Identify your residency restrictions

[Chet]

In our area, it is not uncommon for communities to impose residency restrictions on their employees. I don't have one at the moment (and fully exercise the right to live elsewhere).

IMHO, in the case of non-emergency personnel, I think residency requirements are a bit drastic. It even goes beyond logic in some cases. Example: We had an outsider come in to do disaster readiness training. He did a hypothetical tornado path through the community and without knowing it wiped out the homes of 3 of 8 Department Heads. Why put all your eggs in one basket?

Arguements can be made that they support the community economically (i.e. the City of Milwaukee real estate market would be devastated if all the teachers and DPW employees could live elsewhere). Arguments can also be made that residency requirements make the civil servant an integrated part of the community, rather than just another body on the payroll 9-5.

Sound back on this, folks!

 

[Dan]

I work for a town of 1,350. The typical new house here runs about $200K, and older houses seldom come on the market. Residency requirements ... what's that?

Some have asked why I'm not back in Buffalo, considering my emotional attachment to that city. Residency requirements -- just to apply for a job, whether it's in Buffalo or the 'burbs. For most civil service jobs in Erie County, you have to be a resident of a municipality at least four months before applying for a job with that municipality. (Exceptions can be made for department heads and other higher-ups, but you have to move to the municipality before you start work.) This limits the pool of applicants, and perpetuates the patronage system commonplace in western New York municipalities.

 

[NHPlanner]

The vast majority of NH communities do not have residency requirements...which is good, since the median price of a home (new and resale) in the community where I work is over $200K.

I continue to reside in the community I grew up in, and its central location allows me flexibility should I decide to change jobs elsewhere in NH.

 

[Bullwinkle]

I've never worked for a city that required residency, although I did work for a regional planning commission in Ohio that required residency within the county (the county WAS the region, in that case).

Even though it hasn't been a requirement, I have always tried to live in the community where I work. I do think that is important, especially in small towns. In order to be effective in our jobs, we have to be a part of the community. That means living there, shopping there, going to school events, county fairs, you name it.

It also helps when people complain. Many times I have been able to say "Yes, I pay the same high property taxes/water rates/whatever that you do." Or, "My kids walk to school down that same street. I know that the sidewalks need to be fixed. That's why we are doing .... to solve the problem."

 

[mike gurnee]

Most of my positions demanded or 'highly recommended' residing at least in the county. I always chose to live in the city, for the same reasons as Bullwinkle. I have also seen the requirement waived or ignored many times.

Interviewing in Myrtle Beach SC several years ago, I asked about residency...the response: you can't afford to live here. I also remember an ad for Vale or Aspen quite a few years ago the included in the prerequisites: 'independent ability to live in upper scale resort community on the above stated salary.'

Here's a new spin--residency requirements are smart growth. They are just trying to cut down on commuting.

 

[Tranplanner]

I've never heard of residency requirements being applied in Canadian municipalities. I personally believe that you should live where you work, but I would be totally against anyone who tried to legislate where I could live.

Hey Dan - why don't you just fib and use your parents' address? (assuming they still live in Buffalo). Better yet, pull an Elmo Blues an' give them the address for Rich stadium!

 

[Dan]

Tranplanner wrote:
Hey Dan - why don't you just fib and use your parents' address? (assuming they still live in Buffalo). Better yet, pull an Elmo Blues an' give them the address for Rich stadium!

I wish. The 'rents live in Amherst (which means that I qualify only for planning jobs in that municipality), and you have to submit proof with your application, such as a copy of your driver's license, vehicle registration or voter registration that proves you've been living there for at least four months.

As for the latter suggestion, I think an address of "1 Bills Drive, Orchard Park NY 14127" might tip some people off.

 

[IPlan]

I want to live!

My first job, was for a small town here in Ontario... an unwritten rule was that you lived in the area, and prefferably in the town. Living outside town was done by some staff, but was frowned upon.

Actually, preference was given to local's for any job, tender etc. I think in the interview they even asked where I planned to live if I got the job.

Now, I am free to do as I please and I choose to live in a different municipality. I learned from my first job where everybody knew where I lived and what I did every second of the day.

 

[Tranplanner]

Dan - Amherst? The truth comes out, eh? (see "Regionalisms" thread: You know you're from Amherst when...)

 

[Downtown]

So far, I'm the only one in a residency requirement job? Wow. I think I might be the only municipality in the Capital District to req. residency, but since we're the second largest after the City of Albany, and we've got 57 sq. mi., there are a lot of housing options. However, some of the older employees of the Town have somehow skirted the residency issue, and they can very often be heard complaining about their commute. And when you tell them that they should then perhaps move into the town, you get "well, i couldn't afford the same house that I have now in xxx!"

well, maybe if you weren't spending all your money on gas for your Expedition to commute your ass to work every day. grrrr.

 

[giff57]

I don't have any restrictions, but I was offered a huge incentive. The City is renting a house to me that it owns for a very good price. I would want to live in the city where I work though, it sort of shows your commitment to the community.

 

[el Guapo]

Somewhat required

Would your really want ME living in your community?

My regional planning commission requires residency in one of the six counties or two states I serve. I don't have a problem with that. I have a 60 mile radius to work within. I hate to commute so it works out nicely.

 

[Cardinal]

We only have residency requirements in the contracts for the city manager, police chief, and me. In the past, I have deliberately chosen not to live in the community for which I worked. My logic was in part personal - I did not want to be interrupted when not at work - and partly philosophical. I want to be able to make objective decisions. Living in the community, I find it can be possible to be less objective, as I am involved on a more personal level.

 

[Lenze]

When I started my position here (rural town of 8,000 within 1/2 hour commute of third largest city in province) a residency bylaw was in effect for all staff. In fact, the previous two planners were let go because they were not able to fulfill this requirement within a year of employment.

I managed to persuade council to rescind the bylaw on the basis that planning is not considered an emergency/essential service (some of you may correct me on this!), that residency requirements are unconstituitional under the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and that modern, two income families often require residential flexibility in order to pursue individual careers (my spouse is a professor in the nearby city - and I prefer to do the commute). Lastly, I pointed out the high turnover in senior staff to council and suggested this would likely continue with such a bylaw in effect (if they liked my services, change would be in order).

I enjoy being seperated from the town in which I work - I feel I can offer unbiased, fresh and objective insight. Also, I feel I seek community input more readily and strive to bring forth the vision of the community without prejudice. Admitedly, in order to get the pulse of the community I tend to go to the extra effort of participating in local events, shopping local when possible, and making myself visible on Main Street. This requires a dual personality, as I make the same efforts as a citizen in my local community 50 km down the road.

In an ideal world I would reside within walking distance of work, in my imperfect world I choose to allow my spouse to live within walking distance of her work.

 

[adaptor]

residency absolutely required after 1 year

Availability of housing is certainly not a problem in a region with rampant sprawl and flight to the sunbelt. City government is pretty big here, and since the big industries have left town I guess the requirement keeps municipal revenues in the system and props up housing values.

I suppose it makes me more sympathetic when assessing the conditions of fellow citizen's homes (There but for the grace of project boundaries go I). Whether or not that's a good thing is open to question. It does mean my neighbors call and ask me what the heck is going on at City Hall -- as if I had any idea.

If they would have annexed all the cow pastures and corn feilds years ago like the folks in Columbus or Indianapolis, I could live on a country lane and still be in the city .

 

[boiker]

you will be assimilated

residency after 6 mo.

i'd rather live in the town, because you get personal and really learn to live with what policy you impose, enforece, etc.

 

[mike gurnee]

Think, for a while, about the reasons for residency. There is usually some lip service about hiring locally, but in my experience I have seen this as more of a means to find another household to vote for the incumbants. (Buffalo may be different.)

 

[Downtown]

I can see both the merits and the draw backs for residency reqs, but on the whole, I have to say I really like living in the town I work for. It definitely helps with motivating me to be an advocate for the people. When I worked in SC (with no res. reqs) our director of planning was rehabbing a beautiful old historic home in the county, but lived outside of our muni until it was finished. Until the day he moved in, some resident at every hostile planning meeting would holler "What do you care about us? You don't even live here!"

Where we are now, however, decent affordable housing is becoming quite scarce. A lot of the EMS and Police guys are having problems finding an acceptable house to move into, especially since you can get a much bigger house and yard outside the town for a lot less money.

 

[NHPlanner]

KMateja wrote:
A lot of the EMS and Police guys are having problems finding an acceptable house to move into, especially since you can get a much bigger house and yard outside the town for a lot less money.

And that quote sums up the biggest issue I have with residency requirements. I could not afford to live where I work unless I was given about a 95% raise.

 

[BKM]

I live in the "next town up the freeway" (about 8-miles away. (So, Boiker, I can't claim to live a pedestrian lifestyle, as I do commute). For the Bay Area, an under ten mile commute is considered nothing. I would hate to live much further away

For us relatively junior staff, there is no residency requirement, and I would estimate that about 3/4 of us live in other cities. Senior management was "encouraged" to live in town, and they all do (the Director and the Assistant Directors).

I can see both sides. I like a little separation from my town of employment but I would not like to live in another County, say, as I would feel that I couldn't really understand the place.

 

[Seabishop]

A Message About Residency Requirements

Dear nearby town,

I don't want to live in your municipality. But I do want to work there. Is that so wrong? I've actually wanted to work there for a while. I bought a house 2 miles away from your municipality a few years ago. I will not be commuting long distances to work.

Do I really have to either not apply or buy a house 2 miles away?


Residency requirements suck. :-{

 

[nerudite]

Ugh... I *hate* it when they do that! I would apply anyway and see what happens. I'm sure that if there weren't many candidates that the residency requirement would be one of the first things they would give in on. The City of Oak Harbor in WA had a residency requirement as well, but I convinced them to settle on within the school district (which was much bigger than the corporate limits). It could be a negotiation point should they offer you the job.

 

[Downtown]

I agree with Nerudite. Also, because you will probably not be an emergency responder, there may be more leniency.

 

[PlannerGirl]

Apparently the last City I worked for had this requirement for a while and started loosing all their best workers and had to get rid of it. I know in the DC area there is no way workers in most cases can live where they work-too damn costly.

 

[michaelskis]

That is the great thing about Michigan! They have state laws saying that municipalities can not require residency for non-emergency personal.

But I still only live two miles from work until I buy a house. Then I will be about 5 to 8 miles away.

 

[boiker]

I don't mind the residency requirement because I'd rather live in town near my work. I get to spend more time with my family when my commute is 1.5 miles one way or 8 minutes.

 

[Planderella]

In order to work for the city, I had to use a relative's address as my own. As desperately as they needed planners at the time and as little as they were paying at the time ($19k), they should have been happy to get ANYONE to work there, but no........they had to make it more difficult for people to work there.

 

[Dan]

Could be worse. You could be in the Buffalo area, where many municipalities require four months residency just to apply for a job. No, it's not "move here six months after you're hired" or even "move here when you're hired" -- it's "we don't want to bother with you unless you live here already." I'm surprised such laws haven't been challenged with being racially discriminatory; some Buffalo suburbs have only a few minorities.

I'm encouraged to live in the county where I work, but it's primarily suburban and exurban, with relatively high real estate costs compared to the rest of the Cleveland metro area, and very family-oriented demographics that singles would find isolating. I'm looking at Cuyahoga County; a 30-35 minute commute at least, but with cheaper housing and other young single professionals for neighbors. I may have to move into the county if/when I become PD, but by that time my salary will be higher, and I probably would have given up on women.

 

[Big Easy King]

I work in a parish other than the one I reside in, so no residency requirement applies. The daily commute is fairly long, but I'm usually not confronted with traffic. My commute along the Lake Ponchartrain lakefront in the mornings is especially peaceful and stress relieving.

 

[Seabishop]

Ugh... I *hate* it when they do that! I would apply anyway and see what happens. ...

Yeah, I guess I'll do that. I just don't want it to be like "um... Mr. Seabishop, didn't you read our ad?" after a long interview. I have a feeling that unlike other towns, this one will be a stickler for the rules.

 

[Repo Man]

I have never really liked residency requirements either. It is like they are saying that "our community is not desirable enough for you to choose to live here so we will force you to live here" The City of Milwaukee has one for any employee, even teachers. The result? Many good teachers have gone to the suburbs for work and the Milwaukee Public School system sucks.

Many of the suburban municipalities in the Milwaukee area cannot have a residency requirement because the homes are way too expensive.

 

[GeogPlanner]

I don't think that the threat of a residency requirement should preclude someone from applying. If the ideal candidate comes along, there are ways to deal with residency. Everyone has or should have some sort of exception rule to residency. Usually residency is just a score-enhancer for civil service anyway...residents will be given priority over non-residents.

 

[iamme]

Once again a residency requirement has been shown to be the source of a faltering urban school district. If we only lift that restriction, the students of Milwaukee will receive world class education.

I have never really liked residency requirements either. It is like they are saying that "our community is not desirable enough for you to choose to live here so we will force you to live here" The City of Milwaukee has one for any employee, even teachers. The result? Many good teachers have gone to the suburbs for work and the Milwaukee Public School system sucks.

Many of the suburban municipalities in the Milwaukee area cannot have a residency requirement because the homes are way too expensive.

 

[BKM]

Upper management is "encouraged" to live in town.

As a (self-defined) peon, I live in the next town up the freeway, as do several (but not all) of my co-workers. Others live as far as Davis, which is a 30-mile commute.

One problem with this requirement is the "two professional job household" dilemna which often forces a "compromise" location. A couple of my co-workers have fallen into this category.

 

[Repo Man]

Once again a residency requirement has been shown to be the source of a faltering urban school district. If we only lift that restriction, the students of Milwaukee will receive world class education.

It is one of the causes, but not the main one. The number 1 problem is crappy parenting. My mom, my aunt, and several family friends are/were Milwaukee teachers. When you ask them what the biggest problem is, it is parents. They simply don't give a crap. They expect the students to go to school and for everything to happen there. They don't make them do homework, they don't make them read, they don't call the teachers when they are having problems, they don't go to conferences...then they come in screaming and yelling when their kids flunk a grade. I also think that money is a problem, but nowhere near the problem that people make it out to be. People can blame it on bad teachers (and there are a lot) but the only way to fix the bad teacher problem is to open up the pool of applicants by eliminating the residency requirement.

 

[Zoning Goddess]

We only have one jurisdiction around here with a residency requirement, and nobody in their right mind would want to work there anyway (frequent mass purges of employees, highest tax rate around, high crime rate etc.). I don't think I've ever actually applied anywhere that had such a requirement.

 

[Plannerbabs]

We have one. Not sure how hard and fast it is, I already lived here, but it's relatively cheap and big enough that there's variety in housing stock and price. How would places with steep costs of living justify residency requirements, since civil servants typically don't earn a whole lot? On the other hand, when people say they have to live with what we recommend, we can reply, "Yeah, but so do we, and let me tell you, this project we recommended approval for is really tearing up the road in front of my house." That usually quiets them down.

 

[biscuit]

My city has one, although it doesn't exclude you from applying if you don't live in the city. The only thing I had to do was find a place to live within city limits before my start date. To tell you the truth there are really only a couple of other places around here I'd live other than the city, and they're little boroughs just accross the line, so it's no big deal to me.

 

[SW MI Planner]

That is the great thing about Michigan! They have state laws saying that municipalities can not require residency for non-emergency personal.

But I still only live two miles from work until I buy a house. Then I will be about 5 to 8 miles away.

That just went through in 1999. And for emergency personel, the municipality can't require them to live closer than 20 miles from their border.

For those not in MI, I think it does suck to have the requirements. But on the other hand, do you think that when you live in a community you have more at stake and therefore will do a better job? Not just planners, but say police officers? For example, if they would be required to live in Detroit, they would be a little more diligent at their job, knowing it could really affect their families? Bottom line you would hope people would do the best job possible regardless if they live there or not. I don't know the answer, but just throwing that out there.

 

[iamme]

I agree money is not the sole problem and the parent(s) play a deciding factor in any child's success or failure. In reality though, how many decent teachers is lifting Milwaukee's residence requirement going to attract. There is such a diversity of housing types in Milwaukee that anyone would find what they are looking for unless they prefer rural living. Even still, don't you think that the stigma of a troubled school district would keep many away anyway. I'm not saying that getting good teachers is impossible - (I was a student at MPS for 6 years and I had caring and dedicated teachers) - but it won't help substantially to lift the residency requirement. The main problems are socio-economic at the familial level. Even funding parity with wealthier districts won't get rid of the acheivement gaps. There is more than one solution to the problem of under-acheiving urban students, but lifting this residency requirement is not one of them.

It is one of the causes, but not the main one. The number 1 problem is crappy parenting. My mom, my aunt, and several family friends are/were Milwaukee teachers. When you ask them what the biggest problem is, it is parents. They simply don't give a crap. They expect the students to go to school and for everything to happen there. They don't make them do homework, they don't make them read, they don't call the teachers when they are having problems, they don't go to conferences...then they come in screaming and yelling when their kids flunk a grade. I also think that money is a problem, but nowhere near the problem that people make it out to be. People can blame it on bad teachers (and there are a lot) but the only way to fix the bad teacher problem is to open up the pool of applicants by eliminating the residency requirement.

 

[Seabishop]

Darn sticklers!!!!! :-@ :-{ :-@

Damn good job too.

Don't these people know who I am? Cross me and I'll anonymously say bad things about you on Cyburbia! :-\

 

[The One]

Other issues

Residency requirements seem to be required for Directors of departments more so than other postions. My problem with residency requirements is:

1. I don't exist in a vacuum (I'm married with several school age kids) The veto power of my wife is strong (the force is strong with this one.... :-D ) certainly with regard to where we live.

2. The schools and crime rate (cannot be separated in my opinion) is a big deal, obviously more so than if I were single.

3. Housing size decreases as you get closer to most city centers, so if you have a big family....not good....again not a big deal if your a DINK or single....

4. The lack of playgrounds, parks and trails in the city center is a problem....certainly in older communities (this is a huge problem in South Florida in my opinion, the public schools are all fenced off and don't allow a lot of access after hours...) again not a big deal to DINK's and singles who might just join a health club anyway because they have all that disposable income....

And so, these are some of the reasons I've never taken residency requirements seriously.....oh, and you rarely if ever see these requirements in suburban areas...

 

[zman]

I am the only one in my office that lives in our town. Everyone else seems to live outside of even the county and complians about our city being a bedroom community for people working elsewhere.
People in the office say they cannot afford to live here, but coming from where I grew up, the housing prices are a breath of fresh air for me.

 

[mgk920]

Residency requirements to apply?

I recently saw a job posting that included the line:

"Applicants must reside in [a very specifically defined area] and incumbants must maintain residency in that area during their employment".

Am I simply SOL regarding that opening unless I physically move into that defined area, something that I have zero intention of doing without a job offer?

The only other place where I saw a restriction like that was in the mid-1990s when I took a peek at the bulletin board in the Personnel office at City Hall in Chicago.

I also can't help but wonder how hard it is to find applicants with such restrictions.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

The place I currently work at had a residency requirement. not to apply - but you had to be residing in the City at the time of hire. Most people were able to work around it (residency at teh Extended Stay america for example).

In hindsight it might not have been a bad idea - since I am now leaving to work someplace closer to where i actually live.

 

[Seabishop]

I recently saw a job posting that included the line:

Am I simply SOL regarding that opening unless I physically move into that defined area, something that I have zero intention of doing without a job offer?

Mike

I've been interviewed by both types - those who say they waive it for just about everybody, and those who are real sticklers. So you don't know until you go on the interview, but must likely you're SOL. Personally I really don't like the idea of being told where to live by my employer.

 

[jmello]

Personally I really don't like the idea of being told where to live by my employer.

A residency requirement is a very important tool for a city, expecially a struggling one. It ensures that city workers truly have a stake in the community and it also fosters the retention of a middle-class economic base.

The police and fire unions in Boston routinely attack that city's residency requirement (only teachers and those grandfathered in are exempt) and a few city councilors support their efforts (don't ask me why - they would be losing voters to the suburbs). However, the mayor and most of the general public have staunchly opposed any repeal of the regulations. It is generally thought that neighborhoods are safer and healthier if they include firemen, police officers and other civil servants as residents.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

They do a staged program here where a position is first openned to current employees. Then a couple of weeks later they open it to city residents and in another couple of weeks at-large.

Seems like a pretty fair system that allows you to promote local talent without painting yourself into a corner.

There's also been some talk of an incentive program to prompt city employees to live in the city (director-level is already required to).

 

[luckless pedestrian]

I am on the fence about a residency requirement, I had not lived in the town I worked in until I moved to Maine...on purpose...

most times, btw, you usually get a 6 months grace period to move

on the negative side:

1. living in the community doesn't equate to dedication - a bird's eye look on the town in planning services is not a bad thing - not being vested means not being emotional and my past Board's remarked on how they depended upon that perspective, especially when things get dicey and emotional, you get to stay calm and cool
   
2. living in the community means you have the opportunity to be vested - you could be an abutter to a development in permitting (I'm going to have that happen to me when they extend my road to serve more lots, I knew it when I got my lot but the rest of the neighborhood is in denial and they are going to be pi$$ed when it gets filed - I will likely be booted from the book club and progressive dinners) - can people depend upon your non emotional review of the project if you are a noticed abutter?
   
3. you give up more of your citizen rights when you are a resident - you can't complain about any of your services
   
4. if you have a family, your kids get to see first hand the crap you put up with from angry resdients becasue their kids tell your kid at school and you hear about it on the soccer field - in other words, you are always working and so are your kids
   
5. what if the town you serve has no housing available in your price range and you either have to rent forever or mortgage beyond your means? I can tell you resort and tourism towns or major cities would have this problem
   
6. if you wait longer than 6 months to move into the town you work for, you may know a little too much about all the neighborhoods and you might not want to move into any of the neighborhoods :-c

now, so as to not be negative entirely, there is a positive side to this:

1. to be vested can mean political capital earnings - I have certainly enjoyed this moving here
   
2. you can still be fair and impartial in your role as a planner as a tax payer/voter - but at times, especially during a comprehensive plan process, it requires a conscious effort, but it can be done
   
3. I don't have a problem with my town services because I have a more intimate knowledge of the services and the budgets as a department head
   
4. answering a simple question in the grocery line, the school concert, or at a basketball game means one less phone call or one less abutter taking up hearing time with a simple questions - so it's time well spent - my 13 year old now knows what her Mommy does for a living and tells these kids of angry residents to stick it, and they are jerks anyway :-o
   
5. it's a real hassle having certain positions live off island or far away from their the town offices - when the bridge was blocked a few months ago, we had to figure out a way to get public safety officers and utility managers across so they could respond as part of their jobs in an emergency - so I do think if a town is going to do a residency requirement, then they need to either provide housing or make sure salaries commensurate with housing costs

so, as usual, I can see both sides...:-$

 

[jmello]

I am on the fence about a residency requirement, I had not lived in the town I worked in until I moved to Maine...on purpose...

I respect your opinion. However, residency requirements are pretty much non-existent in small "towns," so many of the negative scenarios your describe are unlikely to occur due to employment policies.