Not true. The courts have sustained ordinances requiring residency for public employees - as long as it is not applied retroactively and is made a condition of future employment. What killed it was political pressure from union, politicians, etc.
Plenty of upsides and downsides of residency mandates. But for public safety officers (police and fire) residency should be mandatory. For other city and county employees, it becomes much more problematic. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:01:19 -0400 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Mpls] Residency and addressing > > As for the residency requirement for Minneapolis city employees, the courts > have ruled that such requirements for employment are unconstitutional; thus > Minneapolis dropped the requirement. > > And for David, you might consider using the USPS rules for addressing mail; > they aren't stylish, but they are consistent. > > --M. G. Stinnett > Jordan Neighborhood, where street names make no sense whatsoever > 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
