sc4mayor wrote:I saw one Facebook comment that suggested limiting it to City and St. Louis County residents only, which isn't a bad idea.  Regardless, I think it's time to open up the pool of applicants though.

1. Agreed. The city isn’t getting the best talent. When I worked for St. Louis County, I heard multiple times from VERY talented professionals that they’d go to the city, FOR LESS, due to the diversity and impact of work. But they weren’t willing to relocate their family, so they stayed at the county. While I’d love for a city resident to benefit... I also want city government to work efficiently with the most motivated talent.

Is it worth investing in our own if necessary operations are slower or falling apart?

2. The personnel and hiring practices at the city need to be rewritten top to bottom. They have a digital process that consistently eliminates qualified applicants. So certain jobs sit unable to proceed because they “don’t have enough qualified applicants.”

3. Acknowledging that many of these 700 jobs would not report downtown, that is still a lot of labor that downtown streets need. BAD.

4. I’d also suggest opening it to St. Clair County.

I think they should perhaps offer a pay bump for those who do choose to live in the city.  I think it is a good thing to have police officers engaged with the communities they serve on a full-time basis, for instance.

The REAL problem isnt the residency rule- sure some people would like to work for the City but dont want to move but its very small

real problems;

low pay
lack of advancement
outdated personnel dept policies and job postings that literally need a charter amendment to be changed. 
line crossing by elected officials between politics and civil service. 

From someone that worked at City Hall for a while..

Fix the personnel department and that would change quite a bit. Expanding the applicant pool just for it to be funneled through the same system would be like putting more air in a leaky tire — still ain’t driving anywhere.

^If the algorithm is really eliminating qualified applicants then that needs to change stat. I'm . . . torn on the residency requirement. I do think it's good having our police officers living in the community they serve. (I could even see a bonus for living in the neighborhood you patrol.) Maybe the bonus for living in the city that bwcrow1s recommends would help. But addxb and dbInSouthCity raise additional problems that might be easier to fix. That is assuming low pay and charter amendments are fixable at all.

It will be on the November ballot

It's a safe bet that if the residency requirement, the 63109 zip code is going to see a lot of activity in the real estate market.

topher wrote: ↑

Jul 13, 2020

It's a safe bet that if the residency requirement, the 63109 zip code is going to see a lot of activity in the real estate market.

First- people are overestimating the amount of people that would all the sudden uproot their life and leave- if a person was going to do that they would have found a new job and left long ago (some did). From 2010-2019 was a very favorable job market even for gov jobs

2nd- so what?  Someone is going to back fill because nobody that works for city gov can afford to move before selling their house.

3rd- residency requirement is nowhere close to an issue when it comes to recruiting for the city as pay.   City opened up 50 residency waivers for cops in 2017 and to date over 100 people went thru the city police academy and become cops and there are still 49 waivers left the last I heard of it.

4th- I know 4 county PD cops that live in the City (there are dozens that live in Stl hills) and 6 friends that work for county government and live in the City.

5th- the issue the proponents are telling you that this will fix isn’t actually going to fix it

6th- vote no.

6th- vote no.

What is the compelling reason to restrict freedom of where an employee can live?

bprop wrote: ↑

Jul 13, 2020

6th- vote no.

What is the compelling reason to restrict freedom of where an employee can live?

For one, nobody is required to work for the city, so they are free to live wherever they want.

There are several compelling reasons- gives city residents- who are often disadvantaged a leg up for jobs
It gives the city a chance to increase its tax base if it requires someone to move into the city to work for the city

^There was also the classic argument that it can help to stabilize communities. People care about the places they live. It's good to have city employees that actually care about the city; who have their money where their mouth is, as it were. I really don't see the downside to it.

When I was on unemployment after an interesting series of events, I looked into urban planning and CDBG/HOME administration related jobs at various municipalities around the MO and IL areas (not that I was interested in small town work, but you gotta look around). Besides there being basically nothing ever open, it was interesting to see more small towns than I expected with residency requirements. If it's working for them, I don't see how it's a bad thing for St. Louis City. As DB already noted, it's often the pay that is the issue with City jobs. We're both former City employees that can speak to that directly. The pay for what I was doing is 50% or more higher in most comparable places. The personnel system for the City also moves at a snail's pace, and is wholly unresponsive to department needs. By the time interviews finally happen, the best candidates have already found a better job because they can't sit around and wait for 4 months.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2020

^There was also the classic argument that it can help to stabilize communities. People care about the places they live. It's good to have city employees that actually care about the city; who have their money where their mouth is, as it were. I really don't see the downside to it.

The downside is that you're drawing employees -- all the way to, for example, web developers, trash truck drivers, street repairmen, water employees who really don't need to "care about the city" to do their job right -- from an ever shrinking pool of candidates. Telling someone they have to move into the city, even to the extent of pulling their kids up and transfer to StL City schools, is the city's RIGHT, I suppose (but that's more of a logical fallacy than an actual argument), but is a pretty dumb way to do business IMO.

bprop wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2020

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jul 14, 2020

^There was also the classic argument that it can help to stabilize communities. People care about the places they live. It's good to have city employees that actually care about the city; who have their money where their mouth is, as it were. I really don't see the downside to it.

The downside is that you're drawing employees -- all the way to, for example, web developers, trash truck drivers, street repairmen, water employees who really don't need to "care about the city" to do their job right -- from an ever shrinking pool of candidates. Telling someone they have to move into the city, even to the extent of pulling their kids up and transfer to StL City schools, is the city's RIGHT, I suppose (but that's more of a logical fallacy than an actual argument), but is a pretty dumb way to do business IMO.

I get that point of view but i think it comes from a place where we assume working for the City is the same as working at Wells Fargo or a lawfirm or any other private sector place.  it isnt.    Gov jobs have 2 types of opening-   90% are entry and high end jobs.  there is no middle where someone with 12-15 years out of college would uproot their family and leave for it-  there is no comparable pay even if there is a comparable position 

StlToday - Residency rule reprieve for St. Louis first responders passes Senate, heads to Parson’s desk

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/cri ... 88090.html

Bravo!!! Should relieve some pressure finding qualified applicants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So this bill lasts for three years and only applies to police officers? 

The ballot measure affects all city employees in perpetuity, correct?

This will have minimal impact on hiring

Why? 1)  Because no cop is going to leave a county job mid career for a city cop job and the ones that would we probably shouldn’t be hiring because they most likely got forced out for misconduct

County cops are scared shitless of Gardner, that she will prosecute even their minors discretions and she should,  its simple don’t break the law and she can’t prosecute you

2) the city has no issues filling its academy, as evidenced by 1 of 50 residency exemptions taken in the last 2 years for new recruits.

3) city doesn’t need more officers nor will the union allow the city to spend the extra 125 FTE on new officers, they want that for the OT gravy train.  So in reality we aren’t even gaining anything with new officers, just giving current ones less OT shifts

I am in principle in favor of residency requirements, but it kind of defeats the purpose if you live in Sunset Hills and patrol North St Louis. You're not really policing the community you live in, so why should the restriction exist at all? 

RFT- Critics of St. Louis' Police Residency Rule Are Getting What They Want — Now What?

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblo ... t-now-what