Should city employees have to live in Boston? Readers say yes.
Boston.com readers want their government employees to be part of the communities they serve.
If you want to work for the city of Boston, then most Boston.com readers think you should have to live here too.
In the past, the residency of the Boston Police Department’s highest office has been a point of controversy, so after Mayor Michelle Wu announced the city’s next police commissioner, we asked Boston.com readers if the people who work for the city government should have to live in the city as a condition of their job.
While their reasoning varied, most readers said that residency requirements should be in place for both city employees and department heads.
“Living here and working or visiting here are two very very different things. As a 22-year resident, I’ve lived through a lot of changes in the city that outsiders would probably not know happened at all,” said Eric from the North End.
A residency requirement for city employees has already been in place since 1976, but enforcing the rule has been an issue in the past. Some have skirted the requirement by having multiple homes and living primarily outside of Boston.
This time around, however, Wu said her administration will make sure the next police commissioner, at least, lives within city limits. BPD’s next commissioner will be Michael Cox, who previously served the department for 30 years and was most recently chief of the Ann Arbor, Michigan police.
The majority of readers who agreed with this decision support an employee residency requirement because they feel it will ensure that government employees are better integrated into the communities they serve.
Readers were most concerned with department heads and higher-ups in city government working in the city.
“Elected officials, community leaders, and other high-ranking individuals should absolutely live in the communities they are representing. How else would they know firsthand the situations their constituents are in if they are not in them themselves?” Callie P. from Waltham said. “By representing the community you live in, you will be more likely to be taken seriously by your constituents and the community at large.”
The city currently requires employees to confirm their Boston residency annually, but given the high cost of living in the city and the affordable housing shortage, some Boston.com readers think these strict requirements should be a thing of the past.
“Cost of living in the City of Boston is so high that it’s economically unfair to require city employees, especially low-wage workers, to live within city limits. This is an antiquated policy that exists in very few municipalities,” Zach from Waltham told Boston.com. “Additionally, the city might be able to pull from a broader talent pool if they loosened this restriction, helping Boston function better!”
Below you’ll find a sampling of reader responses sharing why they do, or don’t, think city employees should be required to live in Boston.
Some entries may be edited for length and clarity.
Should city employees in Boston have to live in the city?
All city employees should live in Boston.
“As a long-time Boston resident, I feel if you live in the city you hold a position in, it enables you to better understand the current and potentially new issues that affect the residents of the city you work and live in.” — Kathleen H., East Boston
“City employees are paid with city taxes and the employees will be more fiscally responsible to their bosses if they are one of their bosses.” — MJC, Pittsfield
“I am a former city employee from the ’80s. Living in the city while working for the city gives one a sense of pride and connection while employed. I do believe all employees should live in the city.” — Deane H., Littleton, N.H., formerly Charlestown
“City employees should live in the city because the work they do and the decisions they make will be informed by their residency. Also, requiring such a large demographic to live within the city will force the city to make housing affordable for their employees either by enacting rent control or raising wages.” — Noreen M., Brighton
“You don’t understand a place and its people fully if you don’t live in it. Police, especially, should be required to live in the city. An alternative is to pay less to city employees who don’t live in the city. Give them the choice, but make them own it.” — Matthew F., Waltham
“If you want to have government positions then you should live where you want to serve the government.” — Alyce, South Boston
Only department heads should have to live in Boston.
“There are residency requirements in so many other aspects of politics, it should absolutely be a standard for certain, higher level public service jobs. How can you relate to the plights in a city that you don’t reside in?” — Paris J., South Attleboro
“The city makes employees making $30,000 live in the city, but the people making over $100,000 can move out? Want to work for the City of Boston, then become a LIFETIME RESIDENT.” — Lenny, Charlestown
“I believe they should live in the city. If you are the one making important decisions impacting people’s lives that live in the city, you should also be impacted by the very decisions you are taking.” — TD, Boston
“These individuals are making decisions and taking actions that affect all of us that live in the city. It only seems right that they should live in the city to help guide those decisions.” — Matt A., West Roxbury
“I live and teach elementary school in Boston. Many principals I’ve had in the past live in wealthy surrounding suburbs and send their kids to school where they live. These principals, I feel, have an easier time making policies about ‘other people’s kids’ when these decisions don’t affect their own families personally. I think if everyone who works in the leadership of the system not only had to live in the city but send their kids to city schools, they would be more invested in fixing some of the issues that our children face.” — Paul, West Roxbury
No city employees or department heads should have to live in Boston.
“There is nothing more un-American than telling someone where they have to live for grounds of employment.” — Scooter B, Dorchester
“[Residency requirements] unduly limit the pool of qualified applicants and due to the high cost of living in Boston, ends up costing taxpayers in collective bargaining and talent.” — W. Hill, Woburn
“It limits the pool of candidates to those who can afford the astronomical city housing costs on a low public-service salary.” — Dinos G., Concord
“City employees have families and spouses. Why should their family have to make their residency choices based solely on one of the family member’s job location? Absurd.” — Tim G., Melrose
“Boston has a housing crisis — more specifically an affordable housing crisis. The city does not pay enough to allow its workforce to be able to afford to live there. The residency law is antiquated and needs to go.” — Mary Ellen R.
“Let’s get the best candidates. I understand the desire to ensure that people who run these departments live here and experience the same service levels as citizens but I want the people best suited for the job. After we hire them do I want them to move to Boston? You could probably convince me it’s a good idea but I don’t see how requiring it will help recruit and retain the best candidates.” — Andy, Allston
It depends.
“Rank and file employees can live where they need to but if they are department heads and higher-ups who are making the more impactful decisions that affect residents, then they should have some skin in the game.” — Thomas, South Boston
“A department head is responsible for being a member of our community and it is hard to justify their actions and commitment if they live in another town. For most other city employees who are not making a ton of money, relocation costs and housing should be covered (at least partially) if we want to insist that they live in the city proper.” — Danny G., East Boston
“I think people care more about the city when it’s their own neighborhood than when they return to their suburbs after work. That being said, families with children should be exempted from the rule.” — Beth, Wellesley
“I think the residency requirement should be lowered to 5 years for city employees. Most employees can’t afford to live in the city. Department heads and managers are the only employees who make enough money to afford to live in the city.” — Anonymous, Charlestown
“It really all depends on salary. Boston is an expensive city, and it’s usually more affordable to live outside the city limits. I imagine a department head would make more money than just your average city employee, so it all depends on salaries and if city employees can reasonably afford to live in the city. It doesn’t seem right to expect a city employee making $50k a year to afford a home in the city, so exceptions should be made in these cases.” — Megan
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
Be civil. Be kind.
Read our full community guidelines.To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address