Detroit mayor wants city employees to live in city

[racrguy]

No, you have messages, that are not first hand parties. Unless you have a message from his wife, you have absolutely nothing but rumor.

On that particular statement, I concede, you are correct. That is rumor because it didn't come from a first hand account.

Not really. I'm not making claims about shit that isn't true.

And yet you offer nothing of substance that corroborates what you say. You have no way of justifying your position of them being "truth."

I tell you what. We'll be meeting for happy hour before the concert on the 29th. You repeat what you just said, on the 29th, and you'll find out if I am bluffing or not. You're a fucking pussy, Sean, and you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions. You certainly aren't capable of stopping me from doing anything.

I have no desire to get into a fight with you, but if you want me to tell you that you won't sue me and you won't send me to the hospital, then fine. And it's on the 26th, not the 29th.

Are you aware of how much of a weasel that statement makes you? If you're going to talk shit, OWN it.

I was thinking of the wrong statement, I have messages about things that haven't been mentioned by me from first hand parties.

[bcoop]

The employers have a right to do that, I never said the didn't, but I think the action itself is bullshit; it is a stupid reason to fire potentially good and experienced employees.

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I have yet to run across a City, or County employee that I would consider good, experienced, or competent. Not at the normal level of interaction at least. City Managers and the higher ups, sure, but not the majority of the City/County/State workforce.

Ok, but how does this requirement help solve any financial problems?

When people move out of the City, you lose tax revenue.

[LANTIRN]

Residents of the city will pay city taxes.

I don't know what numbers they are talking about as far as how many don't live in Detroit, but it probably won't begin to make up for the financial mess they are in. Sounds like they are putting a band aid on the problem that need a tourniquet. And if that is indeed the reason they are doing it, then all it is is another example of big government forcing people to pay taxes. It sounds like another case of a government entity whining because they want more tax revenue because they are idiots when it comes to handling money.

[LANTIRN]

Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I have yet to run across a City, or County employee that I would consider good, experienced, or competent. Not at the normal level of interaction at least. City Managers and the higher ups, sure, but not the majority of the City/County/State workforce.

You have never met a competent fire fighter or police officer? I find that a little hard to believe.


When people move out of the City, you lose tax revenue.

The problem that should be address is not making people live in Detroit; they should be addressing why they wanted to live elsewhere in the first place. You can't fix this by mandating more taxes.

[The King]

It's not really mandating more taxes, rather it's expanding the tax base.

[bcoop]

I don't know what numbers they are talking about as far as how many don't live in Detroit, but it probably won't begin to make up for the financial mess they are in.

I don't disagree with this, because they are billions in debt. But, I get the ideology that every little bit counts.

It sounds like another case of a government entity whining because they want more tax revenue because they are idiots when it comes to handling money.

Knowing that it is Detroit, I don't disagree with this either. But I give the guy a little credit for getting creative and thinking outside the box, even if just a small amount. I expect to see more of the same from California in the future.


I really don't see a downside, though. It benefits the city to have their employees living in the city. As someone else mentioned, they can see first hand what programs work and what programs are a waste of resources. Same with police living there. Being more familiar with the areas and the people certainly can't hurt the situation. Fire and EMT's, I don't really see a great benefit, but if you're going to apply it to one profession, apply it to all.

[bcoop]

The problem that should be address is not making people live in Detroit; they should be addressing why they wanted to live elsewhere in the first place.

Right, but you can't do that when your tax base gets smaller every day, and you're $15 billion in debt, because what money would there for additional resources? Detroit should never have been in the place they are in, in the first place. But that's another discussion for another day, because debating that and pointing fingers isn't going to help the current situation any.

You can't fix this by mandating more taxes.

It's not more taxes. It's taxes they had last month, that they won't have next month, etc. It could even be argued that this move is to help avoid tax increases at the present and in the future.

[jluv]

Even if it's legal to do this, it doesn't mean it's not shitty. If the employees can show up to work on time and do a good job, then it's fucked up to tell them where they can and cannot live. Relocation to an area is one thing, to make sure they are close enough to be there when they are supposed to be. But to pigeon-hole them into a specific city like that, especially a big city that has tons of suburbs? Shitty, all day long. At the end of the day, they can legally fire them for almost anything (if it's like Texas), but this is right up there with firing someone because they get a divorce or because they bought their kids a trampoline. It's just ignorant and way out of bounds. I'm surprised anyone who claims to lean conservative and/or "small government" would agree with this idea. On the same token, I guess they can make any demands they want, and the employees can choose whether or not they will comply. Hopefully they would grandfather the people with tenure and experience and a good work record who happen to have established homes outside of the city limits. And then just for new employees, they can choose from the huge pool of quality candidates who live in that turd of a city. Ha! Fuck Detroit.

[LANTIRN]

Right, but you can't do that when your tax base gets smaller every day, and you're $15 billion in debt, because what money would there for additional resources? Detroit should never have been in the place they are in, in the first place. But that's another discussion for another day, because debating that and pointing fingers isn't going to help the current situation any.

That is the main problem that got them into this whole mess; additional resources here, extra government stuff there, more programs over here. The problem with all these governments that are on the verge of bankruptcy is that they are spending alot more than they are taking in. They need to cut city services down the very minimum, and I pretty much mean take care of the school, hospitals, water, and emergency services, and I will bet there is alot of fat to cut there as well. Pretty much everything else can go away, or at least be put on hold for a while. Start cutting salaries and hours (this happens in the private sector, and it sucks, but with a proper heads up from management with an explanation I could possibly agree to it).

You can't force people to live in a shithole, and the fact they have resorted to trying to shows you how far down shit creek they are. I bet most of the people living outside of Detroit have established homes and kids in certain schools, not to mention spousal jobs, so I bet they will just loose a lot of employees, and end up not getting the tax revenue back they missed to begin with. Cutting some jobs might be a place to start, but I really don't see forcing people to move doing much of anything to solve the problem. It just seems like that is probably going to push the good and experienced employees away (assuming there are any) to pick up jobs in other cities or private industry. This is the problem with big government; they never stop and look at their overspending. They always think more taxes are the way to solve everything and it rarely works. The problem with Detroit seems to be overspending, and not necessarily an income problem. But I would bet money no one in the top of that City government has actually really looked at everything together and tried to legitimately fix it.

I know if my company came and told me I was getting transferred or I had to move addresses, I would give them my 2 weeks notice, unless the transfer happened to be in an area the wife and I were already interested in. But that isn't even comparable to this Detroit scenario; they are already living close enough to commute, anyways, which used to be OK.

Now, if they grandfather current employees in and make it a condition of employment going forward, I have no issue with that. Just like if I were to run for Congress; I already know I have to live in the district I want to represent, and that is a perfectly reasonable condition so long as I am informed of it before taking the job. Kind of like when I was doing contract work in Saudi; one of the conditions was I lived in a compound owned by the company, and I had zero problems with it since it was discussed before papers were signed.

[32vfromhell]

Yeah, it really does.

I'm not up on employment laws in Michigan, but in Texas, you can be fired for any reason. I can fire you if I don't like the socks you wear. So, it's not really bullshit in the grand scheme of things. I think a Municipality is completely within their rights of what they require from employees. And if they want to make that change, and aren't violating any labor laws, so be it. If the employees don't like it, they can find another job. It's really simple. They aren't discriminating on race, age, religion, or sex, so more power to them.

Any legal reason. Firing someone because they are "too old" or whatever would get you in trouble, but i smell what you are cookin'.


IMHO, hiring someone willing to work AND live in Detroit will be a very tough sell. Talk about an uphill battle for HR.

[CJ]

I think it's ridiculous personally. I understand the idea behind it. But people will move wherever they want to.

[talisman]

I get it. And I can see the thought process behind it. Honestly, I don't really even disagree with it. People should take pride in where they live, and having city employees that live in the town they work for would theoretically reduce waste and get more done, generally speaking. I agree with Danny that the current employees should be grandfathered in.


As for the rest of this shit. Sean, get a grip on yourself. I don't know what is going on with you lately, but it's about as funny as Rodney.

[ceyko]

I don't give two flying fucks what you believe and what you don't. I'm speaking from first hand experience. What experience are you speaking from? Exactly.


Tell me, Sean. Why do you live in a Podunk town making squat when you've held so many upper management and executive positions?

I'm not going to read much of the other BS, but location compared to work/office also comes into play with response times/SLAs. Which really did matter before VPNs, but for a lot of jobs - the amount of time it takes you to show up at 2 in the morning (for disasters/full outages...whatever) does matter.

Granted, I'll agree that if I work for a Dallas company I could live in some other city though - as long as I get my ass on-site in X amount of time. (If I had one of those jobs)

Going forward, I have to be honest about exactly how far I live away. If doing a job until 4 in the morning, I'm not likely to be back on-site at 7 for post cut after 24+ hours. Have been known to get a hotel out of my pocket though to alleviate travel time for "local" (DFW) work. Specifically Lancaster, TX work - and I live in Van Alstyne.

[racrguy]

As for the rest of this shit. Sean, get a grip on yourself. I don't know what is going on with you lately, but it's about as funny as Rodney.

Oh, yes. Because I started the shit in this thread....

[03trubluGT]

And you will also be able to know what programs and services work and what does not. What good are you working for a city you know nothing about?

Flawed thinking at it's best.

You don't have to live somewhere to know what works and what doesn't.

Besides, do you really think I'd live in a neighborhood that has a Boy's/Girls's Club? Those are nothing but financial drains for low income neighborhoods. They exist so kids have a place to go to "stay out of trouble"... It is taking away the incentive to work for something you want, so the taxpayers just give it to them to bribe them for staying out of trouble. It doesn't work.

I'm not going to move my family to my city so that my kids can go to an ISD that is inferior to the one they are currently at.