I am all for freedom of choice in just about everything.
I believe women should be free to make their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies. I believe we should all be free to vote without having to show identification cards and I believe that we should all be free to dance until dawn.
Because of those deeply held beliefs I find that I face trouble when trying to determine exactly how I feel about residency requirements for employment.
In the City of Milwaukee the mayor and the Common Council are bracing for yet another attempt to remove the residency requirement for some government employees.
The theory is that the requirement is primarily a Democrat-supported concept and Republicans don't like it. And since Republicans control the state legislature this might be a good time to try and get the law repealed.
This argument has been around for quite a few years and often it has been the subject of contract negotiations. For example, in a number of negotiating sessions with the school board, the teacher's union has put removal of the residency requirement on the table. So far, nobody has gotten enough support to get rid of it.
The legislation in Madison now would remove the requirement for police and firefighters but leave it in place for school district employees and other city workers. The question of whether there is enough support in the State Senate to pass it is still open.
Forget the politics of this for a moment and consider what is right. Should the City of Milwaukee be able to make residency a condition of employment for police and firefighters?
The bill was enacted back in the day when it was important for firemen and cops to be able to get to their headquarters quickly. With transportation we now have, that is no longer an issue.
What is an issue is that the cops and firefighters represent a big part of the middle class that is left in the City of Milwaukee. They are a very important strength of their communities and neighborhoods.
Everybody agrees that it's important that cops and firefighters live in the city. But should they be forced to live there? And would they flee if they could?
In answer to the first, I think it should be a condition of employment. I think the goal of having these men and women live in the community they serve is a worthy one. And nobody joins the force or department without knowing what the rules are. If you want to be a Milwaukee cop, you know you have to live in the city. And the rule doesn't apply just to some cops. It's every cop, and every firefighter.
As to whether there would be massive flight if the rule is repealed, I'm not too sure about that. I remember the dire predictions when Racine dropped its residency rule, but it had an almost negligible impact on the population of the city.
So, while I have this fervent belief in freedom, I don't think this is an issue about freedom. I think it just makes good sense.
With a history in Milwaukee stretching back decades, Dave tries to bring a unique perspective to his writing, whether it's sports, politics, theater or any other issue.
He's seen Milwaukee grow, suffer pangs of growth, strive for success and has been involved in many efforts to both shape and re-shape the city. He's a happy man, now that he's quit playing golf, and enjoys music, his children and grandchildren and the myriad of sports in this state. He loves great food and hates bullies and people who think they are smarter than everyone else.
This whole Internet thing continues to baffle him, but he's willing to play the game as long as OnMilwaukee.com keeps lending him a helping hand. He is constantly amazed that just a few dedicated people can provide so much news and information to a hungry public.
Despite some opinions to the contrary, Dave likes most stuff. But he is a skeptic who constantly wonders about the world around him. So many questions, so few answers.
