Residency!

[Novine]

Why exactly was this brought up? There's no residency requirement and since state law prohibits it, it's not like it's going to come up again. Some people are confused about residency requirements. They are a condition of employment, not hiring. You don't have to be a resident to apply but you do have to become a resident if you want to have the job.

[48202]

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.

Public-sector workers shouldn't be allowed to get injured, whether or not they live outside the city.

[illwill]

I think someone should rewrite this thread MINUS the criticism of the firefighters and DPD's jobperformance.

I personally think reversing the cities residency rule isextremely critical in turning around the crime problem in the city.Realistically, we should be fighting for this reverse the way people arefighting for the M-1 rail.

This should be mission number 1.

[48202]

Law department should sue the state. Some employees currently live in the city even though they aren’t required to. Therefore,the elimination of the residency requirement is null and void, and cannot be enforced. The state should require the city reinstate the requirement. It just might work.

[p69rrh51]

Law department should sue the state. Some employees currently live in the city even though they aren’t required to. Therefore,the elimination of the residency requirement is null and void, and cannot be enforced. The state should require the city reinstate the requirement. It just might work.

It didn't work when it was in effect. More than half of the city employees still lived outside of the city. I had a Fire Dept Chief who lived across the street from me in Grosse Pointe and he said he would never live in the city and that was in the 80's. A group in the fire dept. were slum lords and their buddies used the address' to maintain residency, the police dept had a similar setup too. Also one of the largest groups the teachers were never required to live in the city. There was another group that lived on Wayburn and Barrington on the Grosse Pointe border. At one time the border went halfway throught the homes. They could maintain residency while being able to send the children to GP schools. They did not participate at all in the city but definately were an asset to GP. Every city employee I chatted with at that time was living outside the city of looking for an angle to move out. All in all it was just big joke!

[wolverine]

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.

I have a better idea. Why not continue to improve the city so firefighters will live in the city.

As far as government workers in general in the city.....seems like things never go well at city hall. Willing to try something different anytime soon?

[IrishSpartan]

It depends on what era you are referring to whether the residency requirement worked. Before the riots, the compliance was pretty high among city employees. Also, before the riots in the case of the east side police and fire, personel were scattered throughout different neighborhoods to a much larger extent. The neighborhoods that became known as "Copper Canyon" near St. John always had a higher percentage of city employees, but that grew significantly after the riots. I knew of a half dozen police and firemen alone of the World War II generation that lived just east of City Airport. They of course retired in the 1970's, which is also when the neighborhood was beginning to change. Other popular areas for police and fire were the neighhoods between Schoenherr-Hoover-7 Mile-8 Mile. Also, the area between Denby and I-94 was popular.

Throughout the 1970's the game of having an address but not living in city became more prevalent especially among the non-Catholic employees who refused to send their kids to DPS. By the 1980's it was a joke in many cases. Although I did know a Detroit cop still living on Greiner just west of Schoenherr as late as 1986. Otherwise, everyone else I knew lived near St. John Hospital or 7 Mile & Kelly.

It didn't work when it was in effect. More than half of the city employees still lived outside of the city. I had a Fire Dept Chief who lived across the street from me in Grosse Pointe and he said he would never live in the city and that was in the 80's. A group in the fire dept. were slum lords and their buddies used the address' to maintain residency, the police dept had a similar setup too. Also one of the largest groups the teachers were never required to live in the city. There was another group that lived on Wayburn and Barrington on the Grosse Pointe border. At one time the border went halfway throught the homes. They could maintain residency while being able to send the children to GP schools. They did not participate at all in the city but definately were an asset to GP. Every city employee I chatted with at that time was living outside the city of looking for an angle to move out. All in all it was just big joke!

[p69rrh51]

It depends on what era you are referring to whether the residency requirement worked. Before the riots, the compliance was pretty high among city employees. Also, before the riots in the case of the east side police and fire, personel more were scattered throughout different neighborhoods. The neighborhoods that became known as "Copper Canyon" near St. John always had a higher percentage of city employees, but that grew significantly after the riots. I knew of a half dozen police and firemen alone of the World War II generation that lived just east of City Airport. They of course retired in the 1970's, which is also when the neighborhood was beginning to change. Other popular areas for police and fire were the neighhoods between Schoenherr-Hoover & 7 and 8 Mile. Also, the area between Denby and I-94 was popular.

Throughout the 1970's the game of having an address but not living in city became more prevalent especially among the
non-Catholic employees who refused to send their kids to DPS. By the 1980's it was a joke in many cases. Although I did know a Detroit cop still living on Greiner just west of Schoenherr as late as 1986. Otherwise, everyone else I knew lived near St. John Hospital or 7 Mile & Kelly.

If I remember it wasn't until the 70's that residency was required. If I am wrong I am sure someone will have the answer. But then before the riots and bussing there was no need for the reqiurement. As for Copper Canyon, it was popular for another quirk on the map. Most of the area is in the 48236 zip code. The residents there pay Grosse Pointe Farms/Grosse Pointe Woods insurance rates but still can live in the city.

[IrishSpartan]

Residency was required before the 1970's. However, until 1968 the Detroit Police Department had their own residency requirement policy separate from other city departments and their employees [[Civil Service). The Detroit Police finally formalized their residency requirement in 1944, but the DPD commissioners had the ability to grant waivers for those seeking relief in special hardship situations. I had heard that residency requirements in Detroit dated back to 1918, but have not read the language from that era.

In 1968, the Detroit Common Council passed legislation enforcing a stronger residency requirement that included the police department. Of course, Carl Parsell who was then President of DPOA and the City of Detroit battled on that matter through the courts. That was the first time it turned into a real major issue.

If I remember it wasn't until the 70's that residency was required. If I am wrong I am sure someone will have the answer. But then before the riots and bussing there was no need for the reqiurement. As for Copper Canyon, it was popular for another quirk on the map. Most of the area is in the 48236 zip code. The residents there pay Grosse Pointe Farms/Grosse Pointe Woods insurance rates but still can live in the city.

[JBMcB]

Does anyone have proof that living in the city causes city employees to perform better? Say, a study comparing two otherwise similar cities showing employees that are forced to live in the city perform better than those that aren't?

I agree with the above poster - I knew several Detroit police and fire fighters who didn't live in the city proper when they were required to. The firefighter I knew claimed that practically nobody he knew in the department lived in the city. I know it's hearsay, but I believed him.

[Meddle]

Does anyone have proof that living in the city causes city employees to perform better?

It isn't about job performance. It's about helping the local economy by not taking taxpayer money [[salaries) out of town.

If a government is paying you, you should help recycle those funds back into the community.

[iheartthed]

Also one of the largest groups the teachers were never required to live in the city.

DPS teachers are not city of Detroit employees.

[iheartthed]

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.

Hahaha! Yup. You'd swear residency requirements were a form of apartheid. And those same people will be shitting bricks about how Americans have abandoned American cars and they get a bad rap, blah, blah, blah.

Anyhow, I think it's really irrelevant whether or not living in the city actually DOES make you better at performing your job*, I just think it should be the city's right to make that rule for the people it employs. And it should be up to the city to decide when the rule is/isn't working in the city's own best interest.

If anything, Detroit's current situation underscores why Detroit should at least be able to mandate that its workforce live in the city. If people are not living in Detroit then that means the people who work for Detroit do not get paid.

*I'm sure there are plenty of studies that show how having "skin in the game" correlates to better performance.

[poobert]

Anyhow, I think it's really irrelevant whether or not living in the city actually DOES make you better at performing your job*, I just think it should be the city's right to make that rule for the people it employs. And it should be up to the city to decide when the rule is/isn't working in the city's own best interest.

If anything, Detroit's current situation underscores why Detroit should at least be able to mandate that its workforce live in the city. If people are not living in Detroit then that means the people who work for Detroit do not get paid.

You are spot on. It is especially galling in this day and age of "just be thankful you have a job you worthless peasant" where the private sector forces you to be the educational equivalent of Stephen Hawking and the moral equivalent of Mother Theresa to make any kind of a decent wage.

As long as they weren't discriminating based on person's race, color, religion, sex [[including pregnancy), national origin, age [[40 or older), disability or genetic information, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity parameters, the City of Detroit absolutely should have been able to dictate it's own terms in hiring. Yet as usual the Republicans were happy to swallow their "small government" mantra and use the state to bust Detroit's hiring rights in a political move.

Just open today's paper. The DMC can refuse to hire smokers but the City can't mandate hiring City residents for City jobs????!
http://www.freep.com/article/2012061...sey=nav%7Chead
[[as an aside, is just it me or does our venerable local paper's website have more spammy ads and popups then a free porn site?)

We're living the hell that is post-residency requirement. Just drive around any former bastion of city employees - most haven't fared so well. It would have been interesting to see in the economic downturn of '08 how residency would have effected the city. People were willing to stand on their heads all day for a job. I'm sure just as many would have been willing to move to Detroit for one.

The irony is if it were still in place, there would be more tax revenue for services, less vacancy, and more middle class neighborhoods, effectively making public servant's jobs easier.

[shovelhead]

Random thoughts:

IMO requiring DPD and DFD to reside in the city would harm the city more than help it. First, in today's real estate market, requiring someone to sell their existing home at most likely a loss and at best a break even point. Depending on what they buy in the city they could have to do renovations on top of the purchase price therefore putting themselves in more debt.

Now if this person is, say for argument's sake approaching retirement age they might just reconsider staying on and pull the plug. If they are getting close to having no mortgage debt why start over again. A lot of suburban departments will hire these officers for their experience. It has been said that five years on DPD, these officers will see more than they ever would on most suburban departments. This I have been told by officers of many jurisdictions in the metro area.

I have no horse in this race, I'm not a municipal employee. But I live in a different community than I work in. If I was in the situation that I was required to live there, I would accelerate my plans to change careers as at this stage in life I would not take on a new mortgage that would would probably outlive me. Not to mention the beating I would take on my current residence's sales proceeds.

And the statement of the officer having to live in the area, what if a officer lives say in Copper Canyon but is assigned to an east side precinct. Should he or she be required to live in the precinct's area? What if they are reassigned? A case could be made for that too I suppose in a stretch of things that the officer should be required to live there.

IMO again the most qualified wherever they reside should be considered for employment. Incentives might draw them to the city.

On the residency requirements in the 1970's, I attempted to apply for DPD cadet program but was refused an application because at the time I was residing in the suburbs. There was no provision for hiring then moving into the city, it was all or nothing. And without employment, just out of school I was in no position to move to the city and establish residency.

[SWMAP]

"Just drive around any former bastion of city employees - most haven't fared so well."

I had friends who lived over on Tireman near Rouge Park. They were DPD. Their neighborhood of city employees was quite nice, even sharp. When they could move they did. People flooded into the neighborhood, eager to buy those well-kept, shady homes. Many of those new residents really couldn't afford the homes they bought - they just hoped they could. Those new resident were really noisy - making even the city employee hold-outs give up and go. Then the new residents, whose marriages and living situations were not so stable began to transfer their homes, bring in relatives, etc. they stopped doing the grass, stopped touching up the paint, didn't put up curtains [[used sheets), etc.

It is the fault of the latest buyers that those neighborhoods look the way they do. It is not the fault of the people who left beautiful neighborhoods as a legacy. It is the fault of the current people.

[Hermod]

On the residency requirements in the 1970's, I attempted to apply for DPD cadet program but was refused an application because at the time I was residing in the suburbs. There was no provision for hiring then moving into the city, it was all or nothing. And without employment, just out of school I was in no position to move to the city and establish residency.

In 1961, right out of college, I was hired by the COD as an engineer in the expressway design department. At the time, i was living with my folks in Rochester. I was given the job offer and told that to be hired, I needed a Detroit address. I gave them the address of a friend in our old neighborhood. Then i began looking for my own place in the city. Driving every single day from Rochester Rd/Orion Road intersection to downtown Detroit in the pre-I-75 days sure didn't appeal to me. I got a place just off Schoenherr just north of 7-Mile. That commute down Gratiot from 7-mile and Gratiot to downtown was no picnic either. It was crowded in those days and you sat through a couple of light changes in several spots.

[Wesley Mouch]

It isn't about job performance. It's about helping the local economy by not taking taxpayer money [[salaries) out of town.

If a government is paying you, you should help recycle those funds back into the community.

Some say its about the money.
Some say its about the hometown pride.

No matter what you think -- residency just isn't a very good way to accomplishing either lofty idea. And it comes at the expense of excluding a lot of people who might really want to contribute. Former residents who want to move back -- but need the job first for example.

Its just too limiting.

I do find the 'groundswell' for residency interesting. Hearing these opinions helps.

[p69rrh51]

DPS teachers are not city of Detroit employees.

Yes, but aren't they still paid with funds collected by the city?

[jtf1972]

One thing that persons who love to say Detroit Police/Fire should not be required to live in the city never consider is where their own police/fire live.

Let's use Birmingham as a random example. Pose the question of what a Birmingham resident would think of a Birmingham police/fire worker living in Detroit. They would ask why they would do that when they can live in Birmingham. Well, maybe they want to live on a boat in a marina and not in the middle of Oakland County. Maybe they never cared about Birmingham and it's just a job. Punch in, do what you have to, punch out & get out. If the sh*t hits the fan & they get a call to come in, "ok. I'll be there in about an hour." A logical thought on the part of the Birmingham resident would be "Why don't they just get a job in Detroit if they love it so much?" They would be right in thinking that... so why are Detroiters wrong in thinking the same?

I was talking to a very nice officer who lives in Novi. I didn't lambaste him on his choice of residence, just asked how long it takes him to get to work. "In good traffic about 45 minutes." In ideal conditions that can be ok, but if there is a problem and he is needed on the job, the people that pay his salary are looking at probably an hour lag before he is ready to do his job. Thing how disastrous that could be for fire personnel.

Maybe the solution is a residence proximity bonus or proximity based pay initiatives. You want to live way out wherever? Ok. But don't expect to make as much as the guy who lives a mile away.

[iheartthed]

Yes, but aren't they still paid with funds collected by the city?

But it's a different entity altogether. City government does not manage DPS. That's why the residency rule never applied to DPS.

[p69rrh51]

But it's a different entity altogether. City government does not manage DPS. That's why the residency rule never applied to DPS.

I already know that!! But their funding is collected through taxes making them publlic employees in the city why wouldn't they be subject to the same conditions? Maybe the Michigan Extortion Assoc. was strong enough to avoid the requirements? Its interesting how different each sector is treated.

[jcole]

I already know that!! But their funding is collected through taxes making them publlic employees in the city why wouldn't they be subject to the same conditions? Maybe the Michigan Extortion Assoc. was strong enough to avoid the requirements? Its interesting how different each sector is treated.

Detroit teachers are not members of the MEA. Their union is Detroit Federation of Teachers so no need for the stupid name calling. Maybe you can come up with something "creative" with the initials DFT instead.
Really, if you're going to bitch about the union, get the right one.

[Meddle]

One thing that persons who love to say Detroit Police/Fire should not be required to live in the city never consider is where their own police/fire live.

Let's use Birmingham as a random example. Pose the question of what a Birmingham resident would think of a Birmingham police/fire worker living in Detroit.

You're either not reading or missing my point. I'm saying that any employee of any government should live within those borders. So, in your example, anyone receiving a paycheck from the City of Birmingham should live in Birmingham.

[iheartthed]

I already know that!! But their funding is collected through taxes making them publlic employees in the city why wouldn't they be subject to the same conditions? Maybe the Michigan Extortion Assoc. was strong enough to avoid the requirements? Its interesting how different each sector is treated.

......the City of Detroit made a rule for the people who work for the City of Detroit. Detroit school teachers do not work for the City of Detroit. I don't know why you keep trying to confuse the two.

Detroit Public Schools could have had a rule that mandated teachers live in the district but they didn't. That was DPS's decision. And it's irrelevant that they didn't because they aren't the same body as the City of Detroit.