I think ALL the Mpls cops should be required to live in Mpls as a condition of employment by Mpls.
If they want to live in Edina, let them cop in Edina. Why pay to be colonized by absentee-living cops? No residence, no job. --David Shove On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, McGreevy, James A., III wrote: > Sharon Sayles Belton worked hard to pass a residency law at the > legislature a few sessions back, but was stopped by Commissioner, > then-legislator Stanek, who said "freedom" gave cops the right to live > anywhere they want. I guess that's true, it's also true that people > from the suburbs come into MPLS with guns and have very little clue > about the lives of the people they protect or arrest. Seems at the very > least, the chief of police should be required to live in the City > through some kind of contractual obligation he/she makes with the City. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dooley, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 2:34 PM > To: Discuss Minneapolis (E-mail) > Subject: [Mpls] City Pages Article on Police Chief Search > > > G.R. Anderson has an interesting article in the current edition of CITY > PAGES regarding the search for the new police chief. One eye-popping > statistic: according to Anderson, only 15% of Minneapolis police > officers live in the city of Minneapolis. I am still an advocate for the > new chief living in the city, however, with 85% of his or her officers > living in the suburbs or elsewhere, I wonder if it is worth the effort. > Here is the link: > http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1189/print11501.asp > > Bill Dooley > Kenny > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn > E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, > Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: > > INFORMATION IN THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED > ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED > ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from the > law firm of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., and as > such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended > recipient of this message, or an agent responsible for delivering > it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have > received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. > If you received this message in error, please notify the sender > immediately, delete the message, and return any hard copy print-outs. > No legal advice is being provided or implied via this communication > unless you are (1) a client of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., > and (2) an intended recipient of this message. Thank you. > REMINDERS: > 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL > PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
