Toledo’s statement on Ohio Supreme Court Residency Ruling
This in via e-mail:
City of Toledo Issues Statement Regarding Residency Ruling
“The Ohio Supreme Court today ruled that the state is legally permitted to prohibit municipal employee residency requirements that were enacted under home rule authority. The case, Lima v. State, involved appeals by the State of Ohio of lower court rulings in favor of the cities of Lima and Akron that upheld local residency requirements. Similarly, the Lucas County Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the City of Toledo on this issue. Today the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and found in favor the State.
While the City of Toledo was not a party to the case decided today, the ruling will affect the City. To date, the City has dutifully enforced the will of its citizen as reflected in the City Charter. In light of today’s ruling, the City will no longer enforce its Charter mandated residency requirement. We are disappointed with today’s ruling and believe it will adversely affect all Ohio cities’ rights of self-government. Nevertheless, the Court has spoken and the City will abide by its ruling.”
If federalism is all about state’s rights, what term do we use for “cities’ rights of self- government?”
June 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pmHome rule…
June 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pmoh,duh……
June 10th, 2009 at 6:55 pmHome rule, under the Ohio Constitution, has limits. One of the area where home rule is limited is laws providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees.
For anyone familiar with the limitations of home rule, this ruling should not have been too surprising.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:48 pmTom…
Jenny, maybe but the basis of residency requirements was for some an area where they felt home rule should apply, that a local government should be able to dictate where it’s tax dollars are spent.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:28 pmLisaRenee wrote:
Perhaps LisaRenee, but what people “feel” is very often quite different from what they law requires or allows.
It is very interesting that the very employees that arguably should live where they work-police and fire fighters-are the groups that are almost universally exempted from the residency requirement.
Why is it that the cities that are doing well, such as Sylvania, don’t have residency requirements for their employees?
June 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pmTeachers are universally exempted, police and fire at least here locally did have residency requirements, though there was a waiver process, the “feeling” is a simple one based on the fact that citizen’s tax dollars go to pay salaries of these city workers, so there is an expectation that those who are paid by the City should live in the City. Clearly though, the Ohio Supreme Court does not feel a community has the right to determine that.
We expect and require elected officials to live within an area, at least locally. What will be interesting will be the long term impact if most of a city’s employees do not live within that area as far as elections and tax levies. They will have to rely on voters to support them and they will not have a voice in election issues that will directly impact them.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:47 pmI also wonder if this means some of the employees that have been fired will be able to successfully sue to get their jobs back.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pmTeachers in Ohio are not municipal employees and school districts don’t have the authority to impose residency requirements.
I am not a Toledo resident, but I still have to pay the full payroll tax as does my husband. So, my tax dollars pay City employees and I have no expectation that they should live in the City.
However, there is a remedy. Get the legislature to change the law.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pmEven if you don’t live in Toledo, the tax dollars paid pay for the salaries of the City worker to take care of the streets, protect your workplace from fire, etc. My husband works in Monclova so he’s paying them, Maumee and Toledo because of the JEDZ.
I realize school districts can’t enforce residency requirements but it has been an issue that has come up when levies are on the ballot, that the teachers don’t support the districts in which they teach for their own children.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:25 pmThis has been an issue I’ve been very torn about. On one hand, as many know, I’ve been a staunch Civil Rights advocate.
On the other hand, the idea of teachers living in an area where they work is appealing. If their childrens’ education, their home property values are on the line – logic dictates they’d have the highest standards.
If a City administrator or employee were in the same position, then you would think they would demand the best for the area and be a good steward of funds.
It’s a tough topic.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:59 pm>> On the other hand, the idea of teachers living in an area where they work is appealing.
Yes it is, but that has a downside. Look at Detroit. I am personally friends with a few Detroit Public School teachers that live, as I do, in the suburbs. Their hearts are in the right place in that they really want to help make things better for the students.
But no way they would subject their families to living in Detroit, and who really would suffer in that case – the students.
It is a complicated issue but there a parallels in many cities in the U.S.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:30 amGet the moving vans ready. The very folks whose pay check depends on a stable tax base will run for the suburbs. Let’s check a year from now, two years, etc. Anyone want to predict how quickly city employees will move out?
I don’t blame folks for looking for a better life which certainly includes an area with effective police and fire protection, streets without potholes, trash collected efficiently, good schools…. Still, if city employees run for the suburbs, how long do you think it will be before they don’t have jobs?
I’m torn on this issue as well. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:42 amGot a feeling that Toledo may be a ghost town before long since it does seem like the only people who do have jobs are people who work for the city.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pmIsn’t that the way king bo wants it though? Everyone working for government. Boss bo.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pmWell… if there is no one left in the city there will be no reason for city employees. Just like Stephen Flagg mentioned, they’ll be moving away and eliminating their own pay check.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:39 pmSteven Flagg wrote:
If the only was to keep City employees from moving is to impose a residency requirement, then Toledo has a much bigger problem. A city does not grow and thrive by prohibiting people from moving.
I think Toledo’s biggest problem is that it refusing to confront its core problems. Toledo’s steady decline has gone on for decades even though it’s had a residency requirement.
What does it say about a city that has to force people to live within its borders?
June 12th, 2009 at 6:11 am