I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
Over the years I have heard both sides to this debate.
If we are good enough to work here we are good enough to live here – If we don’t allow the workers to live where they want we might not get the best person for the job!
If you want to work for us, you have to live among us – A lot of good talent and expertise would be alienated dedicated prospective employees from contributing to the good of the City because of a self-serving and tyrannical requirement.
If you don't live in our city then we don't want you working here either - I think they loose and repel good professionals due to the residency requirement.
City works who don’t live in the city don’t have skin in the game and just suck up the taxpayers money and spend them where they live - For anybody in favor of residency requirements, you'd be thinking differently if your private-sector employer started telling you (or new hires) they must reside in the municipality where the company is based.
Wow, what I'm hearing here is, thanks to the taxpayers for the generous compensation, benefits and retirement packages - but screw you, we are outta here. Just keep the checks coming - residency has diminished the freedoms of citizens and the talent pools that municipal agencies been able to access.
If the city is good enough to employ you, it is good enough to live in - we'll have a larger pool in which to choose the best candidates which is best for the citizens
No matter how you slice and dice it both sides have valid points and issues.
This solution is simple enough to fix with a city ordinance. Create a pay schedule commensurate on where you live. If you live in Cudahy, your pay should be larger than of those who live outside the city or if you want to live outside of Cudahy your pay will be lower as a give back to the community.
The purpose of the city ordinance would be to insure that those serving the city had a vested interest in its success. It helps stabilize neighborhoods and maintains a good tax base for the city.
I see this as a "cake and eat it too" situation.
At the time, current workers were grandfathered in. It seems pretty basic and fair. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to apply.
Let’s look at an example – Cudahy post that the Economic Director job is $60,000 for someone who lives in the city or moves to the city after hire by 6 months (if they don’t they lose their job) and if you decided to live outside Cudahy the job pays $45,000.
Or for hourly workers get paid 1/3 less for not living in Cudahy compared to people who live in the city or move to the city. Yes this could be renting or owning.
I understand this is just one of the issues facing Cudahy and in general without fixing the demographic problems and increasing the skills and educational levels of people who live here the core issues will still be there. And yes it takes years (decades, probably) and the fact of the matter is younger people with options aren't going to stick around. You can't make someone live where they don't want to live, but you can entice them to come and be part of the community.