Legislature, check your residency work

One of the more ill-advised things the Legislature and Gov. John Engler did back in the 1990s was to impose their "wisdom" on Michigan communities that made residency requirements for certain public servants. The Legislature decided that for the city of Detroit to require police officers to live in Detroit was unacceptable, for example.

They all but barred the practice via Public Act 212 of 1999.

The libertarian in me says this is a matter of freedom. Employers shouldn't be able to tell employees where to live.

Of course, true freedom means the freedom not to choose a job or career. No one forces a person to become a police officer or firefighter or clerk in a city's treasury department.

And local governments have a strong vested interest in establishing residency rules, for good reason.

Think like a taxpayer for a moment. You pay taxes to support your local government, including the salaries and benefits of public employees. Those public employees, however, may not contribute to the same degree; in some cases, they may not provide any local property or income tax to support the community that supports their family. Odd.

Cities also have a vested interest in having houses occupied and maintained. A residency program creates a better market for said housing. Neighborhoods are stabilized. Urban cores are strengthened and an entire region can benefit. (And, for another day, we'll get into how suburbs don't do too well when the nearby urban core falters.)

Sure, you can have incentive programs to attract public servants to live inside a jurisdiction. And private employers have been known to offer incentives as well. But incentives usually require dollars, something in short supply in local governments these days.

Is there an energetic lawmaker at the Capitol these days who would go to the trouble to hold some hearings to actually determine the value of Michigan's 1999 diktat against residency requirements? The state has had 10 years to assess the effects of this state law. If it's great, why not confirm the fact?

And if it's not, maybe Michigan citizens can have a discussion about letting local communities decide for themselves.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.