Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what I gathered in the article the Wisconsin legislature has ended the law that allowed this requirement butthe city of Milwaukee is still going to keep enforcing it. I personally think it's stupid to force people to live somewhere. It can put a lot of strain on families who have jobs in two disparate geographic areas and considering the state of MPS it sucks for families with school-aged children.
Schools, "saving the children", "protecting family", "geographic disparity", can't get qualified applicants, etc, are red herrings.
The whole issue is about garden variety elitism, and people who are too good to live in the city. The result will be a protracted suburban exodus. The city has beautiful neighborhoods and a great quality of life. MPS sucks, but there are ample private schools, and school choice vouchers.
IMO, if a city employee is too good to live in the city, the they're welcome to pack up their belongings, move out of the city, and find another job in the private sector or in the suburban public sector. The last thing we need in the city is a bunch of suburban elitists working in public service positions, when those very same people are above living next door to us. I fail to believe that the elite few who have already moved out of the city, cannot be replaced by equal or better employees who are in need of jobs and are willing to live in the city in order to meet a residency qualification.
That's just my opinion.
Last edited by 43north87west; 09-29-2013 at 04:07 PM..
So basically tough luck to any family where the couple works far apart; e.g. the wife is a teacher for MPS and the husband works in lake country, or the husband works as a fireman and the wife is a nurse in Grafton.
Also, based on the social economics you most likely wouldn't get "better" employees who are willing to live in the city if 1) the schools are worse 2) the property taxes are higher 3) the suburbs don't have ridiculous residency requirements.
I have to agree with the OP on this one. It's easy to say that the people who don't want to move to or live in Milwaukee are "elitists", but there's usually more to the story. Maybe it's not practical to live in the city for the other spouse. Maybe they have a house they can't sell because of the market. Maybe they can't afford to move in the first place. I don't think residency should be a deciding factor on whether you get a job or not. If Tom Barrett put as much effort into making the city a great place to live as he does fighting the residency requirement, there wouldn't be a problem of declining population in the first place.
I think the current and past mayors of Milwaukee have done very well in making Milwaukee a great place to live. But there is a significant segment of people who will not even consider living the city for a variety of reasons, even if evidence shows that there are neighborhoods perfectly appropriate for the needs of such people.
The residency requirement for Mke was established decades ago (in the early 20th century) when the suburbs, as we know them, were starting to take their present shape. It was a way for Milwaukee to ensure that workers for the city were also residents of the city they worked in, and it was a way to ensure that city residents received priority in hiring. I don't see anything wrong with a city prioritizing its own citizenry in such cases. I also believe, on a larger scale, that workers for the State of Wisconsin should be residents of Wisconsin.
Exceptions to the residency rule have always been made for specific, highly competitive positions, and city workers also have been able to apply for an exception based on extraordinary personal circumstances. But overall, I don't see why a city or other such unit shouldn't be able to prioritize its own citizens in employment matters.
It seems unfair that, in principle, virtually all of the employees of the city could come from outside the city; suburbanites could basically govern the urbanites. And when more suburbanites are allowed to do this, the less likely it is that city revenue (in the form of salaries, etc.) stays in the city: those salaries wind up being diverted away even more from city retail places like Downer Ave., and increasingly go to pay for more Brookfield Squares and Pabst Farms. This sort of thing, of course, doesn't help any mayor who's trying to make the city a better place to live. When city employment is outsourced to people outside the city, it hurts the city and benefits the burbs.
Some people may be (and probably are) in favor of this. The end of Milwaukee's residency rule will likely benefit suburbs like Wauwatosa, the home of Governor Scott Walker.
So basically tough luck to any family where the couple works far apart; e.g. the wife is a teacher for MPS and the husband works in lake country, or the husband works as a fireman and the wife is a nurse in Grafton.
Absolutely. It's a condition of employment, and it's no different than a private sector employer requiring an employee to live a certain distance from work, or any other requirement. We all have conditions of employment that we have to agree upon.
Although I sympathize with people who have long commutes, they have exactly the same option that those of us in the private sector enjoy; the ability to change jobs at any time, for arrangements that are more suitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperionGap
Also, based on the social economics you most likely wouldn't get "better" employees who are willing to live in the city if 1) the schools are worse 2) the property taxes are higher 3) the suburbs don't have ridiculous residency requirements.
Untrue as a whole. We can, and should, pursue people with an interest in their community and their own neighbors. I refuse to believe that the elitists cannot be replaced by superior candidates who choose to live in the city and to serve their neighbors. If, in the future, any cutbacks at either MPD or MFD are required, I am going to suggest to my political contacts, who are not insignificant, that the first people to go from both MPD and MFD, are the people who left the city when the employment restriction was dropped. That, if anything, shows the lack of commitment to the community, and should not be rewarded. I'm sure that the unions would intervene, but I'm going to plant the seed as many times as I can, to as many people as I can.
Point by point:
1) Red herring. The school system is bad, but there are many alternatives, including vouchers for private schools, or pay for tuition private schools. Furthermore, low income city employees can't afford suburban living anyway, so they're not an issue.
What is an issue, is that the average MPD or MFD rank and file earns three and a half times the per capita average income of the average resident who, somehow, manages to scrape together enough taxes to pay for the services that MFD and MPD provide.
2) Red herring. High taxes are county-wide. In addition, property values in Milwaukee, in most areas, are lower than neighboring suburbs. If Milwaukee employees want "cheaper" cost of living, they're doing a lot of driving. There are many nice neighborhoods in Milwaukee where house values are very attractive.
3) Red herring. We're talking about people being employed in the city, not the suburbs, and the average suburban residents don't earn less than one third that of their critical public service providers.
...I don't see why a city or other such unit shouldn't be able to prioritize its own citizens in employment matters.
Exactly my opinion. Residents with a vested interest in their community take priority, others to the back of the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
It seems unfair that, in principle, virtually all of the employees of the city could come from outside the city; suburbanites could basically govern the urbanites. And when more suburbanites are allowed to do this, the less likely it is that city revenue (in the form of salaries, etc.) stays in the city: those salaries wind up being diverted away even more from city retail places like Downer Ave., and increasingly go to pay for more Brookfield Squares and Pabst Farms.
Ibid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
This sort of thing, of course, doesn't help any mayor who's trying to make the city a better place to live. When city employment is outsourced to people outside the city, it hurts the city and benefits the burbs.
Some people may be (and probably are) in favor of this. The end of Milwaukee's residency rule will likely benefit suburbs like Wauwatosa, the home of Governor Scott Walker.
Yes; Scott Walker's suburb of Wauwatosa is certain to gain from the dropping of the residency requirement, as will other nearby suburbs.
It seems unfair that, in principle, virtually all of the employees of the city could come from outside the city; suburbanites could basically govern the urbanites.
Just to be clear, this would not affect elected positions. I.E. an alderman would have to live in the aldermanic district he represents, the mayor would have to live in Milwaukee, etc. It would only be for employees like bus drivers, police, teachers, public works, etc. So in no way would the "suburbanites" be governing the "urbanites".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 43north87west
Untrue as a whole. We can, and should, pursue people with an interest in their community and their own neighbors. I refuse to believe that the elitists cannot be replaced by superior candidates who choose to live in the city and to serve their neighbors.
I understand what you're saying and the historical reasons why Milwaukee has chosen to enforce this legislation, but in the end I really don't think it would have the drastic impact you seem to think it would.
Point by point:
1) Red herring. The school system is bad, but there are many alternatives, including vouchers for private schools, or pay for tuition private schools. Furthermore, low income city employees can't afford suburban living anyway, so they're not an issue.
What is an issue, is that the average MPD or MFD rank and file earns three and a half times the per capita average income of the average resident who, somehow, manages to scrape together enough taxes to pay for the services that MFD and MPD provide.
2) Red herring. High taxes are county-wide. In addition, property values in Milwaukee, in most areas, are lower than neighboring suburbs. If Milwaukee employees want "cheaper" cost of living, they're doing a lot of driving. There are many nice neighborhoods in Milwaukee where house values are very attractive.
3) Red herring. We're talking about people being employed in the city, not the suburbs, and the average suburban residents don't earn less than one third that of their critical public service providers.
Well clearly part of that is because the average suburban resident earns more than the average Milwaukee resident...
Ok so if you think all those reasons are completely irrelevant and fallacious then why would any City of Milwuakee employees want to live in those god awful suburbs where it's so expensive, there's no benefit to having a better school district and the average residents don't earn less than one third that of their critical public service providers? If there's no attraction to live in the suburbs then it shouldn't matter if Milwaukee got rid of the residency requirement because all of its employees would stay in Milwaukee right?
Just to be clear, this would not affect elected positions. I.E. an alderman would have to live in the aldermanic district he represents, the mayor would have to live in Milwaukee, etc. It would only be for employees like bus drivers, police, teachers, public works, etc. So in no way would the "suburbanites" be governing the "urbanites".
Very few city jobs are elected positions; most are filled by hiring. This goes for management and supervision of city schools, fire, police, social services, libraries, tech, licensing, health inspection, etc. So yes, except for a handful of elected officials, the city (and its many components) in theory could be operated and essentially governed by suburbanites. Even people staffing government non-elected offices could, in principle, be from the burbs. It just seems wrong to me that city residents would not be given priority for the jobs that city residents pay taxes for. I don't think it's right to parcel out city jobs to people whose only connection to the city may be just the job itself. We may as well just subcontract those positions to people all over the country and all over the world, and just get it over with.
I am very well aware of which positions are elected and which are payroll.... who do you think hires the City Manager or Chief of Police, etc etc ?
I guess I am of the opinion that the point of a city government having employees is so they can do the jobs necessary to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community, not to provide jobs to the community or act as an economic subsidy. I understand where you are coming from, though, I just don't agree with it. As you mentioned earlier, Milwaukee has socialism in its history, so this really isn't a new thing.
That being said, I think a compromise between the two would be feasible. Something like new hires have to be from within the city but after 2 years employees could move wherever they wanted to.
Last edited by HyperionGap; 09-30-2013 at 05:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
