At ACORN we have repeatedly brought up the issue of residency requirements
for police to cut down ont the US against THEM mentality that seems to creep
in when the police come into our communities to work but go home elsewhere
to live and play. The fact is that Minneapolis used to have a residency
requirement but about 20 years ago the police union went to the state
legislature to request that this be struck down as they often felt they and
their families could be singled out for retaliation when neighborhood
tensions were high. The legislature agreed and made residency requirements
illegal.
I imagine part of the thinking back then was how many officers would feel so
threatened that they would pack up and head for the suburbs and, since they
had 100% of the force within the city, many officers would still remain.
Of course, over the years those officers have retired and recruiting has
gone on outside the city since the residency requirement was dropped and
today we have very few officers who actually live in, are neighbors to and
know intimately the communities they police.
Since the state already weighed in on the residency issue, maybe we need to
make residency a recruitment requirement. To be hired you must come from
the city but once hired you can live where you want. That way we will get a
lot more officers who have roots in the city and know at least the
neighborhoods where they were raised, or, if someone from elsewhere wants to
be a Minneapolis police officer, they will have to take an apartment
somewhere in the city while applying and get a little taste of what part of
the city is like during that process.
Steve Nelson
Willard Hay
ACORN Board, Northside Chapter
Bob Velez
Shingle Creek
Ward 4-1
board member, Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority
wrote
I believe that offering incentives for officers to live within Minneapolis
proper is a very good idea. Ultimately, I would prefer having a residency
requirement for officers, but I don't believe that desire ought to stand
in the way of at least getting more officers to live in the city.
No one would automatically lose their jobs if other municipalities enacted
such rules. Grandfathering and/or transition periods would provide
workers with plenty of time to either move or find other employment. I
viewed Mike's remark as somewhat of a red herring. No offense, Mike.
:-)
Michael Hohmann wrote:
Aaron Neumann says, in part,
Let's advocate at the Legislature for a Minneapolis residency requirement
for all City employees...
[MH] I believe this issue has been discussed on this list in the past. In
general, I think residency requirements simply serve to limit the pool of
qualified individuals eligible for any given position-- a result that is
not
in the best interest of city residents and taxpayers. Residency
requirements also unfairly restrict an individuals ability to choose where
they want to live, etc. Consider for a moment what would happen if all
surrounding municipalities enacted residency requirements-- all Mpls.
residents employed outside Mpls. would loose their jobs!
Mike Hohmann
Linden Hills
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
