Chet
Cyburbian Emeritus
- Messages
- 10,623
- Points
- 34
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!
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!