- Connect
- Login
- Print Subscription
|
Welcome,
| |
| |
« Polls
Should public employees be forced to live in the cities where they work?
| Choice | Percent | Visual | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 40% | 293 | |
| No | 59% | 430 | |
| 723 total votes | |||
- Requires free registration.
-
Comments
Who is the Government to say where a person should live? A year ago I may have voted no, but I am just sick of the Government's interference in the lives of Americans that I had to vote yes.
I think that a city worker should live in the city limits...If you have no problem working in that bad city...then you should have no problem living there.
Great logic BABS.
Be happy that they even work in this "bad city".
I believe that the Constitution is based on freedom of choice and the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Where does making you live in some crime ridden neighborhood fit with that national concept? Does making one live somewhere they don't want to live make them a better and more productive employee??? Not hardly. The idea that somehow by making city employees live in the city they work in makes for a better city is basically stupid. This concept only fits the socialist model of making everyone suffer like everybody else that lives there, and in some perverted way the "sameness" will make everyone feel better. How do you get the better qualified employees who live outside the city to apply for jobs is one of the requirements is to sell the home they chose, in a location they chose, to move to a location they may work at, but don't want to live there. Thinking that the resident worker will make the city better by living there is faulty logic at its worst. I'm happy the Supreme Court kill this policy.
This proposed rule that employees must live in the city where they are employed is most certainly a tenet of national socialism - a scary ethos.
Let's look at the cities and towns that are upscale and expensive. Should their cops, firefighters, road workers, teachers, and so on be paid enough money so that they can live within their jurisdictions, where houses start at $300,000? What would people say then - probably this:"We pay you to be here when your shift starts, and stay til it's done - we're not paying you to live here!"
The residency requirements are not "big government socialist policies" being rammed down our throats. In Youngstown, it is a city ordinance that was passed by VOTERS in an ELECTION.
Get your facts straight.
Apparently everyone who has posted above feels that the democratic process can be suspended and thrown out willy nilly.
Thats not the America I live in.
Just because voters in a city pass a nitwit ordinance doesn't make it something that is right. Nitwit voters around the country pass local stupid stuff all the time. Once in a while it is challenged and ruled to be in fact STUPID!!! The courts throw it out, like what happened with this ordinance. This stuff that tries to restrict freedom of choice, assembly, where you live, who and where you must work is straight socialist policy. It can't be justified by any other logic. What's next. Maybe Y'town will have an ordinance that all cars owned by city workers have to be purple, or their houses have to be painted orange so the city can find them quicker in an emergency???? Get real. There's WAAAAYYYYY too much idiotic mentality on the loose today trying to legislate everything you do. 90% of this crap needs to be choked off ASAP. Obamunism isn't helping the continuation of personal freedom in the USA either.
So the will of the people and their votes don't matter, nor do they have any say in how their tax dollars are spent? Is that what you are saying mr clarkkent?
Sounds like we have a wanna-be dictator trolling the message boards
I don't think there could be a more basic freedom than being free to live where you want. How can anyone vote to force people where to live?
So what about people who don't live in Youngstown but work in Youngstown, pay city income taxes, but have no say in how the money is spent? I don't have statistics but I would bet that most people who pay city income tax don't live there and are taxed without representation.
Yo, Westside, that's not what I said, however, you know as well as anybody else does that sometimes bad laws and ordinances are passed but town councils, voters, commissions, etc. There's not lock on stupidity. It's everywhere, especially these days. As far as voter not knowing where their money is spent, have you actually looked at the Obama porkulous bill, or if that is too big to digest go to Timmy Ryan's home page and check out the crap on the list of over 700 requests just from this Congressional district for YOUR tax money. If you are looking to accuse someone of being a dictator, you need to take a much closer look at Obamamama. You probably voted for him. That's change no one needed.
This is a tough one. I completely understand the desire of the cities to keep their money in-house. But I am also in favor of our freedom as Americans to live where we like. I'll walk the fence on this topic.
Hey DoctorGonzo . . . I get the feeling that if the Vindicator posed the question, "Is it cloudy today?" you would respond, "Yes! And it's because of the socialists!" You sure are obsessed with socialism. Give it a rest already, socialism is a failed philosophy and isn't on our horizon. The only people trying to keep it alive seem to be the neo-cons and the conservative media. They're the only ones even talking about it anymore.
I notice that the requirements that city employees live in the city existed while dubya was president and his admin did nothing to eliminate the practice. Only now, under the Obama admin, are the courts rejecting the practice. Hmmmm . . . seems that once again you've been misleading us about who is in favor of this "socialism" as you call it. It's actually you and the neo-cons! You sneaky rascals . . .
The Quail
Westside, you mention voting and the democratic process and all that - how about following the law? In the state Supreme Court 5-2 decision in favor of allowing people the freedom to live where they want, "the Ohio Constitution gave the legislature the authority to ban residency requirements. That 2006 law, Pfeifer added, "prevails over conflicting local laws." In regards to home rule, he wrote that no other provision of the constitution could diminish the legislature's power under Section 34.*"
So the rights of the many prevailed over the lust for power of the few.
The law, now 3 years old, has been upheld in each and every appellate court up to and including the state Supreme Court. Is it a wise use of taxpayer money to go ahead and try to get the US Supreme Court to hear the case? Is there even a glimmer of a chance they'll rule differently than every court so far?
Suck it up - public employees are no longer second class citizens.
*http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2009/06/ohio_supreme_court_deals_a_leg.html
I would never share a moniker with someone from whom I am that far removed. If you think I am a neocon, great. I assure you I am not.
If you truly believe a government enacting laws to force a citizen to live within a certain geographical radius for production purposes does not have socialistic undertones you are wrong. Plain and simple. It is a tenet of socialism.
That is all I was stating. Get bent.
Ahhh Doctor Gonzo, but you do indeed "share a moniker with someone from whom [you are] that far removed."
Should you disagree, please search for Gonzo via one of the search engines. You will come up with the name of one of my favorite liberal journalists, may he rest in peace.
Other than that, you also share but a few similarities with Gonzo, the popular daredevil on Sesame Street, a show which, ironically airs regularly on PBS.
It may or may not have socialist undertones. Either way, as most liberals believe, and contrary to what the neo-con media would have you believe, socialism is a failed philosophy and certain nothing that justifies the fear-mongering in which so many of you neo-cons engage.
The Quail
No one was "forced" to live in the city under residency rules. Workers were free to move by just getting a job elsewhere.
Jeez! These workers add a lot of drama and pathos to the simple equation that they were greedy for that paycheck. Period. They want to eat their cake and keep it too.
cambridge said; I don't think there could be a more basic freedom than being free to live where you want. How can anyone vote to force people where to live?
the second amendment is the freedom that protects the others.
always vote to allow the private ownership of firearms. if we lose them, the "dictators" will strip our freedoms quickly.
Favorite liberal journalists? If you think he was a liberal you are just another freak in a freak kingdom.
Your perception is truly your own reality.