Detroit Firefighters injured today while fighting a fire on the east-side - possibly an arson. Luckily, they were not seriously injured when a staircase collapsed. A firefighter was paralyzed a few years ago.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Don't you agree with me that today's injured must all three be residents of Detroit?

After all, resident police and firefighters care more about about other residents and they do a better job in accomplishing their duties than non-residents - or so one argument for requiring residency goes. Only a resident firefighter would risk life an health for Detroiters.

Unfortunately the state of Michigan overturned that law in 1999. When i lived in Harper Woods the area of Detroit surrounding me was filled with firefighters and cops from Detroit. Michigan overturned the law, they moved out, and the neighborhood went to hell.

[cla1945]

Here's a story about three Detroit Firefighters injured today while fighting a fire on the east-side - possibly an arson. Luckily, they were not seriously injured when a staircase collapsed. A firefighter was paralyzed a few years ago.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Don't you agree with me that today's injured must all three be residents of Detroit?

After all, resident police and firefighters care more about about other residents and they do a better job in accomplishing their duties than non-residents - or so one argument for requiring residency goes. Only a resident firefighter would risk life an health for Detroiters.

It doesn't make a difference where these firefighters live... they come to work, live in conditions that I don't think many of us would live in for the 24 hours they are working, risk their lives every shift, and hopefully go home to their families.

Walt Harris died for Detroit and I don't think he was a Detroit resident, he gave the ultimate sacrifice. The firefighter who was paralyzed in the fire a few years ago was a young man, just married, and he is now forever confined to a wheelchair, another sacrifice. He didn't live in Detroit.

[Meddle]

Aside from the obvious sarcasm, Yes, I think residency should be required for employees of a government.

[p69rrh51]

Aside from the obvious sarcasm, Yes, I think residency should be required for employees of a government.

Why do you think city employees should be required to live in Detroit aside from the one excuse you have given?

[Meddle]

Not just Detroit, any employee of any government should live within the borders of that government. The exception might be a town with a very small geographic footprint like Plymouth, but even then, residency should be required within 5 miles of the city center.

There really is no valid argument to the contrary.

[SWMAP]

Most of the hundreds of NYC firefighters who died on 911 trying to save World Trade Center victims did not reside in NYC.

[Meddle]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[SWMAP]

They did not live in the City whose government employed them - and they gave their lives for that City.

You do not say exactly why you believe that "any employee of any government should live within the borders of that government."

What is your rationale?

[coracle]

Not just Detroit, any employee of any government should live within the borders of that government. The exception might be a town with a very small geographic footprint like Plymouth, but even then, residency should be required within 5 miles of the city center.

There really is no valid argument to the contrary.

That's BS. If we adopt that regressive system it ensures you don't get the best people for the jobs available. You get people that qualify on the basis of where they live instead of their ability to do the job. On the other hand you could pay the worker to live where he don't want to live and end up with a dissatisfied employee. That's my valid argument to the contrary.

[p69rrh51]

Not just Detroit, any employee of any government should live within the borders of that government. The exception might be a town with a very small geographic footprint like Plymouth, but even then, residency should be required within 5 miles of the city center.

There really is no valid argument to the contrary.

You still have not given any argument at all except for your opinion. So please really tell why they have to live in that particular area.

[Meddle]

If we adopt that regressive system it ensures you don't get the best people for the jobs available. You get people that qualify on the basis of where they live instead of their ability to do the job.

People relocate all the time. Some to different states, some to different countries. Los Angeles police recruit nationwide for example, so does New York.

The 'best people' can either be a part of the community, or move in after hire and become part of the community. I see no reason why someone should take public money [[salary) and use it to better another community. Build the place where you work and help make it a better place to live.

What message does it send when a public servant doesn't even want to live in town? How does that encourage others to either stay or move in? Lead by example.

And I'm talking about anybody, not just police or fire. Clerks, teachers, park maintenance included.

[cla1945]

Not just Detroit, any employee of any government should live within the borders of that government. The exception might be a town with a very small geographic footprint like Plymouth, but even then, residency should be required within 5 miles of the city center.

There really is no valid argument to the contrary.

One valid argument would be that when the City of Detroit decided they wanted only Detroit residents to be able to apply for Police or Fire, they lifted certain restrictions on the application process for a person to become a Police Officer or a Firefighter and allowed felons and those with a criminal history to apply. Some were hired and it proved to be a disastrous move for Detroit.

The application process is a fair process and certain restrictions must be applied to every applicant, whether they live in or out of Detroit. They have found that hiring within the City boundaries has restricted the potential applicants because of the criminal history that some people have in Detroit, and I'm sure this holds true in other major cities as well.

[p69rrh51]

People relocate all the time. Some to different states, some to different countries. Los Angeles police recruit nationwide for example, so does New York.

The 'best people' can either be a part of the community, or move in after hire and become part of the community. I see no reason why someone should take public money [[salary) and use it to better another community. Build the place where you work and help make it a better place to live.

What message does it send when a public servant doesn't even want to live in town? How does that encourage others to either stay or move in? Lead by example.

And I'm talking about anybody, not just police or fire. Clerks, teachers, park maintenance included.

So just through out that little pesky thing called the bill of rights?

[brizee]

One valid argument would be that when the City of Detroit decided they wanted only Detroit residents to be able to apply for Police or Fire, they lifted certain restrictions on the application process for a person to become a Police Officer or a Firefighter and allowed felons and those with a criminal history to apply. Some were hired and it proved to be a disastrous move for Detroit.

The application process is a fair process and certain restrictions must be applied to every applicant, whether they live in or out of Detroit. They have found that hiring within the City boundaries has restricted the potential applicants because of the criminal history that some people have in Detroit, and I'm sure this holds true in other major cities as well.

Is there a citable source for this? AFAIK residency was only lifter in Michigan in 1999.

My thought is if you want to be paid by a municipality you should live in that municipality.

Police especially. You develop a disconnect and contempt for the people of the community when you see them as perps and thugs and civillians instead of neighbors and taxpayers.

[Scottathew]

Aside from the obvious sarcasm, Yes, I think residency should be required for employees of a government.

I don't. Imagine smaller cities having to narrow down their potential candidates to only within their city.

Why not just hire the best and the brightest from wherever they may reside.

If they're not doing a good job, then fire them. Although, unions do make holding people accountable very difficult.

[SWMAP]

"Is there a citable source for this?"

"Some DPOA claims [about hiring felons in the era of Coleman Young's efforts to diversify the DPD] were more grounded in evidence

The Detroit News backed the unionists' assertions. It revealed in 1977 that the department had sworn in"a great number" of officers who had reading skills below the sixth grade level; several recruits had served prison time for drug-related charges; the police had arrested another for writing bad checks; and four rookies faced charges for shooting their spouses. Two years earlier the newspaper identified similarproblems, characterizing the quality of recruits as a "very dangerous matter."Sorry that copying a pdf results in such a mish-mash of type. The article is by Dennis Deslippe Dennis A. Deslippe | "Do Whites Have Rights?": White Detroit Policeme…, 91.3 | The History Cooperative [[http://www.historycooperative.org)

Of course, now all that bad behavior seems normal. Before the 1970's it was very rare for policemen to be felons.

[cla1945]

"Is there a citable source for this?"

"Some DPOA claims [about hiring felons in the era of Coleman Young's efforts to diversify the DPD] were more grounded in evidence

The Detroit News backed the unionists' assertions. It revealed in 1977 that the department had sworn in"a great number" of officers who had reading skills below the sixth grade level; several recruits had served prison time for drug-related charges; the police had arrested another for writing bad checks; and four rookies faced charges for shooting their spouses. Two years earlier the newspaper identified similarproblems, characterizing the quality of recruits as a "very dangerous matter."Sorry that copying a pdf results in such a mish-mash of type. The article is by Dennis Deslippe Dennis A. Deslippe | "Do Whites Have Rights?": White Detroit Policeme…, 91.3 | The History Cooperative [[http://www.historycooperative.org)

Of course, now all that bad behavior seems normal. Before the 1970's it was very rare for policemen to be felons.

Thank you for doing that research SWAMP, I appreciate it. I think I'll try to do a bit more and see what I can dig up.

[Locke09]

Honestly! Police corruption has been a problem since the 1800's according to every source I check. Now what does it matter whether they had a few felons before they were hired or a lot of felons after they were hired?

http://eclecticme.hubpages.com/hub/P...ion-in-America

http://newsone.com/1551885/top-5-cor...lice-officers/

http://www2.umt.edu/sociology/facult...canPolcing.pdf

There, that's enough for now. Point being that there have always been some incompetent and criminal elements on police forces.

I think government employees should live in the geographic region where they work. I think they should have "skin in the game." I think it helps foster more of a sense of community. I think it helps the municipality financially. I think it provides a more stable working class and more stable neighborhoods.I think it reduces the likelihood of conflicts of interest that might exist between where you live and where you work. I think you really do have more passion for the success of the organization when your life and the lives of your loved ones are affected by the decisions you make.

Wouldn't be an issue if this really was a united metropolitan area. But as it is, I laugh when someone uses a phrase like "Metro Detroit."

[Shollin]

Wasn't the whole 1967 riots because of unrest between the blacks and the Detroit police?

[Locke09]

Wasn't the whole 1967 riots because of unrest between the blacks and the Detroit police?

Yes. Because people all over the world despise anything they perceive [[right or wrong) as an "occupying force." If there are too many who are not from their region, or don't look like them, or don't worship like them, or any of a plethora of differences that could exist, people become very sensitized to even the appearance of abuse.

Failure to understand this is what causes America to be so mystified every time some country we rescue wants us to get back out quickly.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

"Is there a citable source for this?"

"Some DPOA claims [about hiring felons in the era of Coleman Young's efforts to diversify the DPD] were more grounded in evidence

The Detroit News backed the unionists' assertions. It revealed in 1977 that the department had sworn in"a great number" of officers who had reading skills below the sixth grade level; several recruits had served prison time for drug-related charges; the police had arrested another for writing bad checks; and four rookies faced charges for shooting their spouses. Two years earlier the newspaper identified similarproblems, characterizing the quality of recruits as a "very dangerous matter."Sorry that copying a pdf results in such a mish-mash of type. The article is by Dennis Deslippe Dennis A. Deslippe | "Do Whites Have Rights?": White Detroit Policeme…, 91.3 | The History Cooperative [[http://www.historycooperative.org)

Of course, now all that bad behavior seems normal. Before the 1970's it was very rare for policemen to be felons.

That's because the department was "Lilly White." When Young became mayor, he hired more black officers and firemen. So now you're saying all the blacks he hired were dumb and criminals? I rebuke that notion. There are "bad eggs" in every group of people. Miriani and Cavanaugh made sure there weren't blacks on the police force or fire dept.

[p69rrh51]

That's because the department was "Lilly White." When Young became mayor, he hired more black officers and firemen. So now you're saying all the blacks he hired were dumb and criminals? I rebuke that notion. There are "bad eggs" in every group of people. Miriani and Cavanaugh made sure there weren't blacks on the police force or fire dept.

There were more than a few "bad eggs" in that group! It was so bad the DPD was set back years because of their actions. As for the riot its time to wait until July for the 45th anniversary so we can really rehash this and 43 riots to death.

[48202]

Don't you agree with me that today's injured must all three be residents of Detroit?

So you're saying that a residency requirement would cause more injuries, and that this is good. Yea, that makes [[no) sense.

[antongast]

Everyone loves to bash public-sector workers, until the issue is whether or not they should be allowed to live outside Detroit. Then suddenly their rights are sacrosanct.