Chicago's city worker residency requirement

[Docere]

To what extent did this save the city of Chicago from a worse fate?

[Steely Dan]

"save the city" is probably too strong.

What seems pretty hard to argue against though is that the city worker residency requirement has kept many outer fringe bungalow belt neighborhoods like Edison Park, Norwood Park, Garfield Ridge, Clearing, Beverly, Mount Greenwood, etc. more middle class stable than they likely otherwise would've been without those tens of thousands of cops and firemen and school teachers and what not living in them in.


What other US cities have a strict across-the-board city worker residency requirement like Chicago?

I tried a quick Google search, but came up empty.

[SIGSEGV]

Doesn't Boston? Or did they get rid of it?

[Six Corners]

St. Louis did until 2020. That year they lifted the requirement for public safety employees (police and fire). Apparently sometime soon the state may lift the requirement for everyone else as well.

[Steely Dan]

I found this report from Pew that reviewed city worker residency requirements in the 30 largest US cities:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...efore-applying

According to that, the only cities in that group with an across the board residency requirement to strictly live within city limits for all city workers are NYC, Chicago, Philly, and Boston, so it looks like it's kind of a legacy big city thing.

Indy and Memphis have requirements for all city workers to live within the core county, but that's not exactly the same thing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

According to that, the only cities in that group with an across the board residency requirement to strictly live within city limits for all city workers are NYC, Chicago, Philly, and Boston, so it looks like it's kind of a legacy big city thing.

I think most NYC employees are only required to maintain residency in the city for the first two years of employment.

As we've discussed before, Detroit had a residency requirement that was nulled by a state law passed in the late 1990s.

[Crawford]

NYC definitely doesn't have a city residency requirement. There are certain roles that have a city residency requirement, but there are all kinds of exceptions. Cops, firefighters, teachers, transit workers have zero city residency requirements.

Even the mayor, at least prior to the mayoralty, wasn't a fulltime city resident, and likely still spends some evenings in NJ, where his partner lives. Back when I worked in commercial RE, I know the city commissioner I dealt with, Rafael Cestero, lived in Princeton, NJ.

The end result is that NYC doesn't really have cop neighborhoods like Chicago. There aren't really city worker neighborhoods on the city fringes, like in NW and SW sides of Chitown. There are similarish neighborhoods, like on Staten Island, but they tend to be more union guys, contractors and the like than cops and teachers. Teachers live anywhere, and cops are heavily in Rockland/Orange counties and South Shore of LI.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think most NYC employees are only required to maintain residency in the city for the first two years of employment.

I was just going by what was reported in that article from Pew.

If NYC's req. is only for 2 years, then that is fundamentally different than Chicago's, which lasts for the life of the employment.

"If you want a city paycheck, then you gotta live in the city"

Originally Posted by iheartthed

As we've discussed before, Detroit had a residency requirement that was nulled by a state law passed in the late 1990s.

Had that law stayed in effect, is it reasonable to assume that it would have at least helped to stabilize a handful of outter city neighborhoods, as in chicago's case?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Had that law stayed in effect, is it reasonable to assume that it would have at least helped to stabilize a handful of outter city neighborhoods, as in chicago's case?

I suspect it was a factor in destabilizing a lot of neighborhoods. It enabled the remainder of white flight and also enabled a lot of black flight, since middle class black Detroiters were/are disproportionately employed by the city of Detroit. The timing was also terrible, since the manufacturing collapse of the early 00s, the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and auto bankruptcies all occurred within a decade of the state law that struck down the residency requirement in Detroit.

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

What other US cities have a strict across-the-board city worker residency requirement like Chicago?

I tried a quick Google search, but came up empty.

Philadelphia does. It's pretty well-known that most cops and firefighters live in Far Northeast neighborhoods, such as Fox Chase, Bustleton, and Somerton. There are also a ton of city workers in my Northwest Philly neighborhood, mostly from the Philadelphia Water Department and Philadelphia Gas Works.

I strongly support residency requirements for city workers. As a taxpayer and resident of Philadelphia, I would much rather have employees paid through the tax dollars of Philadelphians spend most of their money in the city. I say this as a public sector employee myself.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I suspect it was a factor in destabilizing a lot of neighborhoods. It enabled the remainder of white flight and also enabled a lot of black flight, since middle class black Detroiters were/are disproportionately employed by the city of Detroit. The timing was also terrible, since the manufacturing collapse of the early 00s, the housing crisis, the financial crisis, and auto bankruptcies all occurred within a decade of the state law that struck down the residency requirement in Detroit.

So 1990 would have been the last census that both Chicago and Detroit had city worker residency requirements.

It's interesting to note the different population tracks the two cities have taken since then:

Detroit: 1,027,974 (1990) - 639,111 (2020) | -38%

Chicago: 2,783,726 (1990) - 2,746,388 (2020) | -1%


Now, the bulk of that difference is typically (and probably correctly) explained by the far greater levels of Latino and Asian immigration Chicago has experienced to offset the city's substantial white and black flight over the past 3 decades, but it seems like the residency requirement might have led to a bit less flight to begin with, relative to Detroit, that needed to be backfilled.

It might be a much less talked about piece of the puzzle.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

So 1990 would have been the last census that both Chicago and Detroit had city worker residency requirements.

It's interesting to note the different population tracks the two cities have taken since then:

Detroit: 1,027,974 (1990) - 639,111 (2020) | -38%

Chicago: 2,783,726 (1990) - 2,746,388 (2020) | -1%


Now, the bulk of that difference is typically (and probably correctly) explained by the far greater levels of Latino and Asian immigration Chicago has experienced to offset the city's substantial white and black flight over the past 3 decades, but it seems like the residency requirement might have led to a bit less flight to begin with, relative to Detroit, that needed to be backfilled.

It might be a much less talked about piece of the puzzle.

The law became effective in March of 2000, so the 2000 census was the last one. The 1990s were Detroit's best postwar decade, population wise. The 76k drop that decade was by far the smallest drop of any decade in the postwar period until that point. The overall rate of population decline had been slowing for the past several decades as well. OTOH, the 2010 census was Detroit's second worst numerical drop, and the largest percentage drop on record.

The 2010 result wasn't solely the caused by the residency rule, but it has to be considered a factor. Both Chicago and Detroit experienced pretty shocking declines that decade, and the primary driver was almost certainly the economic collapse and bankruptcy crisis.

[dave8721]

Miami-Dade County used to have a residency requirement but it was abolished in the early 2000s sometime. Even then, Police & Fire were exempted. It doesn't help that all other counties in the general area are just as expensive. You don't get much of a discount unless you want to live 5+ hours away.
Median single family:
Miami-Dade $600k (6.2% increase year over year)
Broward $575k (2.7% year over year increase)
Palm Beach $585k (decrease by 2.7% year over year)
Martin $570K (decrease 8% year over year)
Monroe $950k

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The law became effective in March of 2000, so the 2000 census was the last one.

Gotcha.

Earlier you mentioned that the law was repealed in the 90s, that's why I went back to 1990.

But even if we start in 2000 when the law took effect, we can still see quite a difference.

Since chicago's population drop since 2000 is purely a function of a drop in average household size, we can see the divergence better in terms of whether the cities gained/lost actual households.


Detroit: 336,428 (2000) - 270,446 (2020) | -65,982 (-20%)

Chicago: 1,061,928 (2000) - 1,081,143 (2020) | +19,215 (+2%)


So it seems plausible to me that Chicago keeping its residency requirement in place has had a meaningful impact on keeping households within the city over the past 20 years, relative to Detroit where the city's residency requirement was repealed by the state 2 decades ago.

[Crawford]

I support city residency requirements, but the one major drawback is the dilution of talent.

If you're hiring for your company and you were told you could only hire people with a certain city address, that would certainly impact the hiring process. It could especially be problematic for a very expensive city with small city limits (say a SF or a Boston) or a city that frankly isn't desirable to most (say a Detroit or Cleveland).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

So it seems plausible to me that Chicago keeping its residency requirement in place has had a meaningful impact on keeping households within the city over the past 20 years, relative to Detroit where the city's residency requirement was repealed by the state 2 decades ago.

Agreed. Definitely plausible. Detroit was also far more reliant on city workers as residents than Chicago by the late 90s, so the impact of striking down the policy was more dramatic.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I support city residency requirements, but the one major drawback is the dilution of talent.

If you're hiring for your company and you were told you could only hire people with a certain city address, that would certainly impact the hiring process. It could especially be problematic for a very expensive city with small city limits (say a SF or a Boston) or a city that frankly isn't desirable to most (say a Detroit or Cleveland).

How is it different than any other job requiring you to relocate as a condition of employment?

Many city jobs are social by nature, so knowing the city and culture that the role is serves is critical to job performance. I don't think it makes a bunch of sense to hire a bunch of people to police a city that they barely know.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How is it different than any other job requiring you to relocate as a condition of employment?

I've never heard of such a private sector job with such residency requirements. These exist? Why would a private employer care?

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Many city jobs are social by nature, so knowing the city and culture that the role is serves is critical to job performance. I don't think it makes a bunch of sense to hire a bunch of people to police a city that they barely know.

I don't think one's home address determines whether one would be good at a job.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I've never heard of such a private sector job with such residency requirements. These exist? Why would a private employer care?

Private employers have always had requirements that you live in a certain region. Even remote jobs require it today.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think one's home address determines whether one would be good at a job.

I don't think it's a great argument to say to your employer that you don't like the quality of the product you're creating lol. If you make Chevys and won't drive a Chevy then why should anyone else?

[mhays]

Many cities are too expensive for this. A cop or manager can easily find housing in my city, but it won't have four bedrooms and a big yard. Someone earning $50k might need a roommate. They'd never be able to hire or retain staff that way.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mhays

Many cities are too expensive for this. A cop or manager can easily find housing in my city, but it won't have four bedrooms and a big yard. Someone earning $50k might need a roommate. They'd never be able to hire or retain staff that way.

Then Seattle should pay their cops better.