Why does the City of Boston have residency requirements? (Waltham: apartments, rent)

[mdovell]

Considering how Mass keeps expanding public transit and you can live further out and all the remote work from COVID why should this still exist?

If it's about the pension it doesn't cover the school district and housing authority..so...

How can you be a EEOC and be equal opportunity if you cannot afford the rents and homes prices to comply?

Currently there's about 240 or so job openings and unemployment is 2.9% so you cannot really say you need extra jobs when it is that low
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bosto...20of%205.34%25.

If the argument is that they would spend money locally that still doesn't make sense as highways, malls, box stores and online shopping changed that.

If they eliminated it these jobs could float to other areas and that could open up additional housing. Residency also means city employees can vote for their boss, which creates political dynasties. Voter turnout is already low to start with (especially with primaries) so a non competitive primary with a non competitive race pretty much assures this. It also largely attracts those that are younger, that rent and usually are single and without kids. Once you want a house, a spouse and kids it makes it harder to justify moving somewhere. The quality of the school district becomes a factor and then you have to think about private schools etc.

Once they start building out the rail to fall river, new bedford and springfield gutting this could significantly lower the increases in housing prices in boston.

[GeePee]

Especially now that BPD is also in dire straits with new hires!

[charolastra00]

Last year, I was in the running for a position with the City of Boston that had a decent title (director level). The salary range wasn't enough to comfortably (30% of income) afford rent on a 1 bedroom in any neighborhood of Boston. It would have been doable had I had the freedom to live a little further out.

I'm happier where I landed, but I have to wonder how much talent they are losing set up the way they are.

[id77]

I don't have a strong opinion about most city jobs requiring residency. If it came up as a ballot item, I'd probably vote to do away with it. I do think there should be a requirement to live within a certain amount of time to your work site/office if you have a position that has some on-call duties, but that certainly doesn't need city boundaries so much as routing/distance ones. Someone can live 45 minutes away from downtown in Waltham or West Roxbury.

I don't think this will do much for housing costs in Boston, though.

[msRB311]

It won't do much for housing costs but the issue is many people who aren't living in the city can't even apply for these jobs regardless of how qualified they are. Seems silly that someone living in Milton who knows the city well would be blocked from any of these jobs simply because they arent a Boston resident.

I have a feeling many of these jobs are going to unqualified, not great candidates simply because they live in the city. As someone pointed out these jobs don't even pay that well.

[robr2]

The idea of residency was to instill a sense of ownership - it's your city, it's your job, city jobs for city people.

Boston has granted close to 400 residency waivers in the past couple of years simply because they couldn't hire residents for specific jobs.

BPD and BFD have in their contract that they can live outside the city after 10 years of service. BPS teachers do not have to live in the city per state law.

There is an undercurrent of getting rid of the residency requirements as the pay isn't commensurate with the cost of housing in the city. Higher end earners - cabinet members, chiefs, decision makers - would still have to be residents.

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by msRB311

It won't do much for housing costs but the issue is many people who aren't living in the city can't even apply for these jobs regardless of how qualified they are. Seems silly that someone living in Milton who knows the city well would be blocked from any of these jobs simply because they arent a Boston resident.

I have a feeling many of these jobs are going to unqualified, not great candidates simply because they live in the city. As someone pointed out these jobs don't even pay that well.

They can apply, but unless they get a waiver (which have become easier to get but still not a guarantee) they need to relocate within 6 months.

[msRB311]

At one time to become a cop or firefighter you had to have been living in the city for 3 years before ANYthing could happen. You had to have 3 years of established residency.

[redplum33]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Last year, I was in the running for a position with the City of Boston that had a decent title (director level). The salary range wasn't enough to comfortably (30% of income) afford rent on a 1 bedroom in any neighborhood of Boston. It would have been doable had I had the freedom to live a little further out.

I'm happier where I landed, but I have to wonder how much talent they are losing set up the way they are.

The salary was less than 80k? There are 1 bed apartments in Boston for 2k.

[bostongymjunkie]

It should go away. It definitely impedes the city's ability to recruit the best people. On the other hand, it gives city pols the opportunity to use jobs as leverage in pursuit of other interests and agendas.