Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
Really? That's interesting; I wonder what the reasoning for that is?
|
I always thought it was the logic "if taxpayers are going to pay your salary/benefits, you should be required to live in the jurisdiction". Also it favors existing city residents over outsiders.
Probably also an attempt to keep middle-income households in the city, especially in the face of urban decline. In many cities, if you didn't have these laws, you would have fewer middle class neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
In Los Angeles, that's definitely not the case. One does not have to live in a particular city to work for it.
|
In NYC, a few departments (like NYPD) require state, but not city residency (I know this would be irrelevant in LA, but in NYC it matters because there are three other states within commuting distance), while others (I think teachers and most municipal workers) have no residency requirements whatsoever.
Even heads of city agencies aren't required to live in NYC. I know a deputy commissioner at a city department who lives in Princeton, NJ.
I still think most workers live in the city, though, just because of convenience. I imagine the same is true in LA.