|
|
|
Poll: Should city employees live here?
Submitted by Philip Anselmo on January 13, 2009 - 11:39am
Last night, the Batavia City Council voted to waive the residency requirement for 14 city employees. That was all the news that was reported about the 6-to-1 vote. Nobody has yet been able to tell us why exactly the city has such a requirement if it's willing to waive it for such a large number of employees. In the meantime, we would like to get your thoughts. Do you feel it's imperative for a person to live in the city of Batavia if they are employed here? Can someone in Oakfield do the job? Does it matter? If it doesn't matter, why does the city require residency here? If it does matter, why would the city waive that requirement? Well, what do you think?
- Philip Anselmo's blog
- Login or register to post comments
January 13, 2009 - 12:09pm
#2
I think that if these chosen few can have the residency requirement waived.Then they should have to take a 15% pay cut...They are living off our tax dollars so get some of it back..We were told when they hired the fire chief that he would have to move here,did he.Seems like they change the rules to fit a chosen few...If Batavia isnt good enought for them to live here,they shouldn't work here..
January 13, 2009 - 4:19pm
#3
Although I am not from Batavia, this debate goes on everywhere. It happens with school districts who hire teachers or administrators that live outside of the area. It happens with municipalities who hire someone from outside of the area. It is an interesting debate to have and one that will have no end.
My opinion is that I would want to hire the most capable person for the job and someone who will be worth the taxpayers' money. If that person is from the city, county, school district, town or village they are seeking to work in, that's great. But if they aren't, I don't think we should prevent them from applying for a job that have proven they can do.
I have talked to some older people (I'm only 22) who have said that some school districts and some municipalities used to have a rule in place that they could only hire residents of their respective municipality or school district. If such a rule is in place, it should be followed. If not, then I see nothing wrong with hiring outside the area.
January 13, 2009 - 4:57pm
#4
YES. PERIOD.
I only care about Batavia because I live here.
Thou makest thy bed thou shalt rest in it.
I do believe that certain "years of service" would merit a reasonable 30 mile limit of Batavia. Thats all up to the fancy pants to hammer out.
January 13, 2009 - 5:49pm
#5
I think what Council did makes it fair to all.
Right now, by NYS law, Police and Fire department employees do not have to live in the City. If none of them have to, then the others should not have to either.
January 13, 2009 - 5:52pm
#6
So John then why have this rule..Whats fair to us city tax payers.
January 13, 2009 - 6:17pm
#7
How and by whom did these people get hired in the first place. This requirement was in place for that particular position yet it was done anyway?!?! How many other rules and regulations get shoved aside for someones benefit?
January 13, 2009 - 7:00pm
#8
The City Charter states the the Manaager must live in the city-period. Council can not change that. All other jobs, not covered by NYS law are up Council and they have been exempting people over the years.
Between the Police and Fire Departments, there are about 90 people, and they do not have to live in the City by law.
You might not like the law, but then you can contact Hawley and ask for it to be changed, but I don't think it ever will be. So, if so many don't have to live here, what's fair for the rest? I am not sure, but I think most do live here if for no other reason than to be close to work.
I am not saying it's right, but I think it is fair.
January 13, 2009 - 7:19pm
#9
"I am not saying it's right, but I think it is fair. "
Oh, I just gotta hear the explanation of this one.
January 13, 2009 - 7:40pm
#10
Russ,
I am not surprised you don’t understand.
If a large number of City employees do not have to live inside the City (Police and Fire), then do you think it’s fair the rest be required to?
This is simple, is it fair? At least 6 Council members did not think so. Two were not there and one thought it was fair to require them to live here.
Is that simple enough for you? Probably not.
January 13, 2009 - 8:11pm
#11
John,
How can something be fair, but not right?
January 13, 2009 - 8:22pm
#12
Russ,
I was right you didn’t get it, probably never will.
I said, “I am not saying its right”. It’s a matter of opinion. Some people think everyone who works for the City should be required to live inside the City. Some think only the Department Heads should. Some could care less.
You avoided giving your opinion, again. Do you have one, or are you just taking up time? My question was is it fair to require some employees to live inside the city while some employees do not have to live here? I not sure how much easier I can make that for you?
January 13, 2009 - 8:29pm
#13
John,
"I was right you didn’t get it, probably never will."
That's a bold statement, fella.
January 13, 2009 - 9:02pm
#14
Russ,
Still ducking? Again, what was your opinion on this? Or don't you have one and I was right, you're just taking up space.
Simple question. Is it fair that some empoyees must live in the City while others do not?
Why is this so hard for you?
January 13, 2009 - 9:06pm
#15
John,
You again try to frame the question as it serves your purpose.
How can something be fair but not be right?
January 13, 2009 - 9:16pm
#16
Russ,
Still a blank. I did not say it was right, but you seem hung up on something that was not said. A bit weird.
Why are you afraid to give your opinion?
I don't think it is right to say some have to live here and others don't. I don't think it's fair.
You sliped gears again. What do you think? Stop going around and around or admit you don't have a clue.
January 13, 2009 - 9:23pm
#17
John,
You said, "I am not saying it's right, but I think it is fair."
So, John, though you didn't choose at that point, do you now choose to say it's right?
January 13, 2009 - 9:33pm
#18
John,
Allow me to draw a distinction.
Unlike you, I don't assume that I'm the smartest guy in any room I walk into.
Unlike you, sometimes I am.
January 13, 2009 - 9:34pm
#19
Russ,
You are hopeless. And still afraid to say what you think on this issue. However, you are fun.
At the start of the blog I was writing about the vote by City Council. Read more carefully. As for my opinion on residence, I don’t care where an employee lives if he/she is the best person for the job.
I don’t think the local law that said some people had to live here while State law let others live anywhere was right or fair.
I am not as scared as you are to state my opinion. Why are you so scared? You planning to run for office and worried you might offend somebody?
Since you will never catch on, find a new subject to get wrong.
January 13, 2009 - 9:59pm
#20
I think it's fair that workers do not have to live in the City of Batavia.
At the same time I don't think it's right.
As for John and Russ I'm not sure which one has the opinion that most resembles mine.
TO: My Boss on Mondays
Allow me to draw a distinction.
Unlike you, I don't assume that I'm the smartest guy in any room I walk into.
Unlike you, sometimes I am.
Set this aside for the 2009 year end rap
respectively:
Douglas
January 13, 2009 - 10:08pm
#21
Doug,
Very well said. End of issue.
January 13, 2009 - 10:15pm
#22
John,
Because you say so?
January 14, 2009 - 2:09am
#23
If one gets something and another then gets the same thing because they both have the same qualifications
Fair
If someone with better qualifications exists but doesn't get that something
Not right
But not sure that the first example is fair anymore once the better qualified person comes along/is found
To say something is not right means you know of a better "qualified person"
If it's not right because we should only have local people serving then it cannot be fair still, can it? -to the people living locally..
If it's the law that is wrong fairness has already been broken in regards to the correct unwritten law
this makes "how it is" seem fair and not right
but you're still dealing with the knowledge of known better person/law/solution etc
so it seems to still make it not right and not fair
It SEEMS -at 1am on my birthday- that saying something is fair but not right
is saying you know of a better solution but don't think it truly matters/care whether or not you fix it
acceptable/fair enough/practical
I'll have to read this again but it seems very theoretical, sticky and slippy
January 14, 2009 - 6:46am
#24
Russ,
That the best you can do? I said you were easy.
Still hiding?
You are still scared to say if you favor the idea/principle of consolidation/merger.
You are still scared to say what your opinion is on employees having to live in the City? Is it fair that some have to and others do not? If this is too hard, just say so. If you have no clue, just say so.
Why so scared? Are you running for office? Is this is too hard for you figure out?
Six other people gave their opinion, why is that only you can't?
January 14, 2009 - 11:51am
#25
John i say if it was part of the job description to live in the county ,then it was fair that it is required .They were made aware that they would have to move here if they took the job..They took the job under false pretenses...Therefore give them some kind of surcharge for not living here or terminate them...plain and simple..Or do away with the rule...I wonder if a can get a waiver to not pay city tax for a year...
