I find myself agreeing with the Washington Post’s Colbert King (boldface mine):
It’s time to take the residency requirement issue seriously.
The award of D.C. government contracts, city job appointments and competitive promotions should be subjected to strong D.C. residency preferences. Today, D.C. government jobs and city contracts provide a pathway to the black middle class . . . in suburban Maryland and Virginia. C’mon, D.C. leaders, get smart!
Without discriminating or unfairly favoring a person based on sex, race, religion or sexual orientation, every effort should be made to select D.C. residents ahead of equally qualified nonresidents.
Besides the revenue-gaining potential, there’s a benefit to having employees who live in the community. Resident city workers have something more at stake than their paychecks. They have a vested interest in making their city a more desirable place to live, raise families and educate their children.
Resident D.C. workers are more likely to shop, spend, recreate and interact with others in the community where they live.
For those nonresident workers who complain that they can’t afford to live in the District, city leaders should think seriously about creating incentives that will bring them into the city.
As for those nonresident D.C. workers who enjoy their city government offices and steady jobs, but don’t like the District’s crime rates or schools, there’s a case to be made for coming back and helping to make the community that employs them the kind of place they want to live in.
Today, they are, at bottom, essentially absentee D.C. citizens living on the city’s dime…
Boston had residency requirements, and it led to the maintenance of a stable middle class in the city proper. While Boston now can negotiate away residency requirements, if nothing else, the policy does give the city an advantage in negotiations.
It’s also worth noting that most D.C. emergency personnel live outside the city. In case of a major emergency, they might not be able to get their posts–that does matter.
D.C. really shouldn’t be using its own funds to support a jobs program for the suburbs. We need middle class families in the District.
mikethemadbiologist
Re: “It’s also worth noting that most D.C. emergency personnel live outside the city. In case of a major emergency, they might not be able to get their posts–that does matter.”
It must be said: In the case of a disaster, emergency responders who live in DC may be harmed making them useless.
I would suggest that we seek a 50-50 goal, with half living in DC, the other half living outside DC within a certain number of miles. MPD (at one time, maybe still) allows for sworn personnel to live 25 miles outside the city. To accomplish this, much more needs to be done to make the city appealing and affordable. About 12 years ago, I did some cursory research on the loan program for MPD wanting to live in DC. HR did absolutely *nothing* to promote the program.
Finally, I think emergency personnel are different from non-emergency DC gov workers. Emergency workers see the worst of the city each and every day and leaving the city allows them to decompress. Important to their well-being and those with whom they interact on a daily basis.
Couldn’t it be equally well argued (i.e., via assertion) that it’s beneficial for emergency workers to live in the city so they have time to see and understand the better sides of it? And that this would help their attitude toward their job and the people they encounter during the course of that job, as they’re reminded each day that when they see “the worst” it’s not the norm.