You don’t get enough of that around here, do ya? Nah. So here’s some bonus Savage opining: My brother has an opinion piece in Crain’s Chicago Business today. He has some advice for Chicago’s incoming mayor—including this…
Extend the residency rule that requires city workers to live in Chicago to all CEOs and CFOs of companies doing more than $10 million in business with the city. If the rationale that You Make Your Money Here, You Ought to Live and Pay Taxes Here is good enough for cops, firefighters, teachers and Streets and San workers, it should apply to the big boys. Anyone grossing eight figures on city contracts ought to be able to drop six figures on a domicile in ZIP codes starting with 606, even if they maintain a “second home” in the Turks and Caicos or, say, Washington, D.C. Mr. Emanuel should be able to relate to this sort of flexible understanding of “residency.”
That’s an idea that cities all over the country should adopt. We might want to start by requiring members of the Seattle Police Department to live in Seattle—kind of a pilot program—before moving on to residency requirements for CEOs and CFOs.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
Interesting idea, but of course it will never happen. You can’t piss off the people with big bucks and expect to have any kind of a career in politics.
I have a friend who was a Home Economist with City Light from 1952 to 1976. When she first moved to Seattle from Chicago, she couldn’t get a job with the city because there was a state residency requirement of two years before you could be hired. After the two years were up, they offered her the job, but she had to agree to live in Seattle for the length of her employment.
If she had started a few years earlier, she would have had to have taken a loyalty pledge that she was not a Communist. After all, think of the damage a Communist Home Economist could wreak on families.
That’s awesome, and you do realize your brother included that as item 1 of his “unrealistic but fun ideas” that includes re-reversing the flow of the Chicago River?
And that the point of his whole piece was to restate his conviction about the incredible value of a strong city council that can stand up to an overweening executive mayor?
Which is kind of funny given how annoyed you get when our own council does that?
Just saying.
Riverview? I was always partial to Kiddie Land.
It’s my understanding that cities that require police and fire fighters to live within the city do so not to get them to spend their paychecks in the city but rather because in the event of a serious emergency where everyone is called in on their day off, they’re more likely to be around and able to respond quickly if they live in the city and don’t have a long commute.
Well, Kevin, when we voted it in here about 15 or 20 years ago (shit, time flies), it was with the understanding that people who have to live in a community might actually give a shit a little bit more about the community. YMMV.
@4 I went to Riverview as a child. It had a freak show. Scarred me for life! Good analogy for Chicago politics.
What happens if two cops (firefighters, teachers, whatever) are married and can only find work in different communities?
We, Providence, RI, had a residency requirement for teachers, police, fire, and city workers and it was eliminated because supposedly they coulnd’t find the talent within the borders of the city. I think it had to do more with most of these folks who had worked for the city for years were just maintaining an address. I say bring it back!
@8 — then they don’t live in Chicago. Nepotism in Chicago is perfected to an art the same way the Japanese have perfected their “tea ceremony.”
Where it gets real juicy is when a couple divorces / breaks up. Then it’s all about who has the most clout. Then you get stuff like this:
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2…
@8, during the Emanuel residency brouhaha, I found an interesting 1998 piece exploring the ambiguities and unintended consequences and interplay of Chicago’s residency requirement and those of its suburbs, from the Chicago Reporter:
http://www.chicagoreporter.com/index.php…
@9, yeah, but Providence is so fucking corrupt nobody takes them seriously any more. I thought Buddy was bad. Hmph.
Why would they want to live in the city? Have you heard how shitty the cops are here?
Let the cops live in the suburbs – I don’t want a cop living next door to me, at least until pot is completely legal.
What about CEO’s of companies that do large amounts of business with multiple cities? Would the CEO have to buy a house in each city he does business in?
I live across the street from the school where I teach. It’s actually kind of convenient. I have no commute, for example. It’s technically not in the same school district, though.
@8: Most suburbs (at least the ones around Chicago) don’t have residency requirements for their city workers.
San Francisco has a law requiring companies that do business with the city to hire city residents. Now that’s a good idea. I don’t give a crap where the CEOs live. It was a good day for our state when election fraud king Tom Stewart (may he rest in peace) decamped for Arizona.