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.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,785 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Advertisements
At one time, there was a residency requirement for Providence Police, Firefighters, and Teachers. That requirement was lifted long ago. Presently, most municipal employees do not live in Providence. Should the requirement be reinstated? I understand this would require legislation to implement.
Potential benefits:
Police living in the community should make for safer neighborhoods.
Municipal personnel would be responsible for paying city taxes, sharing the burden of their compensation package.
Greater involvement with and accountability to the community they serve.
Potential drawbacks:
More potential for quid pro quo corruption between candidates and employee unions.
I don't think the pros outweigh the cons enough in this case which is really taking away the freedom of the individual to decide where to live. Perhaps the best candidate for a teaching job in Providence might live in Pawtucket?
Providence has gone back and forth on this issue at least three times legislatively and finally the unions prevailed. There was a huge enforcement issue last time it was implemented as well.
The only instance where I think this makes real sense is in terms of elected officials- they should definitely have to reside where their constituency does.
I wouldn't object to requiring residency for police and firefighters, though I don't see a significant advantage, especially in the case of firefighters. But I'd definitely opposed to the requirement for teachers. Providence schools have enough issues without limiting the pool of potential teachers.
It cannot be enforced. There was a time when 5 people would chip in on a slum rental in the city, while they took the police and fire exams and went through the application process (they never actually lived there, just used as an address).
Boston has a residency requirement, and therefore have a very difficult time finding quality candidates.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,785 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
It cannot be enforced. There was a time when 5 people would chip in on a slum rental in the city, while they took the police and fire exams and went through the application process (they never actually lived there, just used as an address).
Boston has a residency requirement, and therefore have a very difficult time finding quality candidates.
Bad idea.
I'm not saying I am for or against it. I think it is an interesting idea, however, and one that several have put forth as being good for Providence.
It's interesting that you say it could not be enforced. If it were made law, why could they not enforce it? Why could they not require that the employees in question show proof of car registration and insurance at the in-city address, much the way the city does for residents (who want the discounted residential tax rate)? Insurance could be checked monthly. They'd pay excise taxes and insurance at Providence rates. The scenario you describe with 5 people chipping in on a slum rental seems easily detectible with a simple, periodic database check to draw some scrutiny to those out of compliance; this could be built into the process. Flouting the rule could be a fireable offense and nullify any pension agreements.
It's also interesting that you assert that those tasked "to serve and protect" would (did!) skirt the law.
The African American community in particular complains that the demographics of the police force, for instance, does not reflect the demographics of the community. Reference the Black Major movement story that was recently in the news.
Drawing recruits from the community to new police and fire academies might be one way to begin to address the demographic representational issue. One would think they might begin such a process by recruiting within the city itself. Surely there are some qualified candidates within the youth of the city of Providence.
Boston real estate is much more expensive than Providence, which should make the residency requirement easier to meet here.
The background required to be a teacher is a different matter entirely.
Last edited by ormari; 01-19-2016 at 02:55 PM..
Reason: clarify which owners prove residency.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,785 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
Providence has gone back and forth on this issue at least three times legislatively and finally the unions prevailed. There was a huge enforcement issue last time it was implemented as well.
What were the enforcement issues, Hollytree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree
The only instance where I think this makes real sense is in terms of elected officials- they should definitely have to reside where their constituency does.
In an ideal world, it could be enforced. When last investigated, I remember reading that 40% of those purporting to live in the city for purposes of employment did not.
But to expect Providence City Hall to be suddenly efficient on a matter such as that when they never were before is quite optimistic to say the least. Currently, witness the article about not keeping up with expired corporate tax breaks. Witness how they are handling the city archives. Prov. probably has its hands full keeping up with car excise taxes and putting parking meters on Thayer St. and they'll no doubt approve Brown's latest request to tear down another block of Brook St.
Witness the fact that Providence has its own separate police academy when CCRI trains police and fire for the rest of the state. Meanwhile Elorza is still threatening to raise property taxes! What a disappointment he's been but- then again- the field of candidates for mayor of LaProv last time was as bad as the current Republican presidential clown car (well, maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration).
It would help if City employees would all be on a meritocracy system & not subject to political appointment for starters. Pinch me, I'm dreaming.
For what it's worth, my mom worked for decades for a judge in Brooklyn who lived in the suburbs and used a fake address to get around the residency requirement (he was, after all, technically an elected official, though judicial elections in New York are a big sham). Fun fact, the New York Post once named him one of the 10 worst judges in New York.
Location: Earth, a nice neighborhood in the Milky Way
3,785 posts, read 2,694,775 times
Reputation: 1609
Quote:
Originally Posted by boulevardofdef
For what it's worth, my mom worked for decades for a judge in Brooklyn who lived in the suburbs and used a fake address to get around the residency requirement (he was, after all, technically an elected official, though judicial elections in New York are a big sham). Fun fact, the New York Post once named him one of the 10 worst judges in New York.
I have no doubt this was common in the past.
However, in the age we are in now, the age of Big Data and the Surveillance State, the system ought to be able to police its own. The verification ought to be simple to impose.
What if they required Police and Fire retirees to live in the city, and pay city tax rates....
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.
