DaytonDailyNews.com

By The Solution

September 20, 2008 8:27 AM | Link to this

I am not going to weigh in on either side. At the moment, city employees are required to live IN the city, but cringe at the thought of crime, drugs, schools etc. I am selling one property in a prestigious neighborhood at an affordable rate for REAL people with real wages, for those wanting a great community and CLEAN with very good schools. There’s an open house on Sunday from 2 -4, come on out and see what this Dayton neighborhood is like!

www.janandmary.com MLS 404800

By DixieChickBS

September 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

My husband works for the city so we must live here. We chose to build a home in a “quiet” neighborhood. My new neighbor moved in and along came her drug dealing boyfriends. What came next? Fights in the front yard, gun shots, boyfriends arrested for drugs and guns in the back yard and then the real kicker - she shot one of her boyfriends in the front yard! Many times my husband was a responding officer & I was the complaintant = problems. This is why officers should NOT live where they work!

By Dayton Resident

September 17, 2008 7:13 PM | Link to this

The citizens of Dayton voted NO to the Residency rule in the 70’s. The City turned right around and said something about Charter Rules and you have to reside in the city. They only accept your vote when it’s the one they want. I didn’t vote again for years after this happened. After all what was the point. They should have just had someone to smack me in the face after I voted.

By Dan Kennedy

June 4, 2008 11:42 PM | Link to this

Most of the time I like living in Dayton; I have a great home and neighborhood with a lot of good features. I just think that the residency rule for city employees is bad law. One can not legislate commitment to a job, it’s the same idea behind a loyalty oath. Dictating loyalty is pointless and a sad waste of precious tax dollars!

By Voice of Reason

June 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

Bill Miller, your comments are simply moronic. They lack any evidence of truth. It is much like saying that if you do NOT live in the city in which you are employed then you care nothing of your home, your neighborhood or such. Regardless of where one lives they would/should care about both, the city in which they are employed, and the city in which they reside. Your simplistic psychology analogy is without merit. Maybe you should run for city commission.

By Bill Miller

June 2, 2008 6:36 PM | Link to this

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request this.I believe it creates a better community when the leaders of that community live nearby.This is fundamental psychology:One takes greater pride/esteem,etc in a place where they live.as well as work.

Use Your Brain:Vote McCain! http://www.mydayton.info

By TAS

June 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

The Residency rule in Dayton is a joke, and always has been. If you buy a lake house on Indian Lake and happen to commute form there for a week in the summer, and they pick that week to follow you home each day, you are fired, no questions asked. Even if you own and live in a $150,000 home in Forest Ridge. It is ridiculous and it is about time it has been outlawed. It would be like working for GM and getting fired for driving a Ford, even if you owned a Chevy.

By cowman

June 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this

Ya’ll never get me to live somewhere where I couldn’t raise my family without the fear of them gettin hurt

I can’t believe this is a rule in this century.

Heck they have rights about everything, now even people of the same sex can marry each other but yet no rights to buy a house where you want?

This is a no brainer

By Charlieonthespot

June 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

It is obvious with the number of post here that the majority of the people at least agree that forcing someone to live in a certain area seems unconstitutional.

There is the point about what you knew when you took the job that has some merit, but just knowing what the rules are does not make them correct or just.

I personally would hate it if my employer had a residency requirement, and could tell me where I could or could not raise my family. That seems archaic to me.

Good luck

By North City Resident

June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

I guess if I was the one that was forced to live where my employer said then I would have a problem with the residency rule. I really have no idea what I am talking about but I do know that the constitution should represent everyone equally.

By Eric

June 2, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

Who really cares, it affects so few people.

By LT Harris

June 2, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this

DDN forums are cheezy. I can type in anyone’s email address and leave a statement, all of these people are probably made up or the same person! DDN should fix that!

By Richard C. Cline

June 1, 2008 8:17 PM | Link to this

No I do not believe that a city should be able to require its employees or anyone else, to live within its boundries.

By A. Fitzpatrick

June 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

Cleveland Police Officer, injured for life in July-94. was dismissed for living seven-tenths of a mile over City border, What a joke , City politics,!!

By guitarsteve

June 1, 2008 12:17 AM | Link to this

The bottom line is that a residency requirement is just WRONG! It goes against what I was raised to believe about living in a free country. Maybe a class-action lawsuit against the City by those who have been negatively affected since the City fathers decided to violate state law, would get the attention of those hard-headed commissioners. And I feel certain that if the vote on the residency rule had been run fairly and not manipulated, that the voters of Dayton would have done away with it.

By guitarsteve

June 1, 2008 12:10 AM | Link to this

Dayton pays pretty well for a government agency, but when you figure how much you lose in stagnant property value, it takes a lot away. I knew of the residency rule when I hired on, and at that time (1982) I enjoyed city living, but after you grow older and want to get away from the noise, pollution, crime, traffic and rotten schools that are part of city life, you may have so many years invested in your job and retirement that it is not practical for most to just quit your job.

By guitarsteve

June 1, 2008 12:03 AM | Link to this

It’s interesting that the head of the Committee to keep residency moved his business (Weber Jewelers) out of Dayton and the Dayton Daily News which also supported residency moved their printing operation from downtown to Franklin, Ohio. This seems very hippocritacal! I retired from the City and am now trying to find that home in the country I’ve wanted for a long time, but since property values in this town go nowhere, it makes it difficult to improve your situation even after you retire.

By guitarsteve

May 31, 2008 11:56 PM | Link to this

The “yes/no” vote was skillfully manipulated by the city officials at that time. They had the issue pulled off the ballot of the general election by someone in Columbus as being worded too confusing. Then the issue was put back on the next ballot in the spring (with the same confusing yes/no wording) at a time when nothing much was on the ballot, so the only people who even bothered to vote were those who bought the City’s malarky that doing away with residency would destroy the neighborhoods.

By Wife of a Firefighter/Paramedic

May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Link to this

I find it puzzling as to how the city picks and chooses which of it’s employees must be residents. Dayton Public School teachers do not have to live within city limits, nor do the non-teaching staff. Only administrators. Why wouldn’t they want their teachers as invested in the students as they require the police and firefighters? Further, how has it really benefited the city? The employees gravitate to a couple of annexed neighborhoods. Pointless!

By resident evil

May 31, 2008 10:55 PM | Link to this

If you work at the pepsi plant should you only be allowed to drink pepsi?

By fyrdude

May 31, 2008 10:10 PM | Link to this

Right, the citizens voted on it… in a twisted “vote yes for no” ballot. We also had affirmative action and busing, should those stick also? They were equally effective. The argument that “everyone will move out of the city” is mute, I don’t know of many city employees that can just abandon their house… someone will still be living there. If I leave, I’ll have to sell first.

By WRG

May 31, 2008 8:23 PM | Link to this

How quickly we forget… Dayton didn’t impose this requirement on its citizens; the citizens voted on it and decided that they want this requirement. If the requirement needs changing - let the people of Dayton vote on it again.

By The simple truth

May 31, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

C’mon Daytonians…the real truth here lies in history. If the pres of the US and even our own former Attorney general values employees being easily accessed for personal pleasure. Imaging e how incovenient it would be for some if we allowed our city employees to live a great distance. No more sleepovers…Keep the city population growing.

By JD

May 31, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

I live within the city limits because my husband is a firefighter. It is not fair that Dayton force anyone to live within its limits, especially with Dayton Public Schools the way they are today. My husband and I fall in the category of not making enough to pay for private schools but making too much to get financial aid. Yes, we could live in north Dayton and send our kids to Vandalia schools, but then we are not only being told we have to live in Dayton but also WHERE to live in Dayton!

By Mandarin

May 31, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Hello? A lot of great neighborhoods in Dayton, with a lot of people who choose to live there, and even commute somewhere else!

Look at South Park! Neighborhood of the Year Award for Physical Rejuvenation! That is a NATIONAL award! WOO HOO!

Go into South Park, and you will see neighbors making a difference every day. There are middle class kids playing in the parks because their parents are choosing the urban lifestyle!

There are currently six houses under dcontract in South Park!

By Stephen Bickford

May 31, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Well, if you are desperate for residents and money, a residency rule seems to be the way to go…especially if people won’t live in your city or spend money in your city unless they are forced.

By BoogieStu

May 31, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Heck no, I don’t think city employees should be required to live within the city limits. That’s a stupid rule. I thought this was a free (relatively) country. I mean, amongst the few freedoms we have left is where we choose to live. I’d say that rule is a little too far reaching.

By Just a voice

May 31, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Thankfully all of this will be determined once and for all at the Ohio Supreme Court. One way or another we will put this issue to rest. I will say this, if you do not work for the city then your opinion is rather biased, it is one of no consequence. It is much like non home owners voting for issues that raise real estate taxes. Everyone in this country has a voice, even if that voice isn’t affected by the outcome. Freedom should never have to be explained, it is either free, or it isn’t.

By Non-Dayton Resident

May 31, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Why should the city care where you spend the night, as long as you report to work when required? I wonder that once the city determines an employee is not a resident for employment purposes, do they still consider them a resident for tax purposes? I bet they do! Stop wasting money on this and start making the city a place where people would want to work and live.

By Larry

May 31, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

I expect the Ohio Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts rulings. Instead of communities like Dayton recognizing that residency rules are being struck down everywhere and abolishing the rules. They continue to dismiss quality workers for an outdated unconstitutional rule. I eagerly wait reading dismissed staff suing the city of Dayton and other municipalities for lost wages and interest. The Mayor’s insistance on continuing this rule will cost the Dayton tax payers.

By Greg Tampa Fl.

May 31, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

Having worked for ohio bell ameritech sbc for 32 years I have seen the decline of Dayton as an outside technician I have worked all neighbor [hoods] all races, grew up in Belmont I double dare you to walk down any alley with youre wallet or purse you wont come out of it with it guaranteed we have had our trucks stolen while aloft on telephone poles now your going to question truck security but isnt intent the real question? I DO NOT support residency rule never will

By not in dayton anymore

May 31, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

i am a former 30+ year resident of dayton and my father was one of the city leaders. the residency rule was in effect in the early - mid 60’s when we first moved here.

By Lean Thinking

May 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

It’s a sad day when the city leadership has allowed such a great old city like Dayton to deteriorate so badly that they must order their employees to live there under threat of firing! Sounds sort of like something China would do….. What’s next a wall?

Get out while you can!!!!!

By N Alexander

May 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

It makes sense for certain people to live in a city, public safety personnel that would need to be in the city during a crisis seems fair enough. The guy that has to go fix the street light the next day is not. Road crews? Not so critical to live in the city. What if Dayton didn’t have the adjoining urban areas, and instead had farmland? Should the spouse of the farmer be banned from being a cop or a paramedic or even a trash collector? a 10 mile radius from the town edge would be more fair.

By Julie

May 31, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this

I’d be afraid to take a vacation if I worked for the city. If I spend two weeks in Florida, I may be in violation of the residency rule!

By Small Town Resident

May 31, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

The residency law doesn’t only affect Dayton, it affects other areas as well. My Husband is a firefighter/paramedic for a municipality outside of Dayton and we are required to reside in that municipality. We did not vote on this decision. We had no choice in the matter. Granted he chose to take the job anyway but it still seems unfair to me. If we should suddenly have a family emergency where one of our elderly parents needs us to live closer, my husband will lose our livelihood.

By Chris

May 31, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Jim, you are entirely backwards. If you live in Kettering and work in Dayton, Dayton first gets their full 2.25%. THEN Kettering would get their 2.25% less credits paid to other cities, which in this case would be 2.25%-2.25%=0%. So, the only city that has lost out on income taxes is, in this example, Kettering. If you do not believe me, check any city tax form.

By william blevins

May 31, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this

I can’t see any reason at all to live in the city of Dayton,for the past 50 years it has turned into nothing but a big garbage dump.every street in the city needs repaired ,,it is dangerous to drive on them ,The city government has been terrible for many years now and they all need to be ritired. Dayton needs to be torn down and made into a huge cornfield,I just don’t see the need of a city like Dayton,,what is it good for ?,whats it purpose,it sure isn’t a place ti raise a family

By alreadygone

May 31, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

I already bit the bullet and moved after 27 years of city life. Dayton sucked in the 80’s and it sucks now. Why do you think they threw that whole residency thing in the charter? As the wife of a city employee who loves and respects his position, we have had to struggled to find decent schooling, housing, and basic living necessities (i.e. grocery stores, etc.) Eventually we had to put up or shut up. He lives in Dayton. I live elsewhere. Yes he knew that residency was a condition of employment.

By Mark

May 31, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

The City of Dayton firefighters have continually asked the City to verify the law because they know an employee can be fired even though they have a residence in the City and reside there. The City always refuses. Why do they refuse if they want the law adherred to? They refuse because they want the law vague so they can wield it however they want. So they can fire individuals in such cases as where one has performed an audit showing the City is facing a $1.32 million dollar liability.

By Mark

May 31, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

That is just one example of the vague (never communicated to its employees,) arbitrary (only applied when they want to fire a whistleblower, because based on that standard how many City employees would be out of a job if each had been investigated as I was)uses the City employs the law. This is just a tip of the iceberg in regards to their sordid practices. If anyone wants an account of those practices please e-mail me at markspaxson7527@aol.com. I can document any allegation I make. Thank you.

By Mark

May 31, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this

Hi this is Mark Paxson. I am not fighting the residency rule as much as I am fighting the practices the City uses to implement it. For example, the City can fire you even when their own evidence documents you had a city residence and resided there. During my 6 month investigation the City found me outside the City 7 nights. The City testified in court that their standard for being able to charge and fire an individual is if they find an employee outside the City 5 nights, no matter why.

By highlandcounty

May 31, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

I work for an agency with one of these rules. One of the biggest issues I have with these rules is that local goverments want to dictate where their employees live, but don’t pony up the cash to permit them to actually live in that community. If they want employees living in the community, then pay them enough to buy a house and become an active member of the community outside of work.

By Reality Police

May 31, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this

Great debate so far, but we need to focus outside of the Dayton city jobs. Look at it this way: if I, as a private business leader, put a requirement into any of my jobs that I would only consider & employ people who lived in a certain city or suburb, how long before I would be facing discrimination case? How about we have all of the businesses in Dayton be forced to insert residency rules too? Like individuals (employees) being treated differently is the premise of discrimination.

By Dave

May 31, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

The residency rule was created by the “great leaders of Dayton” to help stabilize the neighborhoods of Dayton. We all know how well it has worked, people standing in line waiting to move into Dayton. The great governmental leadership in Dayton need to understand people choose where they work and live, you cannot make that choice for them. I grew up in Montgomery County; I understand why the employees of Dayton don’t what to live. It’s not great in Dayton

By Elaine

May 31, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this

More than Dayton have residency requirements, just a little more lax. Our village requires “key” employees to live within the school district, not the village limits due to emergency response time. Many police officers live outside to protect their families from retalation. What about private employers who are controlling their employees’ private lives by not allowing them to smoke-even in their own home? They are tested. Talk about control! They still have employees.

By Out-of-towner

May 31, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this

I used to live and work in Dayton, but moved away many years ago. I returned to the Gem City for a visit. It is no longer a gem. I reside in an area where county and municiple employees can live anywhere they choose. They merely have to report to work on time. Maybe the problem lies with the those who have created the decline of Dayton. Get rid of the source of the garbage. The smell goes away and people could choose to stay.

By Ben

May 31, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

I work downtown and pay city of Dayton taxes, live in a different county that doesn’t have income tax. So I pay to a city I cannot vote in, pay large taxes to Dayton without really getting anything at all in return for my money. There is no benefit to me to work in Dayton, my job could be done anywhere. City of Dayton is missing out on good miniority employees with the rule as they too want to live where they want. If the employee is making it to work on time, that should be the test.

By Ben

May 31, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

I work downtown and pay city of Dayton taxes, live in a different county that doesn’t have income tax. So I pay to a city I cannot vote in, pay large taxes to Dayton without really getting anything at all in return for my money. There is no benefit to me to work in Dayton, my job could be done anywhere. City of Dayton is missing out on good miniority employees with the rule as they too want to live where they want. If the employee is making it to work on time, that should be the test.

By Jim

May 31, 2008 7:24 AM | Link to this

Chris,

If you work in Dayton (2.25% income tax) and live in Beavercreek (0% income tax), you’re right. However, if you live in, say, Huber (2% tax), Huber takes 2% and Dayton takes .25%. If you live in Kettering (2.25% tax), Dayton gets zero. Only Dayton residents working at Federal installations (like Wright-Patt in Greene County)pay all their taxes to Dayton.

By Hmmm...

May 31, 2008 7:05 AM | Link to this

All this talk of residency, didn’t Dayton just join the Regional Dispatch Center to be located in Miamisburg. If residency is such an important issue to battle all the way to the Supreme Court something like this is kind of like GM outsourcing to Mexico.

By daniel

May 31, 2008 6:46 AM | Link to this

years ago in the 80s this was done and they kept voting on it till it was the way the city wanted it!! if you would be honest it was set up to keep hiring blacks because as everybody knows if you could live anywhere you would have whites from all neighboring cities as oakwood,kettering,vandalia and so on and there woulld be to many whites doing better on the tests and they would have to hire mostly whites!!!! im surprized no one has been honest and told the real reason!!!!!

By Chris

May 31, 2008 4:01 AM | Link to this

I hope it ends. I retired from the city of Dayton. I lived in the city of Dayton most of my life because I wanted to. I don’t think people should be forced to live there just to work there.

By Skeptic

May 31, 2008 2:03 AM | Link to this

Let’s do the math. There are about 2,250 City employees. Suppose every single one is married with two kids (which is obviously not the case). That’s a maximum of 9,000 people in a City of 160,000 residents - or about 5 percent. So at least 95 percent of City residents are there by CHOICE. Many City workers would stay if residency is abolished. Therefore, if residency is killed by the Ohio Supreme Court, fear not. Some will move, but the impact will be small, perhaps 3 percent at most!

By Riverdale Ghost

May 31, 2008 1:49 AM | Link to this

Whole topic needs comparisons.

Work for Kroger, shop at Wal-Mart.

All the time. Some of the time. Now and then. Never. Only for the specials.

If it’s only for the specials, then it’s good business practice to encourage people to shop at the competition and the employee should be in line for a bonus if not a promotion.

There, that should offer new light on the topic.

By Skeptic

May 31, 2008 1:46 AM | Link to this

Tommy, to answer your question we City residents buy our milk just like anyone else. Despite the recent news, there are still several groceries in or near the City. I’ve never had any problems being out at night. The truth is that most crime occurs between people who know each other and get into fights or drugs. Stay away from those situations, and you’ll be fine, too.

By Local person

May 31, 2008 1:23 AM | Link to this

I am a city of dayton employee, and I hope the city residence rule is overturned, because it is unconstitutional. AS for home rule, this debate was answer when the state legalized CCW, the state won. I knew that there was a residency rule when I took the job, but that didn’t mean I liked it or supported it. I currently live in dayton, but would prefer to raise my kids on a farm with horses. The city does have some good points like the dragons and schuster center. These are regional points.

By JOKER

May 31, 2008 1:07 AM | Link to this

As a former city employee and resident of Dayton now living just outside Baghdad Iraq, I feel more safe driving in Baghdad then in the city that I grew up in. If the city wants to keep there employees in Dayton then they should provide excorts for protection as the goverment does for me. The crack heads are a lot more dangerous then any insurgent is over here and to make people live in that envirment to raise a family is not right, keep up the fight, freedom and rightousnes will prevail

By D.R.McKenna

May 31, 2008 1:06 AM | Link to this

As a former city employee and resident of Dayton now living just outside Baghdad Iraq, I feel more safe driving in Baghdad then in the city that I grew up in. If the city wants to keep there employees in Dayton then they should provide excorts for protection as the goverment does for me. The crack heads are a lot more dangerous then any insurgent is over here and to make people live in that envirment to raise a family is not right, keep up the fight, freedom and rightousnes will prevail

By Chris

May 31, 2008 1:02 AM | Link to this

Actually, Jim, city of employment has priority on income taxes, so your argument is invalid

By Golden Boy

May 31, 2008 12:07 AM | Link to this

Many people work in different places than they live. Dedicated people who work hard to make their organizations successful can arrive from anywhere and leave to anywhere at the end of the work day. It is the American Way.

By Jim

May 30, 2008 11:49 PM | Link to this

Ultimately the people who will regret this ruling are city employees. If they live in Dayton the city takes 100% of their local income taxes. As they leave to live elsewhere, so too will that tax revenue, making Dayton less able to keep them on the payroll. As they leave, moreover, so will other middle class workers—and their tax dollars. This is a net loss for Dayton and its employees.

By collins

May 30, 2008 11:14 PM | Link to this

All City of Dayton workers knew of the residency requirement when they started and they used the ballot box to try and change it. When that failed, they convinced enough State legislators that this was a statewide concern and supported passage of RC 9.481…all the while providing vital services to the citizens who voted to maintain the rule. Police officers and firefighters put their lives at risk because they are professionals…it’s simply what they are wired to do. That will never change.

By tommmy

May 30, 2008 10:38 PM | Link to this

This has bothered me. Say it’s midnight and you realize that you are out of milk and the kids will be up early in the morning expecting some cereal. What do you people in Dayton do? Here in the subs I just go out to the local Kroger or Meijer and pick it up. I don’t feel unsafe in doing so, but in Dayton you wouldn’t want to be outside at night. Do all of the law abiding citizens (or should I say BOTH) keep the doors and windows of their homes locked from dusk till dawn? it must be weird…

By tkidding

May 30, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this

The only thing thats keeping the city of dayton alive is that all the cops have to live in the city limits if you let them live in another city you might as well flush dayton down the drain. I lived in Dayton for a long time so trust me I know who else would want to live there if they didnt have to.

By Old Scratch

May 30, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this

Folks, ask yourself this question. Your loved one is out on the living room floor. Which para-medic do you want to respond? The best your money can buy, or the best that will live in Dayton?

By arniez

May 30, 2008 6:45 PM | Link to this

Hey Soon-to-be, you sound like a real peach… I am guessing you arfe a city employee. Sounds like maybe you need to get a new profession in some lovely little town where all the houses have picket fences and barney and andy can keep you safe and the Fire Department can come out and get your cat out of the tree for you. Good luck!

By painfultruth

May 30, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this

Mark, the reason the city won’t clarify the rule as if it does, it will have to go by what is printed. Leaving latitude in the interpretation allows the rule to be applied subjectively, and that’s exactly what the city wants. BTW, I’m 100 percent against the residency rule, and I don’t live in the city or work for the city.

By painfultruth

May 30, 2008 6:34 PM | Link to this

Anyone find it comical that Dayton cries “regionalism” and co-operation, yet wants its employees to live within the city? Hypocrisy? Of course! This is the last gasp for Dayton to retain residents, and I hope the Ohio Supreme Court rules against Dayton on this issue. “Self rule” shouldn’t mean you can incarcerate city employees. The suburbs should annex the city of Dayton and turn it into a nice parking lot. That’s all it’s good for!

By fed up

May 30, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

80,000 occupied homes in this city. 30,000 are rentals with crap living in them. If the city workers are allowed to flee this mess they work in, the rest of us will suffer. That will free up another 10 to 12,000 homes that can’t sell and will become rentals or condemns. Over half this city will not have owner occupied homes. It will become one giant “Project” for the welfare and doper types that are already killing our property values!

By Skeptic

May 30, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

I can see both sides of the residency debate. The truly sad thing is the anger, venom, and ignorance displayed on this screen. The problems in Dayton usually have little to do with City Hall. Every day, citizens and businesses make real decisions that have a far greater impact on the City and the region as a whole. Instead of blaming City Hall, point a finger at yourself. What are YOU doing to improve the City? What is your employer doing to improve the City? Change starts with us.

By Soon-To-Be Ex Daytonian

May 30, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

“Personal vendetta to the public” !!, wow what a Goof!! Arniez, you should run for the Dayton Commission with North City Resident.

By Dan Kennedy

May 30, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this

Why should the area municipalities participate in any regional approach to issues when Dayton says they are too good (or vulnerable) to allow their workers to live in any city they please? Government should not dictate what city you may live in. Would this ordinance ever pass today?

By arniez

May 30, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Mark, that is up to you I guess. However, you seem to be doing ok with a new job which I am guessing is a pretty respectable position. I would just think you would want to keep things to yourself and not try to air your personal vendetta to the public…

By Mark

May 30, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

Arniez, thank you for your advice but this has been three years in the works. All the facts I’m referring to have already been presented to the courts several years ago. The City’s use of the law is so preverse, including asking my daughter whose bed I slept in, that at this point I just want to get the facts out to the public however I can. I know once the public reviews them they’ll be appalled by the City’s practices. I appreciate your thoughtful advice but their is nothing to compromise.

By C.O.D. Employee

May 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

Hey North City Resident ~ Thanks for your taxes which pay my salary. I’m moving out!!! SEE YA!!!

By mark

May 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Link to this

I am not fighting the residency rule, I’m fighting the way the City uses the rule. To Dayton native you make a point about drawing the line, well the big problem is the City has failed to draw it. They never communicate what constitutes violating it. The Dayton firefighters have asked the City numerous times to better define it and the City always refuses. Why do they refuse to do so, if they want the law adherred to? They keep it vague on purpose so they can employ it against whistleblowers.

By N Alexander

May 30, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

We live in a Republic. Democracy is just one step up from Fascism. We have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right to live where we want, and to travel freely around our country. No city vote can ever trump our rights under the US Constitution.

By T Q Mcabe

May 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this

The proverbial two edged sword. It would be desirable to have city employees reside in the city but every citizen, Dayton employee or not, should have the fredom to live where he chooses.

Personally if one of my job requirements was Dayton Residency I’d find a new job.

T Q McCabe

By Resident Prisoner

May 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

I am not a city employee, but live in the city in a great neighborhood (14 years). However, I have seen and experienced the decline and continue to do so. The housing market is so bad in the city, and property values continue to decline that moving is not an option at this time. I see the former beauty of city and what it could be if the city officials would just GET IT or is it GET MIDWEST -YEAH right. Dayton is always behind or just maintaining status quo. Tech town is 10yrs too late.

By arniez

May 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Hey Mark - You are only hurting your self by posting it. If you had any kind of attorney, he would tell you to shut up about it and let the case play itself out in court, not on the blog pages…

By Mark

May 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

North City Resident,

Do you want the true story about what happened to me? Please e-mail at markspaxson7527@aol.com and I’ll send you my account, I’ll also be happy to document everything I say in the account. I’m even willing to sit down with you and go over it. The city’s own evidence showed I had a residence in the City and resided there. They fired me because they found me outside the City 5 nights over a six month period. I dare you to e-mail me and get the truth, Mark Paxson.

By City Resident

May 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

If the city of Dayton was still a “GEM CITY” and thriving, I believe we would not even know about the residency rule, and it would have stayed buried in the Charter. People would be flocking to the city to live.
Dayton went from a Diamond City to Cubic Zirconian and people are frustrated and want to see positive change and better themselves AND I cannot blame them. City of Dayton is always behind the times and wants to hold on to WHAT?

By Dayton Resident

May 30, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

For those of you who keep talking about “it’s a condition of employment” to have to live in the City if you work for the City - CUT THE CRAP. Would it be acceptable to say “we will only hire you if you are white?” or “we will only hire you if you love chocolate ice cream?” What if they told you “You can’t live in the City of Dayton unless you WORK for the City of Dayton”. Do you see how ridiculous that is???? We’re talking about basic RIGHTS.

By BCRez

May 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this

Soon Dayton will be school-less and the only people who live here will be those who have no alternative but to stay and live on the dole. It will essentially become one giant housing project supported not by neighborhoods but by the poor saps who work in the City of Dayton. Then Ms. McLin will truly be the queen of her “kingdom.”

By arniez

May 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

The vote was for a charter amendment to approve the residency. It passed (and no, i did not vote FOR it…). But this is a charter issue, not a policy issue. That, in my opinion is what the State Supreme Court will be looking at. Charter v. Policy. I don’t agree with the Residency Rule, in fact, I don’t work for the city anymore because of that reason. Remember, The Citizens of Dayton Voted for the Residency Rule!!!

By Mike

May 30, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

The biggest problem is that Matt Heck “Prosecutor” is soft on crime. The things that criminals get away with in this county wouldn’t be tolerated in others. Start with the court system and everything else will take care of itself. Oh yeah, get rid of the mayor also.

By bob

May 30, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

AS you can tell I am bitter. I have watched a great city with a history of great leaders and inventors go down the drain to be just a dump for criminals. I have watched the school system which was the best, go to nothing but a place to baby sit, when they are not in school hanging out at third and main

By bob

May 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

To North city resident That’s what I thought your neighbor told you. Research before you open your mouth. You don’t even no when the residency started, it was before the 80s you sheep

By Mike In Ohio

May 30, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

It wouldn’t surprise me if the case described in this story is more about city employees ratting each other out in order to take each other’s jobs. The stupid “waste of air” employees are probably ratting out the smart ones (kinda like the office clock-watcher who’s almost always the dumbest worker), and then govt cronies like Rashad Young PRETEND not to be able to put anything into context by simply citing the city charter (“rules are rules!”).

By Mike

May 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Living in the city isn’t the problem. The problem is that the criminal element is speading like a cancer to the entire city. Cops and Fire fighters are now forced to live and work with them. These people sometimes don’t like us, and even would like to kill us so I hardly think you can compare it to some local business rule such as “no flirting at work” type rule. For you outside liberals let me stick a crack dealer or a sex offender blocks from your house and see what you think.

By CityResident

May 30, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

Firewalker, you have stated the best words today. I also chose to work and live in Dayton, however I support the right of anyone to live and send their children to the best school district for them. Not all can afford private school like North Dayton. I in fact have my house for sale to move to another IN THE CITY. But it would be nice to have the option to live on acreage, etc. Fair enforcement of the rule is the big issue until the Supreme Court decides.

By Mike In Ohio

May 30, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

This is really about schools… Dayton has some good neighborhoods, but Dayton Public Schools are AWFUL. But on the same note, for what you save by living in Dayton vs. paying a mortgage for a house in the suburbs… Why not just suck it up and pay tuition at the suburban districts or private schools? Back in the 80’s/90’s, Northmont had at least 100 kids from Harrison Twp and Trotwood who’s parents paid Northmont’s bargain basement rate tuition.

By Julie

May 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this

No North City, the city of Dayton is not a “business”, it is a government.

By Firewalker

May 30, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

I work for the city, I knew of it’s residency requirement, I accepted the job and have loved every one of my 17 years. I live here and have no intention to move if the residency issue changes. With all of that said, I still support the rights of people to live wherever they choose and to send their children to a school of their choice. The city has no problems with state laws that violate “home rule” if they are beneficial to the city but yet screams “no fair” if the rulings are not .

By North City Resident

May 30, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

You have a right to your opinion and that’s fine but anyone who applies to for a position knows that the City of Dayton has a residency rule and I am confident will for a long time. I am a firm believer that if you don’t like it, leave. I am so tired of the whining like little children whom don’t get their way. I love it here, I love my neighbors and I like that I can make one phone call to a City department and my problem is solved immediately, that’s what the City of Dayton is about.

By Soon-To-Be Ex Daytonian

May 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

North City Resident, what does drinking on the job have to do with where I spend my time when I’m not at work, or where I live ? What an idiot response. Report to work, do your job, and go home, wherever that may be. The property taxes goto the County anyhow, your City income taxes are still collected by the City, what’s the big deal. Oh I forgot, the Charter, neighborhood stabilization, the vote 20 yrs ago, blah blah… By your comments, you sound more-than-qualified to be a Dayton Commisioner!

By Julie

May 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

tlc….remember Larry Gapen who murdered his ex-wife, her boyfriend and her 15 year old daughter by bludgeoning all of them with a maul? He murdered them in Forest Ridge, where quite a few city of Dayton police and firemen live. Having firemen and policemen living in your neighborhood DOES NOT make you any safer.

By North City Resident

May 30, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Julie my point is that every business has rules, you break them you’re fired. The City of Dayton is a business and they have rules.

By tlc

May 30, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

Economics will be the great equalizer here, gas prices, and decreased housing values may force many to return to the City. The City has reasons to require residency, having more police and fire living in the neighborhoods does make them safer. As long as employees know in advance of the residency requirement they have little reason to object. I have lived in the City and outside and would live in the city again.TLC