Taste of Lakewood

Ed FitzGerald · Post by **Ed FitzGerald** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:43 pm

Lynn-

Regarding residency incentives, I thought I would pass along a bit of under-reported progress. Earlier this year, the city was going through an update of its civil service regulations. Councilman Butler and myself sponsored a change which doubled the number of points a Lakewood resident receives on the civil service test for employment. It passed Council unanimously.

It's not a total solution, but I think it's a step inthe right direction. Cleveland Heights had a program where police officers were given incentives to occupy previously vacant homes. I would love to see something like that in Lakewood- it would address two problems at once.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:55 pm

As was reported in the Lakewood Observer, points were also boosted for veterans.

If you're a vet living in Lakewood, you have an advantage.

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... ght=points

Tom Bullock · Post by **Tom Bullock** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:11 pm

Not sure Lakewood can *require* residency for its leaders. But there is an integrity deficit for those who live outside.

Now is no longer the time for half measures. Are we in, or are we out?

In my opinion, all directors of the city should be residents of the city. If I'm a Chevy salesman but drive a Honda, what does that say?

The solution is not an ordinance, but a voluntary policy.

Police, fire, teachers, not just directors, ideally would live by this policy.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:41 am

Can't type much - on my way to work the Gay Lesbian Bi and Trangender Center table at Gay Pride today YAY! My daughter is running the youth tent!

Anyway - my understanding is that in most cities you have to live in that city or have six months to move to that city to be on the police force or the fire department.

Seems to me that if you live here you have a vested interest in making sure services are supplied properly!

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:34 am

sharon kinsella wrote:Can't type much - on my way to work the Gay Lesbian Bi and Trangender Center table at Gay Pride today YAY! My daughter is running the youth tent!

Anyway - my understanding is that in most cities you have to live in that city or have six months to move to that city to be on the police force or the fire department.

Seems to me that if you live here you have a vested interest in making sure services are supplied properly!

Sharon

Residency requirements for Police, Fire and Schools have been shot down. This is why we should look at incentives. This is no different than abatement for business. Of course this has a larger payoff. You are keeping money in the city, making it safer. The other throws money away, invites crime, and generally makes cities less safe.

Residency is a good thing for so many things, landlords, police, fire, teachers, health care workers, college graduates, etc.

Nice day for it.

.

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:19 pm

Jim -

It was a beautiful day to be at E. 9th on the pier and see all the people at Pride - but, it got too hot for this womon.

Anyway, if the residency rules have been shot down then I guess the only thing that will work will be incentives. BTW - when did they get shot down?

Have a great day!

David Scott · Post by **David Scott** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:56 pm

Residency requirements have been declared to be illegal by the Ohio Supreme Court, but to say they have been "shot down" is hyperbola. Just like school funding has been declared illegal but has not changed, the cities using residency requirements have not done away with them. In Cleveland, you have to live in the city limits to work in any municipal position and when I lived in Cleveland Heights I remember the police officers took their cars home at night at parked them on the street to have a presence even when they were not at work.

There are many benefits to a governmental position such as medical and pension benefits. Pay, which was below par in the past, has become more competitive. Asking these people to live in the city they serve is not asking too much.

In lieu of residency requirements, why not give a 50% tax rebate to any municipal or school employee who actually lives in Lakewood.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:37 am

David Scott wrote:In lieu of residency requirements, why not give a 50% tax rebate to any municipal or school employee who actually lives in Lakewood.

David

There is a group that is looking at that, but instead of decreasing the taxes maybe it could be done differently that does not effect taxes.

Zero interest loans from local banks to buy houses that have been vacant for more than a year, or abandoned.

Is one I favor.

I am 100% for residency incentives. Give Lakewood employees more reasons to support the city that has supported and believed in them when they were hired. I am 100% residency requirements, with the exception of political appointees. Legal there, and should be used.

Sharon

It was a beautiful day. I was taking photos and doing the MAMA Walk, nice turn out, lots of fun on Madison, and the health factor of walking, marching, parading and biking!

.