Quote:

What I don't get is why patronage means votes when such large numbers of employees don't live here? Is the mandatory cash "contribution" to the power brokers campaigns still in operation?

There is already a city ordinance that states that ALL employees are required to live in Jersey City. No need to pay them $10,000. This what City Ordinance 53-2 states:

? 53-2. - Domicile as condition of employment. [Added 6-9-2010 by Ord. No. 10-078]permanent link to this piece of content

A.

All Employees, as a condition of their employment, shall maintain a bona fide domicile in the City of Jersey City during the period of their employment. Domicile means the permanent place of abode within the meaning, intent and scope of the New Jersey Statutes and court decisions governing and defining "domicile." It shall also mean the permanent abode which the Employee occupies with his or her spouse and minor children.

B.All Employees shall file with the Division of Personnel an affidavit setting forth the following:

(1)the address and telephone number of the Employees' bona fide domicile; and

(2)the address and telephone number of the Employees' spouse and minor children.



One day, just for the hell of it, I called the general counsel's office and thought I'd inform them of the large number of employees who don't meet the requirements of the ordinance, just to see what they'd say. Their attitude was, we already know, and we just don't enforce this ordinance. I didn't get any further with them. Of course, I'm not surprised - the toothless mayor and his administration only enforce laws when it suits them anyway. What do they care where their employees live?

Quote:

Personally if they are to get a "reward" for living where they work, then they should live where they work.
If their kids are going to the local schools, they might put their focus into local schools. On the other hand, if they live in (for example) Lyndhurst and put their kids in Lyndhurst schools, how does it benefit Jersey City? They are going to put their energy into improving the community they live in methinks.

If Jersey city doesn't offer them enough because it not big enough? So what? They can move where ever they want and forfeit the extra pay. Not my problem the place I have chosen to live doesn't give them enough choice.

Quote:

In as much as I would love to see more fire & police live in the city they work for, or that matter the city directors with city cars, I am not for forcing the issue as Jersey City doesn't have the size option of a city like New York. The 'incentive' area offered by the City where there is new development is in some of the worst sections of the city. I am however in favor of giving a reasonable restriction. There is no reason to live all the way in Middletown, near Allentown or in Branchville. Maybe a miles restriction would be agreeable. Towns like Lyndhurst, Carlstadt, Wood-Ridge.

The City of NY has a residency requirement for all their workers. Granted they have the boroughs which adds lots of choices so that rule may be too restrictive for JC. But positions whereby the city hires at the trainee level as with police & firefighters, it's doable.

Some municipal employees are eligible for their jobs by being a resident, tax dollars train them, then they move out of the municipality. At that point they should be fired. They are many people willing to take their jobs with the high unemployment. This is a waste of money.

?The Police Officer, Firefighter, Public School Teacher and Sanitation Worker Homebuyer Assistance Act? recently got a preliminary okay from an Assembly Committee. What?s that all about?
It?s a weak but well-intentioned attempt to persuade public employees to live where they work. If enacted it would appropriate $5 million to a state-wide fund from which eligible workers could borrow $10,000 for a down-payment on a home in the community that employs them, but only if they work in one of the 31 municipalities formerly classified as Abbott Districts.
The loans would be reduced 20 percent a year for five years as long as the original applicant still lived in the home. If the worker sold it before then, he or she would have to pay off the remaining balance.
Like similar programs elsewhere, the idea is to encourage cops and firefighters to reside in the towns they protect because people generally feel safer when their neighbors work in public safety. In fact, there?s federal program called ?Cop on the Block? with the same intent. Teachers were added to the New Jersey bill because they?re popular neighbors, too.
During consideration of the bill in Committee, however, someone noted that those groups earn relatively high salaries compared to, well, sanitation workers who might benefit more from homeowner assistance. So without further discussion, the bill was amended to include sanitation workers, leaving plenty of other low-paid municipal and county workers feeling a little left out.
Assemblywoman Angelica Jimenez of West New York, a Housing Committee member who supports the proposal, noted bills often improve as they go through the legislative system, so other categories of workers might be added later.
An internet search of homebuyer assistance programs for public workers shows they exist in several states, each with different rules and requirements. But nothing indicates how helpful they are. Around here, they haven?t been very successful at all.
Laws requiring public safety personnel to live where they work were overturned by courts years ago, and attempts to offer preferences in hiring or promotions to local residents are always fought by Unions and Civil Rights groups.
While many cops are happy to live and work in the same town, others are dead-set against having people they arrest living nearby or knowing the schools their children attend. Because of the nature of their jobs, some cops and firefighters see only the bad in the towns they work in and think the quality of life must be better elsewhere. So they nest at the shore or in the suburbs. It?s not likely $10,000 will be enough to change their minds.
And no matter how strict the rules and how transparent the process, there are always concerns about preferential treatment for cronies. A few years ago Hoboken officials persuaded a developer to set aside a limited number of units to be subsidized as ?workforce condos.? An outcry from some political leaders scuttled the program temporarily, and when it was reinstated requirements were so strict only a few people could be approved. Eventually the program was dropped after the final unit had stayed vacant for several years.
The current state bill, A1452, is the latest version of this type of grant program. Earlier versions just collected dust. Sponsor Reed Gusciora of Trenton desperately wants more good neighbors and has hope this time. He?s sure the $10,000 incentive will help the inner cities. But suburban and rural legislators like good neighbors, too, and aren?t willing to spend money on programs that would keep them away. So this bill might attract more dust than votes, too.Live Here.