City Will Pursue
Residency Rule

This is a brilliant idea and will only help New Haven's development, surprised it's taken this long.

The Mayor is supporting a city residence requirement because he knows it will never pass at the state level. He can then use this to demonize union workers and make it an "us against them" battle that will be unfortunate for everyone.

All you're going to do is shrink the pool of available talent. There are not enough "good areas" to live in New Haven that are affordable for one thing.I lived in New Haven most of my life,I couldn't get a police response when I called and any governmental services. The town I live in now responds to any inquires I make and treat me like I am their boss, which I am.

What regionalism??

Regionalism?!? Is she serious? Can anyone make a salient argument that our system as it exists promotes inter-town co-operation? I can easily see that it does promote;

1) City workers who have very little concern about the quality of what they accomplish

2) City workers who take their salaries to other towns to buy homes, shop, and pay property taxes.

3) High levels of commuter traffic on our roads and bridges

4) Unions who are fighting for wages and benefits that are taken fromt he city and distributed to other towns

I think this is a great idea that deserves serious consideration.

Read this report on the pros and cons on Residency Rule.It makes good points.

http://www.house.state.pa.us/CJPS/documents/15/v15_a6.pdf

Would this include teachers? I'm for regionalism just as Bitsie is, but it ain't happening until New Haven tax payers play hardball. A residency requirement begins to set the negotiations for a regional approach. Good strategic move by the mayor. Voters take notice: Alderman ought to support this unanimously - including Bitsie.

Bitsy Clark is correct about fostering goodwill between city and suburbs and anyone who thinks the suburbs exist outside and apart from the city's economy better check back and see what percent of city revenue comes from transfer payments by the state which derives 90%+/- of its revenue from suburban taxpayers - not to mention what it will do to the candidate pool for city jobs. A policy train wreck serious adults should be embarrassed to recmmend

What business would ever hire employees with this kind of limitation? I could see if this was New York or Boston, a really large metropolitan pool of available talent, but this is a midsize city of 120K people.

People forget this has its origins in Jim Crow-era laws.

If an employee shows up to work on time and does his or her job well, why shouldn't they have the freedom to choose where to live or spend their money? If you work at a grocery store, do you have to shop only at that store?

Will they be required to eat only at restaurants in the city and shop only in the city? Are you going to tell them they have to live in Darnell's ward and shovel his driveway when it snows? ...

And what about spouses' jobs? Do you care if they have to commute further, or are more limited in their employment opportunities? Or if they're further from their extended families? If an employee wants to move, will they have to quit their job?

There's a difference between wanting a government that's well staffed and one that's cheap. If you want to raise property values and lower taxes, stop building housing developments that discourage people from ever finding work and export crime for miles around.

Kiss of death.

Paul Martin, you're right about business never doing that. But you assume that this city hires its employees like a business. It never has.

This is great idea that's long overdue. It will give employees a greater stake in the City they take a paycheck from, kind of like owning stock in the company you work for.

As to Ms. Clark's comments about regionalism, I had the same reaction as others on this site. What regionalism? Surrounding towns have turned up their noses at New Haven for years, except of course when it's time to go to use our hospitals, attend a parade, dump their homeless populations on us, etc.

If the surrounding towns had made even basic attempts at treating New Haven as something other than a dumping ground for their neediest citizens and recently released convicts, Ms. Clark might have a valid point about stepping on the toes of our neighbors. As it stands now, we shouldn't vote down a residency require that would benefit New Haven just to avoid upsetting towns that clearly don't care about this City or anyone who lives here.

@Cityworker

This proposal is being discussed by officials elected by the citizens of this town. Since you so proudly stated that you don't live here, your opinion isn't really relevant in this debate. You're not going to vote anyone in or out of office and you're not affected by the tax rates here. You're only stake in this is figuring out how to keep your hand in the cookie jar.

I think that residency requirements require more of a "carrot and stick" approach rather than all stick.

Something like the Yale homebuyers program, or some sort of "sweetener" to live in the city I think would work far more over the long term than making a strict rule of residency for all new city employee hires. The New Haven Promise also has a balanced carrot and stick approach, which I hope would instruct what the detailed proposal would be.

Overall I think this discussion at the very least needs to be had, and that this is a good starting point.

This is a terrible idea. Raise property taxes to make it unaffordable to live in New Haven, then force your workers to live there. The city leaders must have learned this at "How to Govern Poorly 101".

HOLY CRAP!
To see that in writing! Observer may be right. But if it was to happen this is the time. State is looking for changes. Making inner citys more self sufficient is and or should be part of that. As far as not finding qualified people to take the jobs and live here, well I disagree. I am sure that would be proven wrong! I am sure many would move to the city for those jobs. And I am sure that business would grow and thrive if this happened. I am sure we could fill 2800 positions easy. hmmm the 130,000 people that do live here and the ones that would come here, hmmm To which I am sure many would move back so that number would be lower.
Goldsons right, Bitsy, Regionalism in some fabrics of our system may happen because the suburbs need them to not because they want to help us. But will they share the cost of the things that Goldson stated, will they stop dropping criminals off in New Haven and let us drop them off in the towns in which they came from? Will they SUBURBAN COPS stopping bringing people to the NEW HAVEN GREEN when they find vagrants in there areas??? will they open homeless shelter and start providing support groups and councialing and soup kitchens? Detox shelters, methadone clinics??? Womens shelters?? The list goes one??? Really do we believe the suburbs will do this??

With that said again I agree with Observer. But hey if we can present this right it can happen in one form or another

Anyone else amused by someone using the name "Cityworker" posting a complaint about not being able to get good "governmental services" in New Haven?

sorry after thought... and add halfways houses, early release houses, and other rehab house type programs. I think that would be wonderful if the suburbs where willing to take some of that to their city's. But if not I want our cops to live here!
The only really talk of regionalism I have heard anyone talking about is buying power for supplies and maybe some school things. But have yet to here any real talk about any other types.

Tom - come on, get a grip. Surrounding towns may "turn up their noses at New Haven" but I don't think anyone in the burbs wishes to see New Haven as a "dumping ground for their neediest citizens nd recently released convicts."

We really need an HONEST history of how our cities got into and expanded the industry of social services. It wasn't entirely pushed on them.

Spokes and hubs. Without both, it's a pretty shaky wheel.

As Wendell Berry put it: "a city and its region can define themselves as one community rather than an assortment of competing interests....can be a community simply by asking: What can we do for each other?"

@ William Hosley and other:

Regarding your comment that, "anyone who thinks the suburbs exist outside and apart from the city's economy ...":

the problem is that this is exactly what most suburbanites do believe. They don't see the City's successes and challenges as their own. Unfortunately, that's true of suburbanites who rely on the City for their paycheck, too. It's not residents who have created the us vs. them mentality, it's city workers.

I can understand an increased tax for workers who live outside the city but to force them to move here is asking way to much. I want the best qualified people running and working these departments if they want to live in the burbs so be it. Lets not chase away highly skilled workers because we've done an awful job running this city for years.

City services?? How will they be when 70% of your police and fire personnel leave for other departments instead of moving into the city? You think you wait a long time for the police now....

A common-sense incentive to live within the municipal boundaries is a fine idea.

A penalty, fee, or tax explicitly leveled at those who do not is a foolish and short-sighted one.

@Sean

No one's being "forced" to do anything under this proposal. A city job is an opportunity, not a right. No one's forcing anyone to take a job with the City, individuals choose to do so freely and can choose otherwise if they decide they don't like the terms of the agreement.

All the city is doing is proposing to change the terms of the agreement with employees, just as any private employer is free to do. Many private sector employers have reduced wages or benefits during the recession, for example. City employees that don't like the proposal can leave, just as a private sector employee can take a job somewhere else if he or she isn't happy with changes in compensation.

The real problem here seems to be a sense of entitlement. If all these out of town workers are as industrious and talented as they say they are, then getting a comparable or perhaps even a better job somewhere else should be a cinch, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Neighborhoods with high concentrations of police officers and teachers have very low crime and very low foreclosure rates. Look into the national research on this.

Given that crime and foreclosures are extremely dire issues in some of our neighborhoods, this alone is a reason to enact a requirement.

No offense intended, but generally it can be observed that the people against residency requirements are people like Bitsie and some of the other commenters on this thread who either 1) live in the suburbs or 2) live in neighborhoods, like Downtown or Westville, which are many times safer and better-invested-in than neighborhoods like Newhallville and Ferry Street.

Hey, New Haven living is great. And any city worker who says otherwise needs to find a new cracking job.

Me, I'm sick and tired of paying the high salaries to people who don't, or won't, invest their families in the future of New Haven....

In theory, this idea has some merit. In reality, it is a waste of time. Mr. Martin hit the nail on the head. I guess if you want to provide incentives to municipal workers to live in town, fine. But basic logic would suggest that you severely limit your talent pool with a residency requirement.

New Haven was awarded the title "All American City" and even has a departement devoted to it-The Livable City Initiative (populated with higer paid out of town staff.) That should be incentive enough for City employees to reside here right?

Justin Elicker you are on the right track.

I see this going to court like this.

Ohio Supreme Court rules against city residency requirements.

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2009/06/ohio_supreme_court_deals_a_leg.html


Employee residency requirements in arbitration

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200108/ai_n8956645/

I'm pretty certain Bridgeport tried this and it was overturned. Yup, yup. "The Connecticut Supreme Court, in its rulings on residency requirements, makes a similar distinction. In 1984, the Court invalidated a Bridgeport requirement that, to be admitted to a civil service exam, an applicant must have been a city resident for at least 12 months before the exam date. The Court ruled that the requirement violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and also infringed on the fundamental constitutional right to travel (Bruno v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Bridgeport et. al., 192 Conn. 335 (1984))." Source: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0150.htm

Incentivization can only work if the State allows the City leverage over residency. Its makes sense to pursue this so the city has that option.

Imagine increasing the number of middle class households in New Haven by 6% (46,000/2,800). This could lift up whole neighborhoods and generate higher value property to spread out the excessive tax burden borne asymetrically by just a few neighborhoods.

there is already a 20 mile radius clause for residency. people took the job with that in mind. to change the rules now could lead to court litigation. maybe for new hirees, but not current employees. they could just get an apartment on paper... i could see 12-15 employees sharing an address on paper and splitting a 600 a month rent. 30-50 a month and avoid a residency tax... gotta love it. what if mthey can't sell their house in the burbs? do you penalize them for trying and not getting any takers?

i work for the city and currently live outside, although I would gladly move into the city as soon as you get rid of the .... that are using ten times more of the money, facilities, and hand outs that force the city to have such high taxes. Instead of focusing on the workers who come into the city everyday and put in a days work, why don't the aalder-peopleand mayor figure out a way force the non paying residents to help contribute to the bettering of the city.....or force everyone including city residents who work outside the city to leave and move to where they work...that way your theory of having stock in your city is true..what a joke NH

>With a residency requirement, those higher-wage earners would be spending their salaries in town and paying New Haven taxes, Elicker said.

WOULD BE SPENDING? Is there going to be a rule about WHERE I spend my money also???

Seriously?

I pay Hamden taxes so that kids FROM HAMDEN can go to New Haven schools. What about that? Really. New Haven has a large magnet school population that is supported by teachers (and others) who live outside of New Haven...and generally in the 23 districts outside of New Haven.

Instead of a potentially troublesome "requirement," do an across-the-board salary and income cut (including charging a huge amount for parking), combined with the creation of a "special benefit" that pays for parking costs, homebuying, renting, and homeownership improvement costs for those city employees who actually live here.

That way, people can still live outside of New Haven and work for the city - they will just have to pay for it, and over time they can decide to move into the city, get their free parking, and claim their special benefit.

Come on, let's think creatively about this.

Greetings. I teach English at Career High School, which is one of many magnet schools in New Haven. I am highly concerned about the new rules the Alders are talking about concerning living (and spending) in New Haven. I pay taxes in Hamden. I am one of the few people in the world who doesn't mind, actually enjoys, paying taxes.

My taxes go to support the New Haven public magnet school program. My taxes allow students from Hamden enjoy the excellent education at our top schools (according to the Tiering system) in New Haven. I think it would be extremely unwise to create a rule that says that I (and my family) have to live in New Haven or be "fined...taxed...penalized monetarily" (however you would like to word it).

I, and my family, already support the New Haven public school system. I, and many of my peers who live in surrounding towns, DO support New Haven...not just financially but through our service to a community that we love. If you create a chart for how many teachers (and other city workers) live in the so-called "feeder" districts (districts that PAY New Haven to educate their children), I bet that you will find that that number is LARGE. I bet it is close to 80%.

Much of the money that is spent by families goes to corporations and those corporations are outside of New Haven...and most are outside of CT. My mortgage payment does not go back into my community...it goes to a bank. Same with my phone bill and my insurance bill and my car bill. And the other bills go to a regional carrier....RWA, Southern CT Gas, UI (which I think is an out of state entity.) Much of my paycheck goes to these places. They do not go to A SPECIFIC CITY.

I spend a lot of the money I have left over on the local economy, which our students are a part of. I just saw a former student (I see them a lot) working at Shop Rite in Hamden (and she's a New Haven kid). Doesn't that count for supporting New Haven?

Thank you.

@Anon I say lets go for it....

@think about it - that would be fraud. Bill the tax collector just got caught up in that kind of scam. His position has a residency clause.
And I am sure something like this would have a phase in, and new hire ect. I am sure people that do not live in the city at the time of would not be made to sell there homes. Lets get real.

@Beverly Different times different reasons. May places still have residency requirements. Look we have them for some positions. 1980's times where different.

I guess I just think Tom's making an argument for revenge or punishment more than one based on sound public policy.

This is a relatively small city. It will limit the pool of available talent.

Moreover, telling people to 'take or leave it' at a moment when unemployment is at 10% is cruel. If they don't sell their house - in one the worst housing market since the Depression - they can choose to get fired instead.

Really?

And at the same time you'll tell them that you don't care if their spouse has a longer commute or if they have to move further away from their parents or extended family?

Just wait until some alderman's "friend" approaches a city employee outside the city, makes him a lowball offer on his house that's for sale, and happens to also sell him a property in town that he's been looking to unload.

This is not only misguided. It's a recipe for corruption and coercion. The next thing will be telling them how they have to commute to work, where they have to spend their money.

These are employees. Not sharecroppers. Not indentured servants.

@ paul martin,
let's be real....as Cedar Hill Resident points out, there is no way this would be implemented so that people would have to sell their homes....

and your argument about limiting the pool of available talent? i really don't think so...unlike other ct cities, new haven is NOT suffering from brain drain and lack talent or a lack of younger people...and this is not only because of Yale....

@ paul martin,
let's be real....as Cedar Hill Resident points out, there is NO way this would be implemented so that people would have to sell their homes....

and your argument about limiting the pool of available talent? i really don't think so...unlike other ct cities, new haven is NOT suffering from brain drain and lack talent or a lack of younger people...and this is not <i> only </i> because of Yale....

I was born and raised in the City of New Haven and I am proud to say so. I have since moved out of town for a couple of reasons. One the crime rate and second the school system. I, at times regret leaving and not standing up for what is right, and fighting poor political choices and political correctness. With that said, I must say in the position I worked with some of the most caring and dedicated people. From all over. Only a few people are screaming residency requirements, what about the rest. What is more important, qualifications or where you live. Most people work in the public sector because of the love of people and society. If they didn't they would work in the public sector and make much more money. The residency rule sounds good and I was a firm believer in at one time also. It does not matter to me where my child's teacher or the firefighter running into the burning building live. I care that they do the job to the best of their ability.

I agree with Anna - there is no shortage of talent within New Haven, even before you consider those willing to move here for a government job that pays as well as the ones in New Haven do.

The suburban commenters here need to get over themselves and realize that the world has changed. New Haven actually has a higher proportion of people with a graduate degree than most of the suburbs, and people are increasingly moving here.

In 1861, the Fair Haven and Westville Horse Railroad (horse-drawn street car line) opened, which connected the then separate town of Fair Haven - centered around the Quinnipiac River, Front Street and Grand Avenue as an oystering village - to the New Haven city center (and beyond). Prior to the street car line, the section west of about Ferry Street, in Fair Haven, could not be viably developed because the economic strength of an oystering village can only support a certain population. Although New Haven was a growing economic presence, this undeveloped land was too far from job centers to be viable for immigrant workers who were too poor to do anything other than walk, which was the growing demographic in the city, so development did not push beyond Wooster Square until the street car line was built thanks to wise investment from a private company. Once the street car line opened, development began in the section west of Ferry Street in the form of a street car suburb around Grand Avenue, largely for an emerging Irish middle class, who had become economically stable thanks to the prolonged employment opportunities that came with the canal digging jobs and later the first railroad laying jobs.
In 1870, Fair Haven became incorporated into the City of New Haven because it was no longer a self-contained oystering village - it was a street car suburb of the central city and later became an industrial center around the railroad to the northwest of the neighborhood, which created the workforce housing that makes up a large part of the housing stock of Fair Haven today.
Prior to the electrified trolley line being laid in the 1890s through Westville on Alden Avenue and connecting to downtown via Edgewood Avenue, Westville was a manufacturing and agricultural village and a separate town from New Haven. It was mostly self-supportive with industry located around the river intersections near Fitch and Valley Streets that provided enough employment to support a small population clustered around the Main Street (Whalley). Once the trolley line opened, development began on the agricultural land south of Fountain and the development came in the form of a low-to-moderate density streetcar suburb built-out incrementally by various home builders, private individuals and speculative developers and it served as modest and upscale housing for a growing middle class that largely worked in managerial positions in factories, as office clerks, or were local small business owners. The existing industry in Westville was not enough to sustain this growing population, and the agricultural jobs were evaporating as land was being developed, and neither of those jobs - low-level factory worker or farmer - could have paid for a typical house that was being built in the early 20th century in Westville. With the new population of Westville now largely commuting into the city for work along the trolley line or by private car, Westville became incorporated into the City of New Haven in 1921, as one might expect.
Cycling advocates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries pushed many municipalities to pave roadways to make them more usable for bikes (and baby carriages, food carts, grocery strollers, etc). This is what initially allowed car commuting to be possible in places like Westville in the early 20th century.
http://www.greentechhistory.com/2009/05/how-bicyclists-built-the-roads-that-carried-the-cars-that-pushed-them-off-the-roads/
Federal funding for road construction as part of the New Deal under Roosevelt opened up land for viable development in outlying areas of streetcar suburban areas in towns and cities and these places became some of the early motor car suburbs. This brought about a new demand for parking in downtowns, and resulted in the first demolitions of historic buildings for surface parking lots that is such a common practice now as automobile dependency continues to plague the country.
During the post WW2 reconstruction era, federally built highways - the corporately lobbied Federal Highway Act of 1956 - opened up even more development capabilities on the periphery of largely agricultural towns like Orange. While the residents of these places largely worked in central cities because the small town economies in places like Branford, Guilford, etc couldn't support the large population increase, yet these surrounding towns in Metropolitan areas across the country did not become part of the city. This was a mistake.
The points about limiting the pool of employment and the economic drain out-of-town city workers create are both valid and true points. The question is how we proceed.

We can incentivize city living with tax breaks, home ownership programs, free bus passes, municipal historic rehab tax credits, etc.
We can disincentivize suburban living with propoerty tax equivalency fees for out-of-town residents who are city employees, commuting taxes, higher parking costs, etc.
We can work to regionalize so that costs are equitably shared amongst various municipalities.
We can work to make the economies of suburbs more self-sufficient and viable as separate towns, villages, hamlets, or neighborhoods. Whitneyville for example, could easily become a neighborhood in New Haven, while Branford could work to become a viable self-sufficient small town once again, and Orange could slowly return to a largely rural agricultural landscape.
We can do a combination of many things that results in the strategic annexing of neighborhoods between various municipalities to reflect actual economic relationships, consolidation of development through urban growth boundaries ( http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs194.snc3/20155_1227099712722_1085910074_30558285_3441777_n.jpg ), comprehensive transportation planning, adoption of form-based zoning ordinances (http://www.smartcodecentral.org/ ), localized economies, etc.
A lot of this work will require cooperation between local municipalities, the State and the Federal government, but we should work towards a worthwhile goal that makes sense, is fair and that results in the economic longevity, stability and opportunity of everyone.

Will this residency requirement include Teachers, Police and Fire unions who are deemed "essential personnel??" So they can all be harassed by the "bad elements" among the city's residents??
I lived and worked in The City. I moved out because it became unaffordable. Just let it be known that NOT all City workers are lazy, political hacks. Many of us are extremely professional; spend long hours doing a great job for the City and its citizens. Do we ever get thanked? No, we just get labeled as ungrateful union workers. Please spare me your ignorance!

Yes I am a city Firefighter who moved out due to violent crime and a terrible school system. A residency law would be positive for the city because we would be able to vote out people like Alderman Goldson.

SICT,

Magnet school fees are ala carte and there is a reduction in spending for suburbs per pupil sent out of town to New Haven Magnet Schools.

Its reasonable for New Haveners to want to pay tax dollars to fellow residents in order to get on a path toward a self sustaining economy. How we get there fairly is really the question.

The only way to implement a residency requirement is for it to be applicable to all new hires. You cannot legally penalize, fine or tax an existing employee for not living within the city limits after they have already been hired. It might be legal if the city declared a chapter 9 bankruptcy, but since that has never been ruled upon, its merely conjecture. I think it is a good start, but New Haven won't see any benefits of it passing for many years to come, but should still push to make it a reality.

One thing this shortsighted policy does not take into account are those of us who live in New Haven and work in the suburbs. Many people fall into this category. If the other towns surrounding New Haven enacted similar measures I would be forced to move. Create a city where people want to live and you will not need this requirement. There is close to 10% unemployment. People are just supposed to quit their jobs and find new ones? Do you really think you can find enough people willing to teach in New Haven if employees are forced to live here? Taking away ones freedom to live where they want is completely un-American. It goes against everything this country stands for. This policy makes New Haven look like a joke.

Hi all-I am a Westbrook resident who has worked as a teacher in New Haven for the past 15 years--and from Westbrook and all the other suburban towns--you need to know that our state taxes go to you--you see New Haven is subsidized by the state or it cshouldn't't exist--Westbrook could exist because the state doesn't give us anything--therefore I and my suburban brothers and sisters do care about the inner cities or we would rise up and stop paying state taxes as we get very little in return-- but my money from far away enables you to exist--how selfish and narcissistic the posters here are--how unreasonable and unamerican they are---

You want to tell me where to live--I shouldn't have a choice--punish me if I dont follow what you deem to be right----let me tell my wife and kids we have to leave our friends and family because of some cockamamie legislation--- $$$$$ over community and family---take a look at yourselves--don't let $$$$ be the mover in your thoughts--I beg of you to think of community, love, concern for all above the almighty $$$$-----

This is America--the supposed land of the free---lets limit everyone's choices with your new policies-------and we can be like all the other countries led by despotic regimes--

I dont even know why I am replying to the prior posters over this folly--it wont happen--its illegal and it isnt worth our time--

Maybe someone put this foolish notion out there to get you off the real topic as to how to deal with the budget--please stick with that and get it right this time--

Residency rules have the same possibility of becoming real as I do in meeting Santa or the tooth fairy (sorry kids-hope you are not reading this)By the way the Easter Bunny is real----he looks a bit like Goldson don't you think?

Please get on with real governmental issues(I will say-- legally you could incentivize people to live in the city--but not to punish them if they dont) Never will happen so let go of this oh so negative notion----Why is everyone out to hurt others? Lets lift each other up in these troubled times..

I must repeat--my state taxes go to New Haven--not to Westbrook and I dont mind, but I can tell you there are suburbanites that do mind---New Haven's services compared to mine are immense-----I love New Haven and would move there tomorrow if you could just convince the wife and kids----or maybe you should force us to move there-------check yourself and your self-centered selfish thoughts----Tom

Since New haven likes paying out law suits I will be first in line to sue!!!
Taxes get paid regardless!!! Don't discriminate just cause i chose to live out of new haven some chose to better themselves and getting out of New Haven is one step... Goldson a no good hater!! Please Connecticut has a lot of out of state workers so try there first.

Thank you to people like NHemployee and others who are standing up against this un-ethical proposal. If we want to call New Haven the "All American City" than lets run it as such, because this Idea to me is about as UN-American as it gets. Now you are going to tell me because I work here I have to pay more into the system simply because I live out of the city? Its just plain wrong. I have a right to go home to whatever town I choose, and I was hired because I was the most qualified person to serve the city with the skills I have. Not because of where I live.

Its insulting for people to say that the employees that live outside the city are not invested or dont care! Tell that to the teacher that stays afterschool with your child to help them get down the latest math problem after dealing all day long with disrespectfull children that have no sense of dicipline because they have no guidence at home.....Im sure all they want to do is go home to their little "suburban home" to raise their children at the end of the day but they cant because their busy raising yours..Theyt may be your childs only chance at some success ..But go ahead call them undedicated!

Tell that to the police officer who puts on a bulletptroof vest and leaves his safe town every morning to come protect you and your family from the gangs and violence all around this city. Im sure he wants to go home to find the only peace of mind he can at the end of the day, but thats not enough right? If we can force him to live in the city too he can work round the clock for free and "keep our neighborhoods safe! Im sure he wants his wife and kids subject to all the same violence and hardship he himself risks firsthand all day long. He loses a bit more of his sanity everyday serving you, But insult him too, nevermind that the next time you get mugged in edgewood park it might be him whos coming to help you.

Oh and the firefighter that drives 20 miles in rain sleet snow or shine while your at home safe, to shovel 20" of snow off the gigantic driveway of the fire house then drive around all day to break his back shoveling out the hydrants to make sure the truck can get there safely and protect your house and help your family when someones having a heart attack. Oh and thats all before he risks his life running into your burning house to protect your children, parents, spouses, and property. Oh and hes also at fault because he was called in on overtime on this trecherous day, and hes taking your precious tax dollars to protect you. But thats not enough. Hes simply not invested in this city just by risking his life and safety to protect you and yours, He needs to live here too.

And tell that to the school janitor whos been sweeping floors and taking trash out for longer than you've been alive, so your ... kids that his tax dollars pay to raise anyways can have a school thats clean. Hes been busting his back for 25 years and maybe just now finnaly moved out to the burbs to get a little piece of land for his grandkids to play on. Hes spent his whole life living in a 2 bedroom ferry st flat and he wants his grandkids to have more than he had, and hes worked damn hard for it. But lets punnish him financially for the last five years before he might (if hes lucky enough not to have the mayor take it away) collect the pension the tax payers say he doesn't deserve. Im sure he wont be insulted.....

So as for myself I guess I am going to need to move away from my ex spouse and loose the 50% of the custody I have with my three year old daughter so I can appease the city that has mis managed its way into an irreversable debt. Or be penalized... Afterall I need to be more loyal to this place and old Johnny D than my own family, and needs. Not to mention once I move here so I can stimulate the economy and be forced to "spend" my hard earned money here I will have to grocery shop in hamden because we dont have any legitimate grocery stores left in the city,and when i have to go back to school shopping for my kids clothes I guess I'll got the the Milford mall since we dont have a mall like my town offers. And when my child misses her nice big back yard that Ive earned Ill have to tell her sorry sweety , we'll have to walk to the park cause we dont have a yard here. And when she misses her grandparents who used to be right down the street Ill tell her to call the mayor or blame her neighbors because Daddy was forced to move you away from home. Cmon!!!! When I am here I am dedicated to my job and the citizens and when Im off the clock Im not your property people. Thats my time, so dont insult me by trying to run my life.

Oh and last I checked a large portion of the citys budget is funded by state moneys. And I keep getting state tax's taken from my check each week so Im paying into this defecit just like you.

Im very concerned about this way of thinking and only hope we can get people to be accountable for their own responsibilities before its to late.

Mrs. Clarke is against residency law then maybe we need to find someone else to run for the Alderwoman in her ward that will understand how these people that don't live in the city bring New Haven's money elsewhere and our taxes goes up.

Bessie, I wished I lived in your ward because I would surely run against you.

Forget about Residency requirements, term limits for Mayor and Aldermen should be in place as well as downsizing the BOA to the size of the City. There is no way we should have 30 Aldermen for a City the size of New Haven. One for each area of New Haven is plenty. If this were to happen we would really have a checks and balance of Government and we would not be subjected to the same Mayor for 20 years.

@new haven employee
Only a few? Ok let's put it to a vote in November and see how many new haven residents support it. or when you say few do you mean employees remembering 65%do not get to vote on it.

And what amazes me is the repeated commenting that new haven does not have thetalent pool. Comments am am sure are by non New Haven residents, which only re confirms their lack of respect for the people of this city. We have many amazing people with the talent, and the added bonus of having the love and passion for this city...which makes them more qualified!
As far as teachers I am not really sure were they would stand because of the fine line they fall under state hire. I am thinking other jobs in the BOE that would need to be determined, depending if they are city workers under city funds?

But when you read the comments the only people that do not like this are the ones that do not live here. Above was suggested a way of feeing or taxing non residents to help pay for resident employee incentives. That could be a fair start. But new hires should from this point be under resident requirements. With that said at this time there should be NO new hires, hhiringfreeze and elimination of position when they become vacant should be happening.

PS speaking a young talent can we suck up Johnathan Hopkins for economicdevlelopment before we lose this bright mind?

One more thing.. Repeated posts say they moved out of new haven because of crime? Really sooooo the 79% of our PD do not live here because of crime :) WOW have to laugh at that one. And because of the historic connection in brother hood with the FD who 69% do not live here, you can really and honestly say that has NO effect on crime in this city?
and then we have those saying education...I moved back because my kids could get a better education here and ALL those out of distric kids come here for the same reason. There is a group of students that do not benefit from our schools which I guess most city employee children do not fall into that group. And we are working on trying to fill that gap for those students. But as a whole New Haven schools offer much more opportunity than suburban schools

So tell me again..cops and fireman do not live here because of the crime??? OMG. That statement PROVES we need residency requirements!

posted by: Disgusted Latino on January 8, 2011 10:10am
Forget about Residency requirements, term limits for Mayor and Aldermen should be in place as well as downsizing the BOA to the size of the City. There is no way we should have 30 Aldermen for a City the size of New Haven. One for each area of New Haven is plenty. If this were to happen we would really have a checks and balance of Government and we would not be subjected to the same Mayor for 20 years.

Now we are talking.

TOMBURNS,

Although New Haven does get a lot of state support, it also isn't allowed by the state to impose property taxes on Universities, hospitals and other state properties, and this is, to a great extent, why the city has an income problem.

I see it asserted so often here - as if it is a proven fact - that people who work in New Haven but do not live in New Haven are somehow cheating the city out of money that it deserves.

Hopkins thinks you should charge high parking fees, slap on a dozen taxes, jack up property taxes, etc. Good luck with the latter! Why should someone who already pays $7,000 or $8,000 in taxes in a suburb and income taxes also have to kick in to float New Haven residents who want lots of services they don't want to pay for?

All of this presupposes that - unlike every other town in the country - New Haven is so unique and so important that it should be able to prohibit any employee working in its borders from living outside the castle walls. Do you really think that people who work in town never buy anything from stores here? That people from suburban towns never come into town for lunch or dinner or on the weekends for shopping or movies or other activities?

We live in a world where people commute. Hopkins may long for the 18th century when everyone was a farmer, but that world is gone. I just can't imagine that the numbers support the assertion that people who work here but don't live here are a drain on our economy. Yes, they don't pay property taxes here. But everything else they do incurs a fee or tax of some kind. Can you imagine if surrounding towns barred New Haven residents from working in their borders?

Darnell would be out there again talking about The Egging Heard 'Round The World.

As an act of revenge or grandstanding, this policy makes sense. But I have yet to see anyone come up with numbers to support their justifications.

I bet Darnell eats and shops outside his ward. Is that penalizing his constituents? Should Hopkins be allowed to spend tuition dollars at a school outside the city?

None of those arguments make sense. None can be justified by data. This is policy argument by assertion, and the assertions are unsustainable.

@Suburb you want to Vote out Alderman Goldson, well it's not going to happen because the people in his ward voted him in office and they are the only ones can vote him out. People wants changes but don't know how to deal with them when it hits their doors. Get real the voters in this city has the right to speak and these taxes are hurting us and guest what we are not running away from it. The Mayor came up with one of the wises choices concerning residency to give the residents of the city of New haven a chance to work in their city and by the way these people are very qualified it was just people like all of you complainers that knew someone to get you your job.

Frankly I wish they get rid of all of the Magnet schools and bring back neighborhood schools since you all are frighten to live here because of crime and keep all of your children home. By the way why didn't some of you apply for jobs in your own town? Maybe it was because they were paying you less, but remember they were only paying you greedy people what the town can afford.

I don't care if the police that don't live here move out of this city because they are only scared to fight crime and all they do is just run the city traffic lights and put on their emergency lights and sirens just to go through a traffic light, what a waste of my tax paying dollars.

Goldson upon West Rock keep building your community so that the gates of the suburbs can not prevail against you.

Does anyone else find it ironic that good ol' Tom, one of the biggest union opponents of choice when it comes to education is lecturing us about taking away HIS choices?

And Tom, you don't really mean that without Westbrook, New Haven "couldn't" or "shouldn't" exist, do you?

You might consider retracting that statement.

good luck on having qualified people apply for city jobs.. good luck retaining current employees.

@ AnotherSuburbanNHemployee
This is what I was thinking as well. So, I move to the City and rent an apartment. Sell my car and take the bus and use a zip car. Then have a couple of kids and send them to the public schools. Shop out of town for most if not all of my needs. What money is the city going to collect from me. Not property taxes, not care taxes. Plus I'll use the most expensive service the city offers in the schools. This doesn't sound as if it's to well thought out.
Lets make it fair for everyone. You have to live in the town you work. No matter who you work for. If you work for the State then wherever you office is that's the town you have to live in. Loose your job, tough luck. Move 10-15 times in your life.
Dedication at work has nothing to do with where you live.

City residency should be encouraged. There should be real incentives for city workers to live here. City residents should have the edge when jobs are awarded. But let's face it, this is just another hammer the Mayor is using to
smash his city work force and rile the angry mob. He just keeps piling on, trying to scapegoat city employees, and make it an "us vs. them" battle. If he were serious about residency, he could start by bringing his city assessor and several other department heads into the town limits. For one, I'm sick of all these petty ego battles. Isn't New Haven better than this. Aren't we all in this together?

Tom Burns' posts about how suburbs "subsidize" New Haven are factually incorrect and uninformed (the city has been the economic and transport hub for the entire region for the past 350 years, serves as a source of jobs and therefore income for all suburban towns, and the region simply could not function without it).

But much worse than that -- Burns' calling Goldson an "Easter Bunny" sounds to me like a inflammatory racist rant. Has Burns' studied the history of "blackface" performances?

"gangs and violence all around this city."

The fact is, many neighborhoods within New Haven have much lower crime rates than the suburbs. Some areas have much higher crime rates, but most do not.

To the suburban union leadership that is posting on this thread: These types of exaggerations and lies won't prove your point. Instead, your attacks against the city will just make city residents more likely to think that city employees aren't really on their side - they are just in this game to take their taxpayer-funded paychecks each week and spend them elsewhere.

These are the people who you deem do not care about the city or think they will put themselves in harms way to protect the citizens...

http://nhregister.com/articles/2011/01/07/news/doc4d27559dafe05838345753.txt

Paul Martin,
I never said I wanted to do any of those things. The things I listed were possibilities, which I may or may not support - I didn't say. Personally, I support a logical restructuring of municipal boundaries in New Haven County, which should have happened over half a century ago. As I clearly demonstrated in my first post, the normal practice of towns is to consolidate based on their relationships to one another. I never mentioned anything about the 18th century in my post. And I do not long for the days of the past, I am very much looking towards the future, which is why I support regionalization and look carefully at history. You, on the other hand, are in favor of maintaining archaic and obsolete town borders in complete defiance to reality. You would rather support a town boundary system that was established when most of New Haven County was still wilderness, then to update these archaic lines around something more logical like economic relationships, natural systems and natural geographic features.
Not only are you wrong in what you've charged me with, but you are guilty of the very things you are failing to charging me with. It doesn't get much lower than that. It's a joke and I can't take weak, little, kindergarten-level arguments like that seriously. You should be embarrassed.

Civil Rights,
Property owners pay property taxes. Landlords get the money to pay for their property from renters. Renters contribute to property taxes in a way that is basically indiscernible from property owners. In fact, renters may contribute more because they cannot get tax deductions for their building.

Others,
New Haven's crime rate during the large population exodus years (beginning in the 1930s, accelerating between the 40s and 60s) was either lower or at about the same level as the crime rate in New Haven's suburban towns today. New Haven's crime rate began to rise steadily in the mid to late 1960s, after the large middle class population exodus. In fact, crime rose because of the middle class exodus. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that a large influx of middle class residents into the city would have the doubling effect of naturally reducing crime levels, and spreading the tax burden amongst more people effecting lowering taxes for all. The police force could be reduced in size from excessive and immense to adequate and financially sustainable.

New Haven, and city's across the country, are in a very strange position in that they have to make difficult decisions to address issues that have emerged and compounded over long periods of time but that should have been addressed long ago. During the post WW2 reconstruction era, public wealth (mostly located in urban centers at this time) was used to built massive infrastructure (like highways, houses, roads, utilities, etc) that made a middle class urban exodus possible. This population shift should have also come with modified town boundaries just as population changes had occurred in previous years before big government intervention like in the case of Westville and Fair Haven as documented in my first post. By not modifying the town boundaries to reflect contemporary relationships between service providers (city's) and service users (suburban commuters), many ill effects have resulted in the financial sustainability of cities like New Haven. New Haven is now dependent on State Aid, property taxes have to be high in order for infrastructure built for a population of 150,000+ be supported by a population of only 125,000 today. We are in a very awkward and undesirable situation and it will require undesirable solutions that not everybody will like, but that are necessary.
I'm not sure I'm in favor of this particular residency requirement, maybe one will be part of a larger program, but something needs to be done to address this unresolved issue.

@TheRock

>Frankly I wish they get rid of all of the Magnet schools and bring back neighborhood schools

So you are in favor of segregation. Good luck with that.

And you think that HAMDEN pays LESS than New Haven. HA! Wrong. I started at $29,692. Most suburban schools started near $40k. I didn't reach that until my 7th or 8th year.

Mr. Goldson----
I didn't mean any disrespect to you by my comments about imaginary people ( I love the Easter Bunny)--I never met you but by reading what you stand for and what you attempt to accomplish on behalf of your constituents you have my respect and admiration------(its just this one idea ---residency -- I think you might be wasting your time on) Maybe not, who knows--I do believe you are an asset to the city of New Haven---keep on battling for what you believe in---I will do also---All the best--Tom

CHR,

Ditto on JHOPKINS. If I were mayor I'd hire him in an instant to high level of City Plan or Econ Dev. The kid does his homework.

DISGUSTEDLATINO and 3/5,

I'm not so sure about distilling the BOA down to fewer members. What is now strategically balkanized by the mayors office could become politically monopolized by the mayors office. I think a better solution would be professionalizing the BOA...cut their support staff and use that financial resource to make it a full time job. Pay the BOA a real salary and have the members fully attendant.

@Tom Burns:

How exactly does Goldson look like the Easter Bunny? What did you mean or what image were you trying to convey with that comment?

Um... how was the Easter Bunny comment racist?

That's a new one.

I know some people think Darnell cannot legally be criticized - especially Darnell himself - but this is a stretch. Every time someone calls him on his nonsense, he throws out the racism card.

The fact of the matter is that Goldson took the side of people who wanted to misbehave at the beach, defended people in public housing who stopped paying rent, called people who complain about crime near housing projects racists, and was happy to be bought by the McMahon campaign while not disclosing how much they paid him.

There are different standards that the man applies: one for himself and people he thinks deserve public support, and another for people who have jobs, pay taxes, and abide by the rules.

@ Tom Burns - no need to apologize, I'm not quite sure what the Easter Bunny comment meant, but I have been called much worse than that...lol. I am very appreciative and highly respectful of the teaching profession, I truly believe that you guys are not paid enough. You have our children attention for almost as much time as we do, and are very important in their lives. Keep up the good work.

@ Paul Martin
Here we go again with the outright LIES about me. I have NEVER thrown out the race card or accused anyone of being racist, even when I was arrested on that trumped up trespassing charge. I have NEVER advocated that housing authority tenants not pay their rent. You accuse me of being bought by McMahon, where is your evidence? What I could do is name 5 politicians without much thinking who received money from various campaigns during this last election cycle, yet I don't see you commenting that they were bought.

I have a job, pay a lot of taxes, and abide by the rules, so what are you writing about.

You seem to continually write these lies about me, AND WHEN I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, YOU NEVER SEEM TO DO SO.

I'm sure that everyone who reads this site sees through your attempts to smear me with your LIES, so why don't you stop it now. If not, it doesn't really make a difference, because to me anyone who hides behind a mask while making inaccurate accusations doesn't really matter.

@JH
Renters do not pay more proportionately than owners because they don't get to deduct their buildings because, in 99.9% of the time, there are multiple renters per building, whether it be commercial or residential.

@PM
NYC and other metropolitan areas have residency requirements for their employees, so if New Haven decides to pursue this, it will withstand a legal challenge to all new hires. It cannot unilaterally be imposed on existing employees, nor can any fees or penalties be charged.

The bigger concern for existing employees should be the example of Prichard, AL wherein the town decided to stop paying pensions so that it could keep providing services. They decided that keeping police on the streets was better than paying their pensioners. All of you banking on pensions that you have earned from a city going bankrupt might be in for big disappointment if drastic changes aren't made. Google Prichard, AL and see how bad it will be if concessions aren't reached.

And for you teachers in the CT State plan, the State is in worse shape than the City. It could run out of money in the next 7-10 years where the City looks like it can stay afloat for another 10-15.

The best start that should be agreed upon between JDS and union management is that all new hires need to be residents, that they have less-generous health care plans and defined contribution (401K, 403B or 457) plans rather than defined benefit plans. Then have a serious talk about how to save your members' benefits and pensions after they've retired.

Jungle Bunny is a racist term for a black person.

Urban Dictionary.

Offensive term for a black man.
Hold on to your bags, there are jungle bunnies here.

Blue Dog,
In a 3-family house, for example, each tenant contributes their monthly rent, which the landlord uses towards the property taxes for the building. Each tenant occupies 1/3 of the house, and pays for 1/3 of the property taxes (if they didn't, the landlord would be losing money) with no tax deductibles, while a property with a single family, owner-occupied house occupies 100% of the property and qualifies for a tax deduction. So yes, renters share the costs amongst each other, but those costs are proportional based on how much of the building they occupy and they do not qualify for tax deductions. Homeowners also pay proportionally for how much of the building they occupy, which is 100%, yet they qualify for tax deductions.
Renting is usually more cost effective because there are typically smaller square footage options and amenities, like courtyards, are shared between multiple people. Usually for single family homes, there is a minimum cost associated with them that is not as low as the cheapest rental options. Home ownership is massively subsidized in this country to the point where it can actually be cheaper to pay for a mortgage than to rent, which is really unheard of in other parts of the world, which helps to contribute to or country's high government assistance levels.

i work for the city of new haven because i choose to,..i am a police officer because i choose to be,....i vote because it is my right,...it will be a cold day in hell before any part of government of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HOME OF THE FREE LAND OF THE BRAVE,..tells me where i have to live in order to have/keep a job

posted by: blue dog dem on January 9, 2011

PM
NYC and other metropolitan areas have residency requirements for their employees, so if New Haven decides to pursue this, it will withstand a legal challenge to all new hires. It cannot unilaterally be imposed on existing employees, nor can any fees or penalties be charged.

Not true. Look at New York City Firefighters.

To apply to take the next New York City Firefighter Exam, you must be between the ages of 17 and a half and 29.


To be hired as a New York City Firefighter


You must:

• Pass both the written and physical exams
  
  
  
• Pass a medical exam and background investigation
  
  
  
• Be at least 21 years of age
  
  
  
• Be a U.S. citizen
  
  
  
• Have at least 15 college semester credits earned as a result of satisfactory completion of course work at a college or university accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education or full time military service with an honorable discharge; or 6 months of full time, satisfactory paid work experience
  
  
  
• Hold a motor vehicle driver's license valid in New York State
  
  
  
• Be a resident of one of the five boroughs of New York City, or live in Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester County
  
  
  
• Be a Certified First Responder with Defibrillation (CFR-D)
  
  http://nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/firefighter.pdf
  
  New york Sanitation Workers two.
  
  http://nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/sanitationworker.pdf
  
  And NYPD.
  
  http://www.nypdrecruit.com/NYPD_ExamandEmploymentRequirements.aspx
  
  And even King Bloomberg gives waivers to administrators or managers. Check this out.Look at how this women lives in Greenwich, Conn. and works in new york city,
  
  
  August 4, 2010, 12:53 pm Working for New York, but Living Elsewhere
  By DAVID W. CHEN
  When Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed Ranji Nagaswami as the administration's first chief investment adviser this week, city officials acknowledged that she had been granted a residency waiver so she could continue to live in Greenwich, Conn.
  
  Which raises the question: How many other waivers have been allowed since Mr. Bloomberg became mayor in 2002?
  The answer, according to city data, is 30, and they range from an intelligence research specialist for the Police Department who lives in Fanwood, N.J., to an inspector general at the Department of Investigation who lives in Larchmont, N.Y.
  
  http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/working-for-new-york-but-living-elsewhere/
  
  Like I said this will be in court.

REALLY? LOL it is sad that there are so many incompetent people "running" a city. Please, if you want city employees to live in the city. Pay them enough to afford the taxes, not get robbed while walking down the street because there is "no overtime" for police or money in the budget to hire more cops, and build a grocery store and mall so we can do everything we need to here right in the city. Its clownery in the 1st degree! Try it, see what happens...

Oy, who cares! A residency requirement is unlikely to happen and none of you have the power to make it so (or not).

80% of cops and 70% of firefighters don't live in town. This tells us something. Of the more educated and skilled professionals 80% of teachers and 70% of their administrators choose to live in the suburbs. This should tell all New Haven citizens they live in a crap city. If you force the intelligent, dedicated and effective proffesionals to live in a crap place they will bail out, leaving the management of the city to the political stooges and incompetents. Working in the highly charged political atmosphere in New Haven where the mayor's office holds all to ransome is difficult enough. Let us at least get away from this in our hours of sanity.

No, Alderman Goldson, your ideals are well based, but you should really get up to date on how the city works. You know it's gone off the rails with a rain tax. What sensible professional is ever going to pay this. It'll be a fart tax next, and a free speech tax after that. With a $50MM budget deficit next year I hate to think what else the DeStefano administration will think up to tax next.

Jonathon Hopkins-
Renters can move if they get fed up with the way the city is run.
Owners have to find someone to sell their property to, if they want to move.

When the city raises property taxes 60% it devalues property. Renters can walk away. Not so easy for owners. They are not equivalent.

Check this out.

Greater New Haven.

There are several official definitions of Greater New Haven. There are thirteen towns that are included in all definitions. These are:

Bethany
Branford
East Haven
Guilford
Hamden
Madison
New Haven (central city)
North Branford
North Haven
Orange
Wallingford
West Haven
Woodbridge

So does this mean if a person lives in one of these towns,They are stiil in New Haven.

JH,

Based on the mortgage deduction vs renting, yes it is cheaper for a landlord vs a tenant to occupy a space. However, I should have been more clear in that we don't live in vacuums and when water heaters break, roofs replaced, those costs are typically not shared by the tenants, unless under triple net leases, which is extremely uncommon with residential and not so frequent with commercial. So I agree with "V" that renters can just walk away from their minimal investment while we homeowners keep taking it on the chin (or elsewhere) and that overall, it is much more expensive to buy than to rent.

3/5's
You are absolutely correct that currently additional counties have been added to the list of where NYC union members can live. However, those counties were collectively bargained for over the past 20 years and prior to that, if you wished to work in NYC in one of the uniformed services, you had to have a valid NYC address. The counties are specifically named because only those counties meet the residency requirement that the union was able to bargain for in the past four or five contracts.

The reason that these counties were included was that it became too expensive for union workers in NYC to purchase homes. My home in NYC would be valued at over $1mm, while it doesn't come close here. I have friends and clients in NYC whose homes would barely top $150 here in New Haven that are worth close to $1mm there causing the need for the unions to bargain for residency in more reasonable locations.

Housing prices are obviously not a problem in New Haven so that would be one argument that could not be sustained if the City pursues a residency requirement.

This isn't about telling people where to live. I don't care where you live. This is about having city employees who care about New Haven, love New Haven, see its strengths and weaknesses and OWN them and take some pride in improving the City, not tearing it down. I want a Ben Berkowitz or Janna Wagner or Rob Smuts or Tom Harned in City Hall, not an hornery suburbanite, content to live in a cocoon off-hours and knock this City and the people who love it during his/her on-hours. This comment thread is yet further proof that a residency requirement would be a step in the right direction. I give two hoots where you live, but because if you live in Westbrook or Hamden or wherever because you hate New Haven and think it's a "crap town," I don't want you working here. If I ran around time telling people how terrible my employer was and how all our clients are idiots, I'd get fired, too.

Yes, I meant ornery, not hornery. (Though I did just look up hornery in the urban dictionary and maybe I should stick with my original spelling!)

Oh Darnell.

I don't have evidence that you were bought by the McMahon campaign. All we have are statements from you saying you would be willing to work on her behalf as a paid consultant, and your subsequent work on her behalf. We don't know how much you were paid because you continue to refuse to disclose that sum.
...

As for your support of drinking at the Lighthouse,

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/beach_beers_banned/

As for your support for deadbeat tenants at Dwight:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/dwight_co-op_deal_squeaks_through/

Here's your quote

But the tenants cooperative had broken down and they didn't know where their rent was going; it probably didn't make sense to keep paying rent, Goldson said.

@ Paul Martin

You seem to be an expert in taking comments out of context. The comment you referenced to make your point that public housing tenants should not pay rent referring to tenants in a cooperative housing buildng, not public housing tenants. And what I was saying, as you well know, is that the new owner of the building was attempting to collect three years back rent for a building for which he was not owner, and could not adequately determine what, if any rent was owed. The entire quote is "Why is the city supporting the developer in his eviction of people for rent he wasn't even there to collect? Goldson asked...But the tenants cooperative had broken down and they didn't know where their rent was going; it probably didn't make sense to keep paying rent, Goldson said. Besides, why should the developer be entitled to connect all that rent?"

Paul, you made a lot of accusations about my behavior on the BOA, you stated that "Every time someone calls him on his nonsense, he throws out the racism card....[Goldson]called people who complain about crime near housing projects racists..." These are your quotes from a previous post on this thread, and when I asked you for evidence to back up your claims that I have played the race card, the best you could come up with after searching all weekend was the fact that I supported limited drinking at the Lighthouse and due process for New Haven tenants? As you will see from my quotes in those articles, and any others in any print, you will see that I NEVER mentioned race.

Sad!!!

@3/5ths:

NO...the residents of those towns do not pay taxes or eligible to vote.

Blue Dog and V,
Renters do not have much choice when looking for affordable housing in surrounding towns. Suburbs in New Haven County come far short of providing their share of affordable rental housing. Additionally, transit access is severely lacking in suburbs so renters are often forced to own cars, which cost about $10,000 per year per car to own and operate, according to the AAA. New Haven's housing stock is amongst the best in the country, which is a positive for re-selling.
I'm not of the opinion that home ownership is easy, but our nation's policies greatly favor home ownership to renting, which has resulted in undesirable urban housing and inaccessible affordable suburban housing.

This is irrelevant though, the only reason I brought this up was because the commenter "Civil Rights" said that they would just rent an apartment in order to meet the residency requirement and therefore wouldn't be contributing to property taxes, resulting in the city's plan backfiring. All I was trying to demonstrate was that renters do contribute to property taxes.

The more relevant point was made in my first post (hopefully both of you read it) because it explains the awkward situation that the city has been put in since the mid 20th century when the suburban towns did not incorporate into the city, which was a mistake, to which I provided ample precedent to back up that assertion.

It's a good rule. I heard a saying once "Live where you love, love where you live." It's good to make people live where they work so that they might work where they live. Why should people be allowed to drive in and take valuable city jobs and not give anything back?

By the way, city employees can choose where they live, it's just that depending on that choice they may be choosing to find new work as well. No one is putting a gun to your head. It's a big city with lots of wonderful neighborhoods. If you hate it so much then just get a new job!

Lets get real. While I live and work in NH, I think that this is the biggest joke yet. To quote a few, yes this is the US of A and NO, no one will dictate to me where I have to live. Forcing me to live in NH will not get me to keep my money here in NH, as I currently do live in NH and any $ I spend in NH is only for the work day....lunch, parking, and stores when I'm on my lunch hour. OTHERWISE, groceries are bought in another town, shopping is done online or in malls (NOT NH), my gym is not in NH, my movie theater is not in NH and contractors I pay are not in NH...just to name a few!


On a more realistic note, if this goes through,
here are few examples of potentials issues:
1-I can't afford a home, therefore, I still live home w/Mommy and Daddy, which is clearly not in NH. Now your gonna force me to either a-pay rent in NH or b-buy in NH?
2-My spouse has a residency requirement for their job. So what town do we pick?
3-I live in NH, but am going without a raise, health-care costs will be increasing dramatically and my taxes are going up, and now I have to pay a storm water authority fee and my child for some odd reason can't get in to the neighborhood school...so I just simply cannot afford to live here anymore. Out I go.....NOW WHAT?

City employee:

You are correct, those are potential issues. Dozens of other places have worked them out and we can too with a little creativity.

To begin, how about just cutting and permanently freezing salaries and benefits across the board, and giving housing and tuition assistance to those employees who do decide to live here and contribute to our city.

This strategy works for Yale - most of their employees actually live within New Haven. As a side benefit, Yale employees are probably more productive on the whole, because on average they don't have to commute as far so are more rested and productive at work. Studies have shown that results in a 30%+ productivity boost. Most of our city employees do not live here so that might be part of the reason why the city workforce isn't always as productive as it ought to be.

posted by: blue dog dem on January 10, 2011 9:05am

3/5's
You are absolutely correct that currently additional counties have been added to the list of where NYC union members can live. However, those counties were collectively bargained for over the past 20 years and prior to that, if you wished to work in NYC in one of the uniformed services, you had to have a valid NYC address. The counties are specifically named because only those counties meet the residency requirement that the union was able to bargain for in the past four or five contracts.

But you still don't have to live in New York city and the city try to take it to court and lost.Also look at how king bloomberg granted a residency waiver to the women who lives in Greenwich, Conn. and works in New York City.


The reason that these counties were included was that it became too expensive for union workers in NYC to purchase homes. My home in NYC would be valued at over $1mm, while it doesn't come close here. I have friends and clients in NYC whose homes would barely top $150 here in New Haven that are worth close to $1mm there causing the need for the unions to bargain for residency in more reasonable locations.

I come from New York.My family owns Brownstone houses in Harlem and Brooklyn,So you are right about them being one million.But the taxes on these houses are low then New Haven.Case and point.My friend lives on alden ave in westville
and is a school teacher.He pays over ten Thousand Dollars a year in property tax.One of my brownstones in harlem and two in brooklyn we pay total Four Thousand Dollars for each one.Did you know that in some states you can just rent a room to get around Residency Rule.


Housing prices are obviously not a problem in New Haven so that would be one argument that could not be sustained if the City pursues a residency requirement.

The problem is not housing prices.The problem is when people look to buy a house,They look at what the taxes are,And New Haven has the high taxes.Like I said this will be in court if it passes,Buy I think when it goes to the state level and the unions start puting pressure it will be DOA.

Can someone - anyone! - provide verifiable numbers to support the claims being made by supporters of this rule?

The idea that people must live in the same place where they work was true in the days of company towns and farms, but it hasn't been the case for many decades. Yet the claim is being repeated that people who work here but don't live here are cheating the city out of revenue that it deserves.

Prove it.

And consider that if the city had better schools, less crime, and an infrastructure that didn't resemble 1960, we might be attracting new residents and businesses who want to move here and stay here, rather than desperately threatening people to coerce them into buying property.

@ Paul Martin:
No one is "desperately threatening people to coerce them into buying property" or accusing state workers of being cheats.

The facts are that these city workers are well paid recipients of New Haven taxpayer dollars. They account for over $156 million in payroll annually, nearly a quarter of the city budget and 68% of the weekly salaries. They average over $57,000 a year in salary, the average household income in New Haven is $29,000.

The state changed the residency law in 1989, long after the days of farms were gone.

Do you need anymore proof than this?

And to amplify Darnell's last comment, PAUL MARTIN....How do you point out that New Haven has bad schools without looking for answers from the teachers and administrators, the vast majority of who live outside of New Haven?

Would you want people teaching your child who would under no circumstances enroll their own child in their own school?

And no one said you had to buy property. Employees can rent.

@3/5's

I think the only unions in NYC that are bound under a residency requirement are the uniformed services (police, fire, sanitation and corrections). If a secretary in Local 237 or a school luncheon aide in DC 37 don't make it to work, the world won't stop, but the uniformed unions provide services that if not provided, could ground the city to a stand still.

The IG's office in NY specifically targets those who claim to have a residence or on disability and is criminally charging those making fraudulent claims. Having a room or using a family member's or friend's residence as your own will get you terminated in NYC.

In regards to Bloomberg and his management team, they again aren't part of the uniformed services so don't really fall under the residency requirement, but the employee living in CT needed approval since they needed to live in NY and not specifically NYC. I'm not aware of any rules requiring other unions or administrators to live in NYC, but I don't deal with those entities.

I'm from Bayside, graduated high school, college and law school from NYC schools and just got home from a day in NY. My wife is from Gravesend, and a lot of her family is still in Queens and Brooklyn. We are very familiar with the unions, especially since in March it will be twelve years since my first contract with one of the uniformed and I am preparing for contract negotiations for another large union whose contract expires at the end of this year. A good place to find info about unions in NYC is The Chief-Leader.

I agree with you re the taxes in regards to housing prices and services, but taxes here will not decrease any time in the future, and more than likely, will be increasing as soon as the election is over. The mayor's projection of $36 million is based on an 8% return and what people should be asking is what the rate of return has been for the past four years and how much has been contributed to the pension system. Too much debt and not enough revenue and this mayor has proven that he cannot make the tough decisions which would have been a lot easier to do when times were good.

And BTW, JDS shouldn't be putting NYC into the mix with Prichard and others as it is a complete misrepresentation. NYC didn't have trouble with snow removal due to lack of funds, just ineptitude by the Deputy Mayor. If NYC was broker it wouldn't have just put $3.1Billion into it's pension system.

Paul Martin,
If you honestly want to have a more informed opinion on these matters, I'd look into the available literature on the subject, of which there is plenty.

Some of my favorites are:

City: Urbanism and Its End by Douglas Rae (Yale University Press, 2003)

Cities and the Wealth of Nations by Jane Jacobs (Vintage, 1985)

The Economy of Cities also by Jacobs (Vintage, 1970)

Generally, what can be gathered from these works is that places where natural resources are harnessed, produced into usable elements,and then manufactured and assembled into products in locally-owned factories that employ local residents and make goods to be sold at locally owned establishments that employ local people, who live locally, spend their paychecks locally, contribute free time to local cultural and civic activities are places that fare much better in terms of circulating money in ways that bring prosperity to all than do places that exploit other country's natural resources, exploit other country's unregulated labor, sell goods at massive multinational corporate chain stores that take 70 cents of every dollar spent in them out of local economies and puts them into off-shore bank accounts of CEOs, strategically slots hours to minimize incomes of employees who live in bedroom communities and take up valuable land storing their cars for the 95% of the time they are parked and throwing vast amounts of income away on products that were made overseas, on food that was produced in South America, and on mind-numbing entertainment enjoyed from the couch rather than a civic square all paid for on credit supplied by a bank that no longer invests in tangible goods of value but in mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps.

If you want globalism and continued exponential debt accumulation, then fine. Support a global currency and global free trade, but don't pretend that continued globalism will support the retaining of little town lines in Connecticut. You can't have it both ways, either municipal boundaries mean something and they actually denote self-sufficiency or they are irrelevant in the face of larger economic relationships.

I don't want to see Connecticut's character destroyed, which is why I support strategic redrawing of municipal boundaries to reflect unchangable economic relationships, while working to make some small towns more self-sufficient so they can retain their character.

The thing about centralized urban development, is that it can support infrastructure investments privately because the revenue generated from things like trolleys in compact places pay for themselves, whereas infrastructure in suburbia and in mutilated urbanism (as is the case of modern day New Haven) has to come from public funds, and when the municipal public funds can't cover the costs, they have to come from the State, Fed, or from borrowing and printing more money.

"Can someone - anyone! - provide verifiable numbers to support the claims being made by supporters of this rule?"

Anyone who thinks that this residency rule is an end-all, be-all solution for the fiscal sustainability issue facing New Haven is an idiot, and I doubt anyone actually believes that. What this rule might be, is a starting point that will begin the ball rolling. Personally, I sympathize with Bitsie Clark's point about the residency rule as a first step actually acting more as a conservation stopper with other regional, surrounding towns.
However, I could definitely see a residency requirement as part of a larger program that includes incentives along with disincentives.

"...the claim is being repeated that people who work here but don't live here are cheating the city out of revenue that it deserves."

I don't really know what that phrase means. Does the United States deserve the money that Italian immigrants earned in American factories and sent home to their relatives in the 1900s? Do we deserve the money that South American immigrants send home today?
I don't think it's a matter of New Haven "deserving" the property taxes of certain private individuals, it is a matter of whether the city can continue to function with the status quo.

"And consider that if the city had better schools"
Although I disagree with the phrase "better schools", let's say for argument's sake that New Haven's schools are "bad". Why is that? It's because in the post WW2 reconstruction era, the federal government provided subsidized, government-backed mortgages and loans to economically stable and upwardly mobile working-middle class families to buy new government-built suburban housing, while under-educated, poor, and recently laid off urban migrants were not provided loans and mortgages for their aging urban housing. This resulted in the well-educated middle class going to suburban schools, while the poor, under-educated populations were stuck in urban schools. There are many compounding factors, but essentially, that is why urban schools perform poorly today.

"less crime"
The crime rate increased dramatically beginning in the late 1960s as a result of the middle class leaving (thanks to public subsidies like highways, mortgages, loans and credit). Between 1990 and today, New Haven's crime rate has dropped by over 60% from around 21,000 serious incidents in 1990 to around 8,500 serious incidents in 2009. This drop was a result of massively increasing the prison population of the US with non-violent offenders, which ensures that they are unemployable for the rest of their life upon their release.

"an infrastructure that didn't resemble 1960, we might be attracting new residents and businesses who want to move here and stay here"

New Haven, and many other cities, tried this tactic in the 50s and 60s with urban renewal. We destroyed the city and redesigned parts of it to make it more appealing to modern businesses and families. The downtown and industrial areas were redesigned for car and truck assess, local stores were bulldozed for shopping malls, and private residences were forcibly repossessed and replaced with office and residential towers all with ample amounts of land-consuming parking. It all failed.
New Haven will never be able to compete with a suburb at being a suburb and having the things that appeal to suburbanites. We have to advocate for policies that allow New Haven to be what it is, without having to destroy itself to compete with something completely different from it.

I don't agree with many of the decisions that come from city hall or the mayor's office, and I think much of what they do is not productive towards a worthwhile goal, however, I also realize that there are issues far greater than the mayor that are effecting the fiscal devastation facing New Haven.

posted by: blue dog dem on January 10, 2011 7:53pm
@3/5's

I think the only unions in NYC that are bound under a residency requirement are the uniformed services (police, fire, sanitation and corrections). If a secretary in Local 237 or a school luncheon aide in DC 37 don't make it to work, the world won't stop, but the uniformed unions provide services that if not provided, could ground the city to a stand still

No.like I said uniformed services (police, fire, sanitation and corrections can Be a resident of one of the five boroughs of New York City, or live in Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk or Westchester County.I have family and friends on the job. Also MTA workers,the same thing.I got bus drivers and other MTA workers on my block.

http://www.mta.info/nyct/hr/mta_bus/NOE(OA)1101OC Bus Maintainer ChassisFinal.pdf


The IG's office in NY specifically targets those who claim to have a residence or on disability and is criminally charging those making fraudulent claims. Having a room or using a family member's or friend's residence as your own will get you terminated in NYC

AS long as you have a lease and phone gas electric bill in your name you are good to go.


I'm from Bayside, graduated high school, college and law school from NYC schools and just got home from a day in NY. My wife is from Gravesend, and a lot of her family is still in Queens and Brooklyn. We are very familiar with the unions, especially since in March it will be twelve years since my first contract with one of the uniformed and I am preparing for contract negotiations for another large union whose contract expires at the end of this year. A good place to find info about unions in NYC is The Chief-Leader

Like I said I grow up in Brooklyn and Harlem.I know about thre Chief-Leader Civil Service Newpaper.In fact the leader was a separate Newspaper,the the Chief purchase it in 1980.

And BTW, JDS shouldn't be putting NYC into the mix with Prichard and others as it is a complete misrepresentation. NYC didn't have trouble with snow removal due to lack of funds, just ineptitude by the Deputy Mayor. If NYC was broker it wouldn't have just put $3.1Billion into it's pension system.

You seem to know about the pension system.Let me tell you this King Bloomberg is like King John full of it.New York has one of the Strongest pension systemin the country.They use a Tier system 1to5.


http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/members/final_average_salary.htm#tier3-4-5ers


You can even take a loan on your pension.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/retire/members/loans.htm

All civil service workers city or state pay into this system.


They even have a Equity Investment Program.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/instate/index.htm

They need to do this here.But geting back to City Will Push For Residency Rule.It stii has to go to hartford and once the unions put pressure,It will be DOA or in court.

The focus should be on a city department head servicing clients who don't live in New Haven.
Using our tax payers dollars to provide services to nonresidents. Maybe Mr.Goldson another alders should evaluate and regulation what services are being provided;and why are services being provided outside of New Haven?The Department head is employed by the City of New Haven, and has the nerve to send Memos with the All America City letter head. Maybe more efforts should go toward training upper management who to service with TAX PAYERS Dollars!!!!!! And these are the kinds of individuals making decisions for New Haveners. No wonder you in so much trouble. (lmao)

Darnell,

I asked if anyone had numbers on the impact of a residency requirement, and you come back with statistics on the average salary of the city's payroll and it's percentage of the budget. I think most people would imagine that payroll costs are more than half of the city's budget since it's a city rather than, say, a car factory or an airline.

Nevertheless, the complaint here isn't that city workers make more than what you say is the average salary in the city. Indeed, almost any male who works full time and finished high school earns more than $29,000 a year.

Instead, the argument is that city workers who don't live in the city are essentially cheating taxpayers because they don't pay property taxes here, may not do a majority of their shopping here, and aren't 'stakeholders' in their jobs. In the past you have argued that they should pay a special tax, and in this thread, commenters have repeatedly claimed that these employees - to quote just one - "don't give anything back."

If you're going to claim that the city is losing money here, and others are going to say that some city workers are less productive because they commute, you should have some numbers to back it up. If the claim is that schools are better when teachers send their children to those schools, does that mean that teachers must have children and must live in the neighborhood where they work?

These are the kinds of details I think supporters should be able to cite - something better than average salary numbers pulled from Wikipedia.

People leading the charge for this policy should at least have an understanding of its pros and cons. Otherwise, this is just more grandstanding that will look foolish and desperate. There are trade-offs if New Haven does something like this - retaliation by surrounding towns, a restricted employment pool, attrition, to name just a few. Few people seem to be considering the cons very seriously. But ignoring them does not mean that there are potential downsides to enacting this kind of policy.

And I'll just point out again: fix the schools, lower the crime rate, and build a police force that seems at least vaguely familiar with the Bill of Rights, and more people will want to move here and open businesses here. Then you won't have to go digging around for tricks and whining about how unreasonable it is that some accountant at city hall isn't fighting crime at night and fixing our schools on the weekends.

@ Mr. Hopkins,

With all due respect, I don't how you can read my comments as some kind of longing for globalism - or a global currency/global government/Trilateral Commission.

Letting people live where they choose isn't a radical position to take in a place where such towns have been on the map for more than 200 years. On the other hand, proposing to demolish these areas and force workers to live in pre-designated housing does strike me as a fairly radical form of localism.

You also write this:

"I don't want to see Connecticut's character destroyed, which is why I support strategic redrawing of municipal boundaries to reflect unchangable economic relationships, while working to make some small towns more self-sufficient so they can retain their character."

Frankly, I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. What exactly is an "unchangable [sic] economic system"? I suspect you draw the notion from Jacobs, who makes some fine points in those works. But many of her economic theories are just wrong - and her 'understanding' of import substitution is very wrong indeed.

You may have already seen it, but I'd recommend Richard Florida's work. Not perfect (nobody's ever is) but I think our city could really benefit from some of this thinking.

And my comments aside - your posts tend to be awesome.

@Paul Martin:

You misunderstood the information I posted. The figures cited are not the total payroll of r New Haven, it is the TOTAL PAYROLL FOR CITY WORKERS WHO LIVE OUTSIDE OF NEW HAVEN. Those numbers are astounding. Again, low income city taxpayers are subsidizing higher income suburbanites, and that sums up the frustration of the New Haven residents who support residency.

@JH
It's obvious you are well-educated in regards to urban planning and design, though I really have a difficult time envisioning how you plan to implement the changes proposed. Your descriptions of how you think urban design should be makes me think of an urban commune or kibbutz wherein we become self-sufficient relying on our neighbors to create or provide the items necessary for us to buy or barter to survive. So when we run out of an item, do we storm the greater Hartford area with pitch forks to take what we need?
Many of your ideas have merit, but like with most academics, I've never read how you've written we implement these ideas and more importantly, how long it would take for them to be the norm. It's extremely easy to write about how we should do things in a paper and much more difficult to do so in reality (e.g., Obama and Gitmo; Obama and the war on terror; etc...), so I am curious if you could humor this philistine by sharing how we can make our area more self-sufficient . As you probably remember, I am a city –dweller and not one of these suburbanites abusing city resources. What areas of New Haven do we return to farming, to manufacturing, how do we change our infrastructure to accommodate the lack of training and skills to create these jobs, etc? How much gov't subsidy is needed to make the transition and how is that justified with our other expenses? How will this transition lessen local unemployment and how soon will that occur? Also, how long would this project take and at what expense to current employment (i.e., will local jobs be lost due to the transition to a more central-based economy)?

The notion that people should live where they work is a great one, but should not be a requirement. The decision where to live is multi-faceted and as others have pointed out, is usually a result of affordability, quality of life as well as proximity to jobs/schools/resources. I'm lucky in that both my husband and I work in New Haven so we live in New Haven. If one of us worked in Hartford I doubt that would be the case. And quite honestly, I wouldn't be able to afford the house I have now if I were looking to buy in New Haven now.

The notion that "outsiders" should pay for coming into New Haven because they owe the city for using the resources is equally flawed. Using that notion, I probably owe a good deal of something to Orange, and Hamden for using their stores.

Darnell -

Just come clean and say you have no idea what the effects of this policy would be.

I'm asking some pretty basic questions that I thought you would be able to answer, if not politely. If "frustration" is going to be your governing philosophy, just remember that in many ways this city is a lousy neighbor to other towns in the area, putting some of its highest-crime housing developments far away from its center and on the borders of other towns. You feed on conflict, so maybe you're hoping for these towns to offer you more headlines.

"Frustration" is a pathetic reason to enact policy, but so much easier than the hard stuff you were elected to do.

Paul Martin:

The effect of the policy would be to reverse the trends that has occurred over the last 20 years when the the state law was changed. The middle class have literally abandoned the urban areas, where they earn their bread and butter. This change would hopefully, through incentives and otherwise, begin to rebuild the middle class in New Haven. It won't happen overnight, it took 20 years to get where we are now.

I didn't realize I was being impolite, I think you may be a little more thin-skinned than I expected.

I don't feed on conflict, but I do not run away from it either. I'm not going to avoid issues only because it may make some feel a little uncomfortable, nor will I agree on issues for the sake of avoiding conflict. The fact is that I believe what I believe in. But I also am willing to listen and learn and grow and change my opinion without fear if necessary. For instance, after witnessing countless instances where people, including school buses, have blown through red lights without regard to the safety of others, I have changed my position on red light cameras, I now wholeheartedly support their installation. I'm not afraid to say I was wrong on this one.

Again, I'm not quite sure who you are, so it is difficult to understand your steadfast attacks on me and my character, perhaps you can explain.

Darnell,

I'm not that thin skinned (though nobody thinks they are, probably).

I have, however, been very unfair toward you in the past, and written things that I regret. For this, I apologize.

Paul Martin, I'll make you a deal:

How about all of NHPS teachers and administrators who live in the burbs, drop binding arbitration, reject patronage employment, call for lengthening the school day and the school year, relinquish tenure rights and embrace a full professional accountability system, support equal funding for high performing public charter schools, fight to raise the bar on the quality of ed. schools and their graduates, revamp the CT's certification requirements that keep highly effective teachers out of our state, - and THEN New Haveners will reduce the crime rate.

That's a promise. Deal?

@Fix the Schools

How would ignoring crime be a useful bargaining chip in educational policy and contract negotiations? This is like demanding that unless I switch to skim milk you'll keep smoking in bed. So you'll keep the crime rate higher to eek out concessions from the teachers union - why would you want to ignore crime rates in the first place.

Apparently one of the best teachers in the city lives in Branford. Do you think she needs to be punished because she doesn't live in town?

Paul Martin - Sorry that I wasn't clear.

Everything that I listed would contribute to a vastly improved education system which in turn would contribute mightily to a rise in the quality of life in New Haven including a substantial reduction in crime.

My point is that the very suburban residents who teach in, and administer the schools are proponents of the same failed policies that keep the system from addressing the needs of urban communities. I argue that if you change the policies as I have set forth then and only then can you expect change in educational and social outcomes.

You can't begin to solve poverty or stop crime UNTIL you fix the schools.

It's illegal and will never happen!!!!!