City Employees Required to Live in City Limits (Pittsburgh, Ross Township: private schools, income)

[pman]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I never really made those claims but I'm curious...how can such claims be demonstrably "false" when you use such an utterly worthless term ("better department"), absent metrics?

this is really an utterly irrelevant point since you aren't actually arguing that it would lead to a better department (for which metrics do indeed exist)

Originally Posted by Lobick

Personally, I don't think that it matters if a residency requirement has a positive impact on the crime rate or if it has no impact. I don't think anybody's arguing that if the cops didn't have to live in the City crime would go down because of it, maybe I missed it.

yes, indeed, it was argued. just reread the thread. it was clearly stated that cops would somehow be better at their job if they lived in the city.

Originally Posted by Lobick

In my mind, Proponents of lifting the requirement have the responsibilty of explaining why it's good policy to go against the overwhlming majority of the polity (the customers, if you will) in this instance.

I'm not a cop so I don't know if I'm a proponent but I understand why they wanted such an silly requirement lifted since it has nothing to do with their job performance. In Philadelphia it didn't matter, the state decided to award that to the police and the city had to deal with it. still, there were backend negotiations and the city allowed non-residents 6 months to move in and those with five years of service can move out.in other words, Philadelphia's home rule charter was overturned without a vote.

Originally Posted by Lobick

Personally, I don't view any of the "harms" cited by those who want the requirement to be overturned as being particuarly persuasive. Even if it just makes the citizens of the City "feel" better to have their police living amongst them, that's good enough for me, absent a persuasive, meaningful reason it shouldn't be.

so long as it's recognized that it's about feelings and not facts, so be it. oddly enough, I agree with the union, they're right to fight to lift it since the purpose of unions is to fight unfair labor practices such as this one. yes, it probably does reduce the pool of qualified candidates. enough? I don't really know. seems to me it should be the opposite, the city should be required to show its necessary for the performance of their job. customers don't vote on labor contracts at the companies that make the products.

in terms of impact on the city I'd say it's the rest of the city workers that are the problem. the fewer of them that live in a city the better and certainly those requirements can reduce the qualified pool of, say It professionals. if it were a good idea it would be common practice.

[pman]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Portions of the city are growing. But "suburbs in the city" like Bon Air, Lincoln Place, and Summer Hill probably depend upon a base of city employees to provide some level of stability. They aren't ever going to be hip. Take away the city employees, and I wouldn't be surprised if several of them decline to rough neighborhoods within a decade.

this is a very honest argument IMO. it's not about whether it's right, wrong, better or worse for the performance of the job but whether police would still opt to live in undesirable neighborhoods because they're cheap. I'm sure a lot of factors go into it. are there cheaper, better options in the suburbs? how many cops have kids and how are the schools? where do their wives work if they have them? if it were to be implemented I'd definitely recommend phased approach. the Philadelphia example (6 months to move in after you start the job, 5 years of service before you can move out) isn't a bad compromise.

Originally Posted by steindle

(1) Where was this invented "inability to accept change" yesterday, and during the primary earlier this year? It seems to me that the young progressives absolutely destroyed the old guard in a pretty grand gesture.

I presume you are talking about peduto, who, by the way, supports using residency as a bargaining tool

Until recently, even a mayor had little to say on the issue: Residency was required by state law. But Harrisburg voided that mandate last year. Under Act 195 — which passed despite objections from most of Pittsburgh's House members — if the city wants to keep officers from leaving, it must do so through contract negotiations...both Lamb and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl supported keeping the requirement...the only active candidate willing to negotiate over the issue was City Councilor Bill Peduto...Still, he says, the requirement "isn't something to just give away." He'd seek to keep officers in the city for the first few years of employment, and offer police the chance to move away later. In return, Peduto says, he'd seek higher standards for police recruits, and a stricter policy on promotions. "No more jumping rank," Peduto says, noting several cases where lower-ranking officers have leapfrogged over their superiors, prompting charges of favoritism.

"Professionalism is much more important than where an officer sleeps at night," he adds.

http://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsbur...nt?oid=1634873

I'd say this supports zman's position that the vote is simply the old way. if voting for peduto is progressive (or at least open to change), then accepting that this is a bargaining chip to be used, not taken off the table, is also progressive/open to change

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by pman

...the fewer of them that live in a city the better...

Why, pray tell, would this be?

[pman]

Originally Posted by Lobick

Why, pray tell, would this be?

they can't vote

[steindle]

Originally Posted by pman

this is a very honest argument IMO. it's not about whether it's right, wrong, better or worse for the performance of the job but whether police would still opt to live in undesirable neighborhoods because they're cheap.

I'm not sure what you mean by "still" opting to live in undesirable neighborhoods? They don't now. I don't think that Summer Hill, Bon Air, and Lincoln Place would be described that way by anyone except walkability enthusiasts.

I'd say this supports zman's position that the vote is simply the old way. if voting for peduto is progressive (or at least open to change), then accepting that this is a bargaining chip to be used, not taken off the table, is also progressive/open to change

I feel like I'm preparing for the LSAT, with all of these flawed logic patterns on the board today. "X is Y and advocates for Z. W is Y and voted for X. Therefore, Z is Y." The fact that a progressive candidate advocates for something doesn't necessarily mean that everything they advocate for is progressive. And voting for someone isn't a tacit acceptance of every one of their positions.

[pman]

Originally Posted by steindle

I'm not sure what you mean by "still" opting to live in undesirable neighborhoods? They don't now. I don't think that Summer Hill, Bon Air, and Lincoln Place would be described that way by anyone except walkability enthusiasts....I feel like I'm preparing for the LSAT, with all of these flawed logic patterns on the board today. "X is Y and advocates for Z. W is Y and voted for X. Therefore, Z is Y." The fact that a progressive candidate advocates for something doesn't necessarily mean that everything they advocate for is progressive. And voting for someone isn't a tacit acceptance of every one of their positions.

if the neighborhoods aren't undesirable then why would there be a mass exodus?
To your second point, you seem to want it both ways. You want to be seen as progressive and open to change for voting for bill peduto but you don't want to support the ideas of someone who is open to change. the implications of your statements is that this is not a progressive position. do you stand by that? is retaining the requirement progressive and open to change? I'd say that it doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, he is clearly open to change and willing to take unpopular positions if he feels it would benefit the city. good for him and it really doesn't matter what the voters think anyway and he recognizes that. everyone thinks the guy he doesn't agree with is using flawed logic.

[zman63]

Originally Posted by pman

if the neighborhoods aren't undesirable then why would there be a mass exodus?
To your second point, you seem to want it both ways. You want to be seen as progressive and open to change for voting for bill peduto but you don't want to support the ideas of someone who is open to change. the implications of your statements is that this is not a progressive position. do you stand by that? is retaining the requirement progressive and open to change? I'd say that it doesn't matter whether you agree with him or not, he is clearly open to change and willing to take unpopular positions if he feels it would benefit the city. good for him and it really doesn't matter what the voters think anyway and he recognizes that. everyone thinks the guy he doesn't agree with is using flawed logic.

Couldn't have said it better myself….

[Scott2187]

Originally Posted by steindle

(1) Where was this invented "inability to accept change" yesterday, and during the primary earlier this year? It seems to me that the young progressives absolutely destroyed the old guard in a pretty grand gesture.

I'm assuming you'll now post the data that provides proof of the younger generation carrying each election race.

The issue I find with this whole discussion is no one deems it necessary to get an opinion from, oh I don't know, a city police officer.

[robrobrob]

I really feel as if the city has not had a problem finding people to become police officers. Keeping them is something else. Then again it probably isn't a bad thing for the city to constantly replace officers. This lest the city off the hook for their pensions.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by steindle

I'm not sure what you mean by "still" opting to live in undesirable neighborhoods? They don't now. I don't think that Summer Hill, Bon Air, and Lincoln Place would be described that way by anyone except walkability enthusiasts.

They aren't ghettos, but there's not much reason why someone would pick a house in Summer Hill over Ross Township, or a house in Lincoln Place over West Mifflin. Or a house in Banksville for that matter over Green Tree. In some cases, the city neighborhoods might have lower-cost real estate. Still, why live in an essentially suburban neighborhood in an inconveniently located area and pay the 3% wage tax?

I do see real estate listings in these neighborhoods say things like "Attention City Employees!" so it's clear that the market for these neighborhoods is disproportionately those who would otherwise live in the suburbs, but cannot due to work employment.