Sorry, no featured properties currently.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Forgotten your password?