Most readers of this blog are probably aware that Governor Scott Walker has included a ban on local residency requirements as part of his next biennial budget for 2013-2015. And of course this has resulted in any number of complaints from both the left and the right.
Leading the pack has been Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who says allowing city employees to move outside the city would result in a drop in property values and lost property tax revenues for the city. Mayors of any number of smaller towns have complained that allowing police and fire personnel to move would hurt response times in emergencies and create safety issues for their citizens. The League of Wisconsin Municipalities board of directors, which represents 600 Wisconsin municipalities voted unanimously to oppose the legislation.
Curt Witynski, the group’s assistant director, said the board decided that a uniform prohibition “made no sense.”
The board’s action is not a complete surprise. Historically, the group has resisted legislative efforts which may interfere with the right of local governments to enact their own policies, Witynski said.
The league is by far the most prominent organization in the state to oppose Walker’s idea.
Witynski said board members gave various reasons for opposing the end of residency. Some said they should have the right to require managers to live in the municipality they serve, while others were concerned that public safety could be affected if police officers or firefighters lived too far away from their workplace.
And of course there is concern about the state over reaching and interfering with local control as exemplified by an op ed piece by Representative Jocasta Zamarippa.
The biggest concern, even for some Republican lawmakers, is why is residency in the budget bill? Even if it has budget ramifications for local municipalities, it has no bearing on the state budget. Certainly it is sufficiently controversial that it merits a separate bill and a serious discussion in the Capitol and around the state. Apparently the governor didn’t quite pick up on potential issues with non-budget items in the budget after the 2011 commotion
Proposals to end residency requirements have previously failed in the state Legislature as free-standing bills, Barrett said, and there is no impact on the state’s finances.
“This is a pure policy item,” Barrett said. “This provision has nothing to do with the state budget. For that reason alone it should be taken out of the budget and debated on its own merits.”
I think residency requirements are the perfect candidates for the legislature’s new found love of local referendums (i.e. Assembly Bill 85 for instance)…and instead of having state government dictate from Madison, let local municipalities put residency requirements to a vote via referendum!
Completely agree that it’s got no business in the state budget. It should be up to the local municipality to decide what’s right for them – the circumstances vary such that there’s no way a one size fits all rule makes any sense. Not completely in agreement that it would need to be a referendum item though. Whether it’s via a referendum, the local legislative process, or determined by the municipality’s hiring process/committee – let them come up with what works for them in their own way.