| « Federal Judge Enjoins BoE From Infringing on Union Election | Reporter Editor Kimbriell Kelly Breaks Down the Housing Crisis » |
Education Tue Mar 30 2010
Daley Opposes Lifting of Residency Requirement for Teachers
I think the Mayor may have a point about the state legislature's recent action to lift a requirement that Chicago Public Schools teachers live in the city:
"If you say government employees don't have to live here, I guess maybe elected officials don't have to live here, too. You could start a trend. I don't have to live in the ward. I don't have to live in the city. I can work on a contract. I firmly believe that is the essence of keeping neighborhoods strong."
Of course, agreeing with the policy means the city needs to take bolder steps to insure there is affordable housing in Chicago; Chicago has been shedding affordable housing units, bifurcating the city into the upper middle class and the poor. But given the sheer number of city employees, and the fact that city housing will always be more expensive than housing in many bordering suburbs, lifting the residency requirement will result in another exodus of middle class residents--and valuable tax dollars.
I'm not convinced of this position, though--is there an argument to be made that the residency requirement is overly onerous or unfair?
The bill was sponsored by Senator Heather Steans of the north lakefront. Below is the roll call vote.
Dennis Fritz / March 30, 2010 6:50 AM
As seldom as I agree with Daley about anything, I do agree city employees should be required to live in the city. As things stand now, the neighbhorhoods with the largest populations of city workers--Norwood Park, Edgebrook, et al--are the the city's western edge. They are also among the most "suburban" neighborhoods in town. Lifting the residency requirement would entice many, if not most, of these folks into the 'burbs. The result would be a significant loss of revenue for the City of Chicago. These workers would be collecting their salaries directly from Chicago taxpayers, but they'd be spending it elsewhere. The money Chicago taxpayers pay for city services would largely be used to subsidize suburban townships. That is a big enough problem already.