Pride? Residency Incentives? Frustration?

[Bill Call]

Bill,

That is any "cost" has to generate a greater benefit or "revenue" for the city. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. With that said, our city resources (monies) are precious and few. We must spend them wisely.

That seems reasonable to me.

[Daniel Waitkus]

Mr. Call,

On several occasions within this forum, you have quoted persons you characterize as non-resident City of Lakewood employees as saying,"F... Lakewood, I don't give a GD about Lakewood..." etc. Sadly, I must admit I believe there are some who may feel this way, however I do not agree with your assertion that this is the "general attitude" within the ranks of this cities employees. That said, I have never understood the mentality of any City employee bashing Lakewood publicly or privately. As a resident City employee, I believe the vast majority of Lakewood's employees are cognizant of the challenges faced by the City, and whether they choose to reside here or not serve the residents proudly.

[Lynn Farris]

I completely agree with Suzanne.

My father worked for Delco and we always had a GM car. To do otherwise would have been against the company that we supported and that supported us.

I have no problems what so ever with employees that find problems and offer solutions to the administration, council. whoever. Or even that find problems and don't know the solution and go to the administration to determine what can be done.

But that isn't bad mouthing the product. If the employee is civil service, I do not know the law on reprimanding an employee who deingrates the city to the citizens. But many of the "higer level" staff serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. The laws on reprimanding them and/or terminating them are not so strict.

I can't imagine having an employee that didn't support the company and I can not imagine working for someone where I did not support them.

JMHO

[Bill Call]

I believe the vast majority of Lakewood's employees are cognizant of the challenges faced by the City, and whether they choose to reside here or not serve the residents proudly.

I agree.

Most City employees are not openly hostile to the City or its residents. Even those who choose to live elsewhere do so for valid reasons that have nothing to do with a "F" Lakewood attitude. But I have heard that opinion from more than several employees and it infuriates me. It infuriates me more than you know.

While driving home from work last week I noticed one trash collector picking up stray pop cans and trash that had fallen out of a trash can. He had to go out of his way to pick it up. That shows the kind of attitude towards work that is commendable. I am sure that type of thing happens a lot.

[Daniel Waitkus]

Mr. Call,

It infuriates me as well. I am not a proponent of residency requirements, and we know the current climate on the issue. Can some residency incentives help in attracting and/or maintaining resident employees? Without selling the farm, why not try and see?

[ryan costa]

it would help to begin by hiring people who already live in the city.

[Jeff Endress]

Ryan

I think that in some civil service related lobs extra points are added to the score gor Lakewood residents.

Jeff

[Jim O'Bryan]

I believe the vast majority of Lakewood's employees are cognizant of the challenges faced by the City, and whether they choose to reside here or not serve the residents proudly.

I agree.

Most City employees are not openly hostile to the City or its residents. Even those who choose to live elsewhere do so for valid reasons that have nothing to do with a "F" Lakewood attitude. But I have heard that opinion from more than several employees and it infuriates me. It infuriates me more than you know.

While driving home from work last week I noticed one trash collector picking up stray pop cans and trash that had fallen out of a trash can. He had to go out of his way to pick it up. That shows the kind of attitude towards work that is commendable. I am sure that type of thing happens a lot.

Bill

I have had two experiences worth remembering since starting the paper almost three years ago now. So it is not a HUGE problem, but I really do not talk to many city employees about Lakewood. We usually talk Lakewood "news" and "scoops."

Most have the common decency to not bad mouth their employers, and/or where they live. But these two cases were staggering in that came from higher up the ladder than "worker." Recently I heard of another high ranking city hall employee being kidded because she grew up here and came back after college to work here.

This caused me to take a step back and look at those that have been given the power to control our future, and it is amazing how many do not live here, or lived here and moved. Which is even worse. When I worked at BP I put BP gas in my car, it was only fair they saw enough in me to hire me, so...

But there seems to be a huge crack in the philosophy. How do you convince a person to move to a city, or their business if they do not live here themselves. "It's perfect for you, but not for me."? Many of these people are psuhing hard for regionalism, and why not get Lakewood to pay you and reduce your taxes in another city.

I am opposed to residency requirements, normally. I favor residency incentives.

It was talking with Ed Favre at a news scoop, that once again we had a wonderful talk. For those not aware, Ed lives in Lakewood, his kids went to Lakewood schools and returned to Lakewood after college to work here. His wife is a teacher. Ed, besides being a policeman, is on the school board, part of Grow Lakewood, and has a very good grasp on what is going on in this town.

The "news scoop" was serving papers on another abandoned house, owned by some real estate group in California I believe. They had decided it was easier and more beneficial to take the loss than keep the house in repair or filled. We talked about if there was anyway we could use these properties as incentives to get fire, police and teachers to move back into town. As always with Ed he had the numbers at the tip of his tongue, and pointed out how healthy Lakewood would be if the 75% of teachers, police and fire that do not live here moved back. To be honest it would make us one of the healthiest cities in Northern Ohio.

Not only would it get rid of the glut of properties that Lakewood has along with every other city in northern Ohio. But it would place more educated, employed people on every street in the city, which we both agreed woud be a good thing. It would add security, comfort, and a hominess to this inner ring suburb. It would also add a dedication to Lakewood than Ed thought was beginning to slip away. I had to agree with everything he was saying.

So while Grow Lakewood or one of it's offshoots gets ready to place the residency "incentive" package together, which is really a wonderful package from what I have read. I had to think that the easiest place to start would be appointed officials. where it could easily be written in to the job search.

At some point it seems that we have lost sight of the goal and our self esteem. Almost all of the people charged with getting businesses into Lakewood do not live here, some even have jobs in other cities. If Lakewood is really going to attract residents, business and development to Lakewood, don't we need to clarify and back up the message and signals sent?

To me this is not personal, but common sense. A person should always be willing to back their work and have the chance to put their money and life where their mouth is. Again, just common sense.

I have taken an informal survey for over two years. I have yet to meet the person that chooses work over family and home. To be honest I hope I never do.

FWIW



.

[Charyn Compeau]

..

[Jeff Endress]

Jim

I think there are two components to the residency issue, which are necessarily mutually exclusive. You hit on one with the "job description" issue. There is no rational reason why City Department heads should not be required to live in Lakewood. The information and insight that is gained from the forty plus hours a week that are spent on the job pale in comparison to what is learned the other 128 hours a week. Experiencing neighborhood relations, recreation, parks and an up close familiarity with the schools and businesses. And I think that I'm correct that persons in supervisory/department head positions (ie, not civil service or Union) can be required to maintain residency as part of the employment contract. I'll admit that the numbers may be small, but the impact can be huge and it can be done without the need to create financial incentives or run afoul of the law or public opinion.

The other half of the equation is far larger, involving the actual labor force. I tend to feel residency requirements are also appropriate there, but I do understand and appreciate the current legal uncertainties and arguments contra. But if we can't (or won't) require the labor force to maintain residency here, how do you finance an incentive package that might accomplish the same ends? An awful lot of Churches provide housing for their ministerial leaders. There are a bunch of "parsonages" that are a rent free incentive. Its a part of the employment package. Obviously it comes at a cost. So where do we come up with the cash to buy 50 or 100 houses, renovate and repair them, and then offer them to employees on some kind of a low interest/no interest deal? The problem with any incentive program is you have to figure out the financing. While certainly they can be made to be relatively self sufficient, its the initial seed money that's the problem.

There's only some much traction that you can develope with arguments of commute time reduction and gasoline savings. Even if you had some kind of merchant supported city resident/worker discount card (the Golden Ranger 'Wood reductions card) 10% off at the Bin or Angelo's isn't going to drive this SUV. You're going to need several millions of dollars....

So, IF having workers also maintain residency here is deemed a good thing (and I think most would agree it is), we have essentially two options:

Option #1: Simply require the residency, with the attendant legal costs and "rights to freedom/pursuit of happiness" issues or;

Option #2: Galvanize the citizens to pony up the funds needed to finance an incentive program with REAL tangible financial benefits for choosing to live in the city in which you work.

If you look at the chances of people getting behind a 50 million bond issue, no matter how nice it might be to offer incentives, you come to the realization that it simply won't be happening. Which takes us back to Option #1.......

Why not a voter referendum, amending the charter to require residency (obviously with certain grandfather clauses included which except current, but not future employees)? Let the citizens decide the issue. If you don't live here, you won't get to vote. Oh well......Non-smokers will be deciding if smokers should be taxed to support the arts.......

Jeff

[Jim O'Bryan]

Option #2: Galvanize the citizens to pony up the funds needed to finance an incentive program with REAL tangible financial benefits for choosing to live in the city in which you work.

If you look at the chances of people getting behind a 50 million bond issue, no matter how nice it might be to offer incentives, you come to the realization that it simply won't be happening. Which takes us back to Option Jeff

Jeff

As you well know this has always been part of the VAL. Which is just another positive brick in a grand plan for Lakewood, that's only goal is to make Lakewood stand above the rest as a great place to live, work and raise a family.

What about turning the the banks that are here and getting low interest or no interst loans for teachers, fire and police personal to buy and fix up their homes in Lakewood.

Community currency also offers the city a chance a chance to pay more for less. A spin off and something I was working on with twenty businesses before the paper is a community card, that offers buying incentives for community and community workers.

There are many ways to skin this cat. That do not involve placing any more burden on the city or the tax payers.


.