Apply to jobs that are not local

[Double019]

This may have been discussed elsewhere in the forum at another point, but I'm curious about the following:

What's the protocol for applying to jobs beyond local employment options? Particularly, if one is applying from an opposite coast, is it tremendously unlikely that anything will materialize simply based on the distance involved; even if the applicant states that they are willing to move cross-country at their expense?

With so much uncertainty in the marketplace, it's tough to pick up and move, only to potentially get stonewalled yet again in another market. I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on this.

[nrschmid]

Focus on earning the interview first, wherever it is. You can decide whether you want to relocate AFTER you have EARNED the letter of offer. The last time I was unemployed in 2009 I was flown out, at company expense, for 4 jobs. I moved 750 miles to Wichita, KS where I didn't know anyone, worked my tail off at the firm and in my free time put together an entire state planning conference, all within a year. Then I was laid off this January. Realizing there was absolutely no planning work in Wichita, I hightailed out of that city in 2 weeks and moved down to Houston without a job in hand. Moved in with a friend, later moved into my own apartment, and am still busy with the job search, although focusing in a different career path (turned down one non-planning offer last month).

I have always been a huge supporter of relocating for work. Not everyone can do it easily.

[HomerJ]

Well, to be honest, it probably isn't going to help your chances. But you won't really know what kind of factor it's going to play until after the fact. Since the majority of positions accept electronic submissions, it's not any additional burden on you to apply, so go for it. The question you have to ask is:

"Am I qualified for this job?"

And

"How can I stand out as a candidate?"

Those should at least be your primary concerns and meanwhile location should be a secondary concern.

[Cardinal]

Looking for work outside of your region becomes easier with more experience. It may not be as attractive for an employer to interview candidates from a distance for an entry-level slot, but for a director's position it is not at all uncommon. In my 2003-4 search I was flown to Washington, California, Missouri, Colorado, and New Mexico, all at the city's expense. Later I paid to fly out candidates for senior level jobs. The market has changed somewhat since then, but especially if you volunteer to foot the bill, there should be no reason wht distance would keep you from being considered.

[Tarf]

Just another thought...

Seeing as how you're from Southern California, I'd probably encourage you to look locally first. You live in one of the easiest states in the country to land a planning-related job, even in this economy. Also, California is large, and skill sets needed in southern California are no different from northern CA, meaning you'll be competitive for any position throughout the state (may want to mention in your cover letter that you're not seeking compensation for moving, though, unless you are).

[Raf]

Looking for work outside of your region becomes easier with more experience. It may not be as attractive for an employer to interview candidates from a distance for an entry-level slot, but for a director's position it is not at all uncommon. In my 2003-4 search I was flown to Washington, California, Missouri, Colorado, and New Mexico, all at the city's expense.

Agreed. During my last job search I was flown out to the east coast for a senior planner position, a 3K trek across country. I was only considered based on my strength of resume, and phone interview. Don't hesitate to cast your net wider, however with no real experience, it may be a feather in the wind. Good luck.

[Brocktoon]

Looking for work outside of your region becomes easier with more experience. It may not be as attractive for an employer to interview candidates from a distance for an entry-level slot, but for a director's position it is not at all uncommon. In my 2003-4 search I was flown to Washington, California, Missouri, Colorado, and New Mexico, all at the city's expense. Later I paid to fly out candidates for senior level jobs. The market has changed somewhat since then, but especially if you volunteer to foot the bill, there should be no reason wht distance would keep you from being considered.

This is a great piece of advice. I wanted to move back to Arizona from Washington, DC and the only reason I got interviewed was because I offered to fly out at my expense.

[karis]

If you are from Southern California, I think most employers in California (I used to work at a firm in SF and was involved in hiring decisions) WOULD consider you local, if you are looking for relocation within-state.

[Double019]

I want to thank everyone for their responses/insights. Basically, I haven't struck gold (or silver or bronze) in So Cal as of yet, with a lot of searching. I'm willing to make an about-face and leave for a couple of other areas in the country and I figured I would start sending resumes as I see jobs come available. I just wanted to know what I would be up against, but it seems if I make it 100% clear that I am willing to foot any bill for interviewing and ultimately moving, I can potentially get some of the same consideration as local candidates (as long as my resume stacks up well). Thanks again!

[cng]

Keep in mind that California is one of the hardest-hit states during this recession. Also, local governments have tightened their budgets tremendously, as a result of lower property values, decreased sales revenue, and the State of California eliminating redevelopment agencies. You will come across public senior/management level planning positions in California as a result of workers leaving for retirement, but your best bet is to start off somewhere outside of this state.

[Brocktoon]

Keep in mind that California is one of the hardest-hit states during this recession. Also, local governments have tightened their budgets tremendously, as a result of lower property values, decreased sales revenue, and the State of California eliminating redevelopment agencies. .

I thought redevelopment agencies were allowed to remain if they paid a percentage to the state and then agreed to pay a tithe to the state for allowing them to exist...or was that a compromise that did not materialize?

[dw914er]

I thought redevelopment agencies were allowed to remain if they paid a percentage to the state and then agreed to pay a tithe to the state for allowing them to exist...or was that a compromise that did not materialize?

That is true, but the amount required is very high. Ex: Some cities will owe 10-20 million dollars this year in order to retain their development agencies. So, essentially it can be pretty cost prohibitive to continue with those agencies. It will also equate to a tighter budget, and possible layoffs for those agencies. We'll see how the lawsuits go...

[Brocktoon]

That is true, but the amount required is very high. Ex: Some cities will owe 10-20 million dollars this year in order to retain their development agencies. So, essentially it can be pretty cost prohibitive to continue with those agencies. It will also equate to a tighter budget, and possible layoffs for those agencies. We'll see how the lawsuits go...

Thank you for the update. I have been passively following it but was not sure what the end result. I have some friends that work for an investment bank that do these type of issues and many of them were bonding like mad after Gov. Brown annouced his plans.

[cng]

Thank you for the update. I have been passively following it but was not sure what the end result. I have some friends that work for an investment bank that do these type of issues and many of them were bonding like mad after Gov. Brown annouced his plans.

Yes, it's now a pay to play system... and my city would have to pay something in the 10 to 20 million range to continue operations. The latest news is that the CA Supreme Court will hear the lawsuit filed by the California Redevelopment Agency and the League of California Cities to determine the constitutionality of AB 26 and 27 (the two bills eliminating redevelopment agencies). The lawsuit claims that they violate Prop 22 (passed last year by voters), which explicitly prohibits the “seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending, or otherwise taking or interfering with” revenue dedicated to local government, including local redevelopment funds.

[JNA]

You are describing my experience - Denver,CO to SW Indiana.

[dw914er]

Yes, it's now a pay to play system... and my city would have to pay something in the 10 to 20 million range to continue operations. The latest news is that the CA Supreme Court will hear the lawsuit filed by the California Redevelopment Agency and the League of California Cities to determine the constitutionality of AB 26 and 27 (the two bills eliminating redevelopment agencies). The lawsuit claims that they violate Prop 22 (passed last year by voters), which explicitly prohibits the “seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending, or otherwise taking or interfering with” revenue dedicated to local government, including local redevelopment funds.

I hope the suits go well. But it could just end up stalling everything and cost a lot of money in the process. I've been doing some internal auditing with one of my internships about redevelopment funds (ab 987), and it'd be a shame if it couldn't continue. Anyways, the only thing that matters to the job perspective is how large of a staff a city can provide for with or without these agencies in place.There are some cities that work primarily through their agency.

[dw914er]

I do have a relevant question though: many job ads (lets say on APA) specify that you must have a valid driver's license in that state. Does this mean you should apply for residency after you accept the job, or does it mean that being a resident out of state will significantly hinder your chances (especially if you're a younger, budding planner)? I know that, in general, many job ads are now making it more difficult for applicants. I've seen issues like "must currently hold a job before applying" in ads, so I wasn't sure if it was the same type of thing.

[Raf]

I thought redevelopment agencies were allowed to remain if they paid a percentage to the state and then agreed to pay a tithe to the state for allowing them to exist...or was that a compromise that did not materialize? There is currently a lawsuit that will be heard by the CASC in Jan. more than likely they will strike down the law passed by JB 2.0 and it will put the budget back to square. The ransom, err i mean payment is in deed high. Some Cities like mine will be paying it, but cannot sustain the amount of payment each year for the lifetime of the RDA. To me, it is just BS...our RDA does so much for our local economy it is not even funny

[Raf]

I've seen issues like "must currently hold a job before applying" in ads, so I wasn't sure if it was the same type of thing.

this is discriminatory and against the law. Why would you ever apply to place like this?

[beach_bum]

The driver's license requirement ususally stems from having a same state license to drive company/gov't vehicles (insurance purposes). Planners aren't usually driving a whole lot, so its pretty much a non-issue for a desk job. I got my new license within 30 days easily in my current home state.

[dw914er]

this is discriminatory and against the law. Why would you ever apply to place like this?

I haven't applied to those places. But I've seen other's run into it, and I think there was also something on the news about it. I'm not quite sure that it's illegal though (i.e. it's not discriminating based on race, gender, or anything like that). Would it make me feel better about the company? No, of course not.

[dw914er]

The driver's license requirement ususally stems from having a same state license to drive company/gov't vehicles (insurance purposes). Planners aren't usually driving a whole lot, so its pretty much a non-issue for a desk job. I got my new license within 30 days easily in my current home state.

That's what I figured. Wouldn't it make more sense to post "must apply for residency and obtain a valid driver's license upon hiring" though?