Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
Really? That's interesting; I wonder what the reasoning for that is?
In Los Angeles, that's definitely not the case. One does not have to live in a particular city to work for it. A lot of LAPD, for example, live in the suburbs, and even live outside of Los Angeles County. I've applied for jobs in various other cities in southern California and having to be a resident of those cities was never a requirement.
|
this might be of interest:
Ohio Supreme Court rules against city residency requirements
Henry J. Gomez, cleveland.com
on June 10, 2009 at 9:41 AM, updated June 11, 2009 at 1:30 AM
Lynn Ischay/Plain Dealer
In a split decision, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that municipal ordinances requiring city employees to live in the city are trumped by state law banning the practice.
Updated June 11 at 1:29 a.m.
COLUMBUS —
In a decision that could be crippling for Cleveland, the Ohio Supreme Court this morning upheld a 2006 state law that bars cities from enforcing residency rules.
Writing for the 5-2 majority, Justice Paul Pfeifer dismissed arguments from Akron and Lima attorneys who said the General Assembly violated cities' home rule authority.
The 5-2 ruling deals a crushing blow to Cleveland, which requires its employees to live within city limits. The state legislature set up a showdown over the issue in 2006 by approving a law that made such requirements illegal.
Cities contend that home-rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution allow for local residency laws.
Mayor Frank Jackson, in a meeting with reporters at City Hall, acknowledged that the ruling upholds the 2006 law and said the city will abide by the law.
Jackson said his staff is working to implement necessary changes to comply.
"At the end of the day, Cleveland will survive," he said. "We've been through difficult times before."