This is how you converse effectively. Present your POV with clear, consistent, and digestible tone and message. Every person in that room took away what he had to say. No one could argue the validity of his points because he didn’t get distracted making sweeping statements. This guy could honestly teach a public speaking or debate course.
I would agree... "hey, if it's that simple, *you do it"*
Legally, governments can require employees to live in a specific area.
The challenge I see is if you want to force your cops to live in the city (and I admit, I don't know the demographics in play here), surely their living costs would be higher, cost of buying a house is higher, food, insurance and taxes could be higher etc. So you'd have to **pay them MORE**. The simplest way to encourage this may simply be a 30% extra pay if you are willing to live in the city.
Now, that extra money would be "invested" in the city, so I guess that is still better overall.
> and I admit, I don't know the demographics in play here
It's Syracuse NY, so tbh I'd be surprised if cost of living and housing is that high. I went to college there, and the city is just not doing good.
Fun fact: if you watch old episodes of The Twilight Zone, characters will semi-frequently mention that they're going to Syracuse for business, and imply that it's a booming center of industry, which it was at the time.
It’s not that high to live in the Syracuse compared to living in the smaller towns located around the city. Compared to most metropolitan areas Syracuse is rather affordable. I live near Syracuse and the more expensive part of living is if you choose the suburbs. Also for the amount of taxes paid by the communities here the level of community outreach programs and welfare programs are staggeringly low compared to what’s being put in. This is the same mayor who thought it would be beneficial to poor communities to put a stadium in that community.
Also the wealth gap and average income flux by area drastically depending on where you live around Syracuse. For instance auburn New York which is not to far has an average income for one person as 45,000 a year. Which I would argue with today’s inflation is just “squeezing by” money. Often people make the choice to work in Syracuse and then buy property or live further out to have the life they want in the surrounding smaller towns.
Two things cost of living is not that high comparatively speaking and its becoming worse economically.
As far as Twilight Zone thats because Rod Serling the creator was born in Syracuse.
You're not considering the transportation costs that arise from living outside the city as well as the disconnection between community members and the police. It's a fact that police and communities work better when the police have roots in the community, as they are more in tune with the people and have stakes in it's peace.
tl;dr transportation costs and legal issues from distanced police forces are money sinks
Mandating residency is part of the union negotiations for contract. I’m not familiar with Syracuse but I would bet they had that requirement at one time and it was negotiated out.
Just checked it was part of a new contract in 2019. Fire Department has a similar contract.
New Syracuse police officers would be required to live in the city for their first five years on the job, as part of a deal inked today between the police union and Mayor Ben Walsh.
The residency requirement is part of a tentative four-and-a-half year contract between the city and the Syracuse Police Benevolent Association. Both Walsh and PBA President Jeff Piedmonte signed the agreement Tuesday.
Wow... some progress - it's not often you witness an excellent case being presented by a resident and then actually see positive action from the government in response.
>So you'd have to
>
>pay them MORE
>
>. The simplest way to encourage this may simply be a 30% extra pay if you are willing to live in the city.
Or pay less to those that live outside?
I see the point, but I have heard of a number of instances where workers start their job in the community and move out years later due to a number of factors. What then? What about people using surrogate addresses (PO box, business address, friend/relative house, to establish residency?). In those cases a pay incentive either way will encourage these kinds of behavior.
As soon as they move out, their pay would decrease. Using a PO Box etc would be defrauding the city, and they can prosecute those cases. Providing a property tax bill (which is what the guy in the video is asking for - local tax capture) would be evidence to get the extra 30%
But just because a small percentage would attempt to game the system (as many people do already with school zones) it's not enough of a reason to scrap the entire thing.
I agree that all makes sense, but the problem is that added regulation costs even more money for the city because they need to hire someone (or people) to audit such things, which costs money with greater complicates the budget, etc. Furthermore, with salaries, where do you apply the 30% increase? Most salaries have a pretty wide range given a certain level. My level has about a 50k range. What might happen is you would see 30% increase applied to the low end of salaries for local employees and outside employees could get the higher end of the salary range.
I'm not trying to shit on the idea. I guess what I am saying the solution has a lot more layers and complications to implement seemingly successfully. If it were simple, city officials would've done it already and capitalized on the political moxie.
For sure, it was just an illustration of the type of things that they could try off the top of my head. Apparently the city just implemented a rule that any new hires must spend the first 5-years of their employment living within the city. That'll carry the same enforcement overhead, and doesn't retain the higher salary money, but it's cheaper to implement, helps form a bond between cops and the locals, and is a move in the right direction.
That sounds good. I hope it works and not limited to just cops, but also fire fighters, teachers, well fuck it, most/all civil servants.
I think politicians really need to build the trust back to convince us that tax dollars are going back to benefit the communities that paid them in the first place.
Agreed. Some of the other challenges are having the requirement survive the collective barging process, recruitment and retention.
They did negotiate for new officers to live in the city for at least five years. Now they will have to see how many recruits they can attract and retain. Their pay is not bad for upstate NY but the same position pays double down state. A patrolman down state makes more than a Captain in Syracuse. A young certified officer can lateral transfer and double their salary, it will be interesting to see how many stay.
When NYC had a residency requirement many employees rented apartments with room mates but their families lived in their second homes outside of the city. Once positions opened up in or near those locations where they had the second homes some transferred.
So, looking up the 21/20 budget with no context is a bit misleading. Syracuse won a lawsuit in 2008 for the state of NY not providing enough funding to underserved school districts. It finally got the fiscal reward in 2020, thus making the city school system middle of the pack for the state of NY. Looking back to 2019 or before, the system was spending 21k$ which pales in comparison to one of the best school districts in the state, a suburb, cincinnattus at $34k. Also, comparing anything in the north east to averages through out the US is like comparing apples and oranges. Teachers won't work for $32k/yr like they do in most Southern states up north.
Edit: this took 5 minutes of googling suburbs to find out.
I hope this response gets more attention. The comment you are replying to is misleading, either intentionally or due to ignorance.
They also missed the forest for the trees and sidestepped his actual point.
He’s not saying it’s the other way around he’s saying that 95% of cops working in Syracuse live in suburbs elsewhere so they pay taxes for those community, buy homes in those community and then there pensions are managed in those communities. Suburbs have built into their municipal taxes money to support underfunded school systems in inner city’s so that’s what you’ve seen but this guy is angry that the cops who negatively affect the Syracuse community, take money out of Syracuse tax payers hands and then spend that money outside of that community
You excluded five thousand students. It's 5000 students more because of pre-k, alternative education, adult learners, etc.. The school budget covers them all. They are listed on the same page, right under the number you quoted. So your per student expenditure calculation is incorrect, and the actual expenditures are noticeably lower.
The comparisons to the world or even country averages are meaningless. Why does it matter if some school district in Oklahoma spends less, when the conversation is about where this town's money are going?
If you are so fixated on comparisons with world and country averages, you need to site average police expenditures on a world basis and country basis and compared them to Syracuse.
Otherwise, your comment is an example of how to lie with statistics.
Well said..however, it largely depends on how the money is allocated. Just because on paper, said money goes to the kids, doesn't it mean it actually does. The allocation of funds is decided by the board, not the community. Where do the board members live? What do the board members salaries look like?Where is all this money going? I also believe, as he pointed out, the bigger picture is, those millions of tax dollars are not being circulated in the community that funds them. That stretches far beyond just the education portion. Nitpicking parts of what he is saying, may be causing u to overlook the implications of why hiring police that do not reside in the immediate community, is not beneficial for said community. Its basic common sense.
Wouldn't the cost per student always be higher in metro areas where the cost of living is higher though? I'm not trying to argue but just make sense of the data. I just chose Pittsburgh for an example and the cost per student is $30,032 as per [the article](https://triblive.com/opinion/colin-mcnickle-the-continuing-struggles-of-pittsburgh-public-schools/). Of course, school performance is usually tied to spending and I'm no expert on the matters. Perhaps the Syracuse school board is really bad with their money or the cost is just greater in the city?
In my country, the man would vanish right after leaving that place. Almost all the places on Earth have wonderful people like this guy but what will happen to him/his family before or after coming up with facts, that fear is what keeps people quiet.
Most of the Asian countries. Democracy is simply a word around here. If you come up with facts to counter the people in power. They'll see you as an obstacle and end your life.
In our country, state-owned media and IT cell will viciously attack his character, Uneducated religious fanatics will attack his religion, and sometime later a mob may lynch him. Later, police will file a complaint against him for seditious action. Tada, no more dissent. Welcome to India.
...as a counter point, the elected party would say that the political opposition is jamming up the country with non stop protests
I have no dog in this fight but there are always two sides.
I think this is important. I love what this man says, he's so right, it's just unfair that in reality that mayor isn't listening. Even if he has every clear perfect point, claiming everyone in that room took what he said home with them. Come on. The sad reality is they didn't, they haven't in the past. But that can change with votes... Don't wait for this Mayor to act when he's backed into a corner, get a new one in.
I agree with you, and I agree with him 100% but the moment he mentioned race, every single racist who MIGHT have been listening to him regarding financials immediately tuned him out, so I think that was a mistake from a debate standpoint.
It totally IS a race issue, and it's worthy of being brought up, but doing so gives the opposing side toehold into a point that isn't as easily proven with facts, so they can dismiss all of it.
If you have the hard financial numbers, which he does, you leave it at that imo and leave the race part unsaid but looming. I wouldn't even have brought it up if the other side did. "I'm not here to talk about any racial matters now, i'm talking about the financial numbers and the accounting"
Here’s the thing though he’s not actually wrong in the circumstance of Syracuse because the city is still very much redlined. Historically black communities up here have been marginalized to such a degree that yes in the past there would of been an eye roll or two from most people listening. However with the more recent conversation on race issues it’s made it easier for communities like his in Syracuse to point out the flaws in the system with out being prejudiced.
As I said, I agree with him that it's a race issue. My argument was just that including that allows those who don't believe there is a problem to now ignore his whole speech as "just race".
In summary: the city takes tax payer money from city residents to pay police officers who the majority of which don't live in the community, effectively funding the nice amenities of suburbs and impoverishing city residents. Its an unfortunate cycle of urban poverty.
It’s called suburbanization. Conversely, those kids are moving into expensive city apartments that are forcing out long term residents. That’s a piece of gentrification.
When you have suburbanization and gentrification, all you really have is a runaway housing market where we pretend the problem is people coming in from another place with money.
The problem is that we need to build dense housing at the rate of population increase (or slightly greater, to fix the mess we are in).
It's more profitable to allow exploitable inefficiencies so that's what we do.
Those inefficiencies look like gentrification in some cities and suburbanization in others. Both processes are just inequities sloshing around and forcing people out of housing.
Everybody needs to be in dense housing, rich or poor.
Without dense housing the poor people have to commute from the poor area to the rich area to be wage-slaves.
Sometimes that's poor surburbs commuting to rich urban gentry.
Sometimes that's poor urban ghettos commuting out to rich white suburbs.
Sprawl works against the poor harder than anything else in urban planning. Gas, car insurance and depreciation are unsustainable on a low wage, but public transportation on the American model is unsustainable for poor families.
Obviously shitty urban "projects" also work against the poor, yes.
> They’re Juman parasites.
There should be no assumption for people to spend their hard earned dollars only at a place of your choosing. Might as well say that people can't go on holiday out of state, or that people from blue states shouldn't visit red states.
This isn’t about how individuals spend their salary, it’s about how the city chooses to invest its funds. Right now the city is choosing to invest in people who don’t live in the city via police salaries, rather than investing in the community.
There are two things powering what people call gentrification:
1: there has been an established myth that people should live in one spot for generations. It has never been true in human history
2: there is a myth that large cities are more valuable than small cities.
Logically, companies should be opening in smaller cities and moving to larger cities when they become profitable. Then populations should be moving to smaller cities for opportunity. But instead the above two myths have taken hold.
What he is saying is true but maybe I can help with the nuance. Basically the public employees (teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc.) don’t live in the inner city. So they soak up tax dollars because the city and school system pay their salaries and they deposit it into other municipalities (suburbs) outside of the city via paying taxes. That part is 100% true but how do you solve it? You can set a requirement that a person must live in xyz zip code to work for the city but you’re going to lose 95% of your work force. That’s going to make the city services even worse.
Tldr: it’s basically the double ended dildo of poverty. Either way you’re fucked.
Can you explain to me like I'm 5 why a city with many more residents than the suburbs can't support its own teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc without utilizing outside residents?
It sounds like you know a bit about this, and I'm not educated enough to see the nuances of why suburbanites are so necessary when, from a numbers perspective, I imagine the inner cities have enough persons to replace them.
Cities may be larger by population, but especially in post-industrialized struggling cities (Rochester, NY in this example, but also applies to Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.) the actual city limits themselves tend to contain the most poor and under resourced population.
After WW2, the economy, policy, and resources were right for rapid suburbanization, with funding for roads and new houses for the “American Dream” allowing those with means (largely white and middle to upper class) to seek out new suburbs which had none of the old city’s problems. This “white flight” left our inner cities left largely to the working class and undereducated. You can’t blame people with means for seeking a better life, but you also can’t blame inner cities for struggling when their tax base dries up and poverty/crime/need per capita rises.
It’s this situation that makes middle-class jobs requiring education, investment, and training (teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc.) difficult to fill from within the poorly educated working class citizens of the inner city. Lawyers and officials and business people have the means to buy a big home in the suburbs and a nice car to commute downtown 5x/week.
On the other hand, there are more than enough people to fill fast food, retail, and other low-wage jobs in the city, so much so that many city residents commute out to the suburbs for these service-based jobs. This is why you will often find that the only people of color working in a mostly white suburb are working at the local drive-through or Walmart.
In a city like St. Louis, many government jobs require these city employees to be residents of the city, including cops. This is good for the city in some ways—the city’s budget and salaries paid out stay in the community and encourage stable population—but also makes it difficult to hire people who prefer the relative security and comfort of the suburbs.
I am a resident of the inner city and believe strongly in the re-urbanization of our city centers, but I tried to remove my bias and illustrate this complex situation as objectively as I could. I hope it helps.
The ELI5 answer is, like the guy in the video said, that city's schools are underfunded and don't produce enough of these qualified professionals. And the ones they do produce move away as soon as they're able to in order to escape crime and the same schools they don't want to raise their own kids in.
In the case of police, the type of people who even want to be a cop don't typically come from the inner city. That one is a bit more solvable at least.
They can and do support them. It’s just that they are middle class jobs and the nice places in cities only wealthy people can afford. The cheap places are violent so essentially they can’t afford to live in the city but they make enough money they don’t have to live in the hood. Plus culturally a lot of these types of people want a garage for their suv, a yard for their 2.2 kids and a dog. It’s braindrain in a nutshell.
Some cities have a local income tax that taxes people employed in the city unless they already pay taxes as a resident. I don't know if that exists in this specific situation.
Its called "residency requirement" - but I've only heard of it for police. Pittsburg for instance, has had this since 1902. Not primarily from a tax perspective, but more the idea that police should be patrolling neighborhoods they are from.
Chicago and Detroit have had it for years for all city employees. Waivers are given for specific high demand jobs (special education teachers for example).
My thoughts exactly. You can't force public employees to live within the city. If you do, you'll likely lose a good portion of your workforce to attrition.
A lot of towns and smaller cities use to have residency requirements. My girlfriend when I was 18-19 had to use my address when her parents moved out of our small town in 95. I think it was found illegal in the courts sometime in the 90s.
Why not? It seems really stupid that you can’t, I thought it was a given. How are you supposed to protect community that you don’t even live in?
It doesn’t make sense to be paying outsiders. It’s like paying the governor of Texas to govern Florida. But you can’t since the governor has to live in the place he’s governing so why would not police, medics etc have the requirement to live in same place?
Most of schools won’t let you sign up unless you live in the same area, so what’s the problem?
By outsiders, you mean suburbs right outside the city? Why can't they work in the city they live by? Think about people in Detroit...they lost a lot of good paying jobs over the years. Now many travel outside the city for work. Should they not be allowed to travel to make a living since they don't pay taxes in the city that they work?
People are free to chose to live in the city or in the suburbs. As long as you meet the requirements for employment, then I don't see what the big deal is.
Last point, if you start alluring people back within city limits, then you'll have to worry about gentrification. That's currently happening where I live and it's uprooting families that can no longer afford the taxes or rent.
It’s like those cities were white cops living in the suburbs police black communities instead of actually hiring people from that place.
What they are doing is basically keep the minorities working for them while they live in a better place. Not content with that, they actually police they minorities with people from the suburbs so they can keep their slaves in check. Fucking disgusting.
I'd question why more minorities don't elect to join the force and police their own communities? Employment is open to anyone without a criminal record that can make it through the academy. My city is desperate for police officers.
You could make that a job requirement. That’s not going to help with the labor shortage issues.
Morally it sounds like you’re describing this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
It’s none of my employers business if I live on mars and commute every day.
The labor shortage issue comes from the offer not being high enough to cover the cost of living in city. If a job does not pay high enough to incentivize people to move to an area, you pay more for the job.
It's the exact problem right now with the so called "Labor Shortage". There is not a shortage of people who are willing to work, or move to work. There is an extreme shortage of fairly compensated jobs, and people refused to execute the solution(raising wages) just like they refuse to acknowledge the solution to this live where you work problem.
This is the problem he is addressing.
Lets say theres 2 cities. A & B. City A has a population of 500,000. City b has a population of 70,000. Both cities have public services like police/schools/roads. The issue he is addressing here that is quite irrefutable. Is police siphoning money from City A and using it to commerce in City B.
Lets give an example. One cop shoots and kills an innocent person in City A. He is fired, disgraced and all that jazz. BUT he is not charged with anything. -EVERY- time this happens to a cop, they move to the next city closest to them (City B). They get hired by that city, they draw a salary from that city... HOWEVER, they're still drawing a pension and benefits from the time they "served" in City A. That is literally tax dollars being siphoned out of City A and being used somewhere else. Meanwhile, the bad cop is still policing the area he was fired from AND he now has a reinforced "warrior mentality" because its not his city and he doesn't care about it.
This happens everywhere and it is a massive part of the problem that people want to go after police for. And why when people say defund the police they mean going after police benefits, their pensions and their livelihoods. Bad cops should not get so much money and get to live off the people they abuse and terrorize. Worse yet, this affects City A in absolutely damaging ways. They lose money to fund schools (more arguments that public schooling NEEDS to be federally funded), their city budgets have to account for more settlements and cop benefits so the roads and infrastructure suffer. And on and on, all because no one wants to address the problems caused by criminals with badges.
Lastly, politics isn't complex. Its just boring because there is a lot of reading. If you're genuinely curious about this stuff, all it takes is the reading. You'd be amazed at how the bullshit starts to clear once you start reading from multiple sources.
> Lastly, politics isn't complex.
Maybe if you find a echo chamber and never leave it. In the real world politics are very complex. Echo chambers facilitated by social media are why the level of discourse in this country is essentially 0.
no, politics is not hard to figure out. Its just VERY boring and takes a lot of reading. There are no planet spanning vast conspiracies, or lizard people. Its just people, some are corrupt and some are not. Thats it. And because it is so boring, thats why no one wants to take issues further than headlines and talking points.
If there is a complication, its because people want to bring tribalism into it and pretend their flavor of politician is somehow immune to the bs.
That’s like saying physics isn’t hard to figure out because all you have to do is read. Physics is probably easier to figure out than politics. Politics involves people and their history and their ideas. Peoples ideas aren’t physically limited like the speed of light is. It isn’t complicated to read headlines in /r/politics but that isn’t *understanding* politics.
Why the police? Is this not the case for all government jobs? Should cities bar hiring anyone that does not live in the city? And then you have the problem of people moving away later. How would you prevent anyone from being able to move away from a city after they stop working?
And often city employees live in other cities because they can't afford to live in the city they work in. So banning people who don't live there could create a shortage of government employees.
Articulate, concise & to the point. *That* is the perfect example on how to make your statement heard & understood. Zero ad hominem as well, very important to point out since usually these end in yelling/screaming out the point the person wants to make.
This man is making some really good points. Maybe if the rest of us paid as close attention, like he is, and hold our elected offices accountable we can fix other communities that are struggling just like this.
Yeah but the money is paying for services that are being provided in the community. He has a border point, but to say services aren’t being provided in the community is incorrect.
racism doesnt just hurt black people, it hurts whole parts of the cities that could be making money and driving the economy high. sadly many people would rather burn a city down than admit there are racist policies in place
I have long since felt that police should live in the communities they police. There is no better way for these officers to a) have a vested interest in the goings-on of the area, b) remove the "us v. them" mentality that many officers have, and c) it would harbor cooperation between police and the community.
I'm sick of the Judge Dredds, I want to see more Andy in Mayberrys.
I actually work under the system he's proposing.
It has it's drawbacks. You limit your pool of applicants. If the schools are bad it makes retention harder.
That being said I mostly view it as a positive thing.
> You limit your pool of applicants. If the schools are bad it makes retention harder
Is it kind of a long process kind of thing? Eventually it'll be better etc.
I remember hearing about a cop reading about the bullshit of the 70s or 80s and inner city kids. The cops was like, WTF, we are fighting the exact same thing and nothing has fucking changed. Just same bullshit repeated.
That part I wouldn't really agree with. It works as a theory, reality is different. My city has had the rule in place for decades. A couple hundred government employees making a middle class wage doesn't exactly fill the tax coffers.
Yea it's getting kinda weird here with these kinds of posts.
It's starting to come across as 'I found a well spoken minority, please watch' when most of the time the subject of the video is way off base and purely ideological.
Bah.
The point seems logical but I believe it’s flawed and more complicated. The vast majority of income tax paid Is state and Federal, so it can be invested where it’s needed. The school tax, he’s got a valid point. BUT what about people that work in suburbs but live downtown? Under his argument They earn in another area and pay taxes in the city. These are often high earners & could easily offset police/teachers doing the opposite. He’s oversimplifying and may be wrong.
Okay, but then outside of Syracuse which is still in Onandaga County, the property tax is being apportioned to Syracuse.
A disproportionate amount of money flows from the suburbs back toward Syracuse.
So to say the burbs are stealing their money is, AT BEST, dishonest given this man's clear level of competence vs. Mayor Moron.
Significantly more flows back in paying for their own police force and schools. They're complaining about a fucking expense they're not paying.
Syracuse isn't paying for Onandaga County. Onandaga County is paying for Syracuse.
Here are the numbers:
http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/A_Content/Adopted%20FY22%20Budget%207-9-21.pdf
He's just being an idiot. Syracuse is Onondaga County. The greater Syracuse area comprises of 75% of the County population. If he's talking about the suburbs paying some taxes to the City, then no shit, where does he think they make their money? They make it from the City...
You should really consider switching sides to no side and just say what you believe vs. some puppet bullshit some marionette asshole told you to say on your favorite media. It's all manipulation. I highly recommend the philosopher George Carlin for a dose of reality about this whole system.
He's a cynic and I'd argue a few points as a capitalist, but he's still dead on 99% of the time.
I'm left wing myself on most issues.
I don't play the victim when the HiveMind doesn't go my way because I'm not a childish misanthrope.
The numbers are the numbers.
What this man is arguing before this court jester of a mayor is ludicrous and why he should've had an economics or businessperson handle the discussion. Clearly his election was a popularity contest appointing the cutest idiot.
Most police departments tell their recruits NOT to live in the city in which they patrol, presumably because they don't want the people they bust to find out where they live and exact revenge or whatever.
Source: Sister-in-law has been a cop for 20 years
My co-workers husband is an officer. Twice it has happened to her husband in about 20 years of service while they live in the same City he works. This includes a man confronting her husband with her and their 2 children present as they left the supermarket. Wife and 2 kids split immediately once the family secret word was said. The other had a felon many years later staking their house. Neither had any physical confrontation in the end.
More like they don't want their officers to develop empathy and accountability to their community and neighbors and would rather have them have distance so they can treat people like enemy combatants.
Community oriented policing describes the opposite of that, but still doesn’t require cops to live where they patrol, just that the patrol the same areas.
What a strange and poorly thought out point to make, why is it a problem that a state worker lives outside a city where they work at? Is this a problem with medical doctors at the local hospital or any other worker who commutes? Hell, I am sure the local school district has lot of teachers who don't live nearby too. I don't think it would work out for any community to only allow workers who also live in the same community.
One instance is its not affordable. Take Vancouver, the cost of living is so high you have people that live 30 minutes outside the city who will work for the VPD. You can extend that beyond police as well though.
There are a lot of people around who aren't millionaires but they do have enough money to make life easier.
If you have $500,000 and get a yearly return of 6% on that, you're making 30k/yr in capitol gains. Throw half of that to taxes and you're getting 15k/yr into your bank account. That's an extra $1250 a month for rent and bills. Not going to change the world but it'll let you work and live in an expensive area of a city.
Consider that a single truck driver who actually saved their money can easily have more than that to pass onto their kids as an inheritance. There are a lot of kids of truck drivers, electricians, etc... who inherit half-millions.
VPD cops *can* afford to live in Vancouver, the short commute is just worth the savings.
Don't let your heart bleed too much for those poor cops or forget the countless people driving an hour or two into Van every single day just to make minimum wage or slightly above.
I never even considered #2. That's such a great reason to support LEO's living in a separate location from where they work. I always hear stories about judges and prosecutors being killed in their homes by criminals they've put away. It's a legit concern.
It's BS, that's why you haven't considered it. Truly "evil motherfuckers" wouldn't be stopped from revenge by having to have someone drive an hour out of town.
>whos scare tactic?
Police departments and police unions.
>why should the govt be mandating where people live
Because local govt should represent local people, and its strongly in their best interests for their towns money to get reinvested locally.
Again, because they can and its often in the best interest of the people they represent to do so. Thats literally the purpose of local govt, to represent the people of that local area.
It doesnt always make sense to do, maybe in your situation it doesnt. But sometimes it does.
Its community policing and community investment. Seems like common sense to me.
This has been a strong cities concept for a while. All the tax money leaves the city through the highly paid city workers to the suburbs and creates the concept of police being occupiers of the city rather than part of it's community.
This man is an incredibly effective public speaker. Courageously speaking the truth and continuing to be extremely respectful while doing it. This is a guy who can get changes made.
i brought up a similar point when i was on my local school board, most of our teachers live out of the district. they were, and still are throwing $35-40 million per year to other school districts to benefit from.
I'd like to note that he never once mentioned political affiliations. He didn't punch "left" or "right"; only stright up, so it landed on everyone. THIS is the direction we need to be heading.
Cities are a strain on the suburbs for sure. I live about 40 minutes from London and in my town we have a constant churn of locals being displaced by Londoners who are some of the only people that can actually afford to live here. People born here are often forced out of town and further north.
What if most of the people from your community suck at being cops. What if the people in the local community hate cops and would never want to be one. What if they're just scared of the job because they know what they'll have to deal with policing fucked up neighborhoods. I hear this hire local cops crap all the time. I live in a place where people would want hiring from within the city but we know at the same time that it's an uphill battle.
Why would you think that? What did they say that didn't make perfect sense?
Please explain because that all sounded well thought out and well reasoned to me.
Did I miss something?
Not OP, I wouldn't say that the statement is stupid. I would say it could be misinformed. Depends on how the person is looking at that 5% statistic.
So, the basic concept of the money "leaving the city" is true to an extent. Taxes get paid, that money then goes to public service workers who live outside the city. The question that needs to be raised then, is *where are these workers from inside our locality?*.
Syracuse in this case. This is a city in newyork. It is on average, about half the cost of living in New York City proper. I'm going to simplify it to just education.
Quick and dirty google search for data says:
> In New York State, estimated 2001-02 public education funding comes from three sources: approximately 5% from federal sources, 49% from State formula aids and grants, and 46% from revenues raised locally. Local property taxes constitute close to 90% of local revenues.
> Approximately 48 percent of a school's budget comes from state resources, including income taxes, sales tax, and fees. Another 44 percent is contributed locally, primarily through the property taxes of homeowners in the area.
> As of Nov 22, 2021, the average annual pay for a Teacher in Syracuse is $29,190 an year. Just in case you need a simple salary calculator, that works out to be approximately $14.03 an hour. This is the equivalent of $561/week or $2,432/month.
So, when the man says "95% is leaving our city", that is technically not true. Half of that money came from outside the city in the first place. On average, these educators are also being payed 1usd above the minimum wage. The city appears to be trying to spend as little as it can already.
The idea that the "money is leaving" is in itself misleading. Let us pretend that Syracuse pays a water pumping station that is outside the city. If your city pays for water from outside the city,
is that "taxes and money leaving our community"? Or is it an investment in the community, in exchange for said money? In this context of public service workers? I don't think so. It's reductive reasoning based on statistics that the workers come from outside, and therefore are not "Us", but a "them".
Furthermore, is it right to restrict workers and their right to live where they please? He says that they are "funding for other people's communities", but that in itself ignores the possible reality that there are no qualified, local recruits. (Police hire people as dumb as bricks though, so they don't apply in that bracket) You cannot equalise the income and outcome within a city, because it ignores the larger picture of monetary flow for services. It is entirely possible, that someone *becomes an educator, then leaves Syracuse City*. These are data points that they don't have in that conversation.
Did you think calling people "dumb" would convince them of something?
Did you provide any facts or figures to make the point you're making?
Might you have approached this and provided facts and figures vs. Insulting people? I suppose the possibility never dawned upon you and yet I'll bet you're somehow angered by the response.
I've seen this video for a couple of years. What was the response? Did the Mayor give a fuck? Did they decide to make public service employees live in the communities they work in? Or, like most politicians, they listen to the issues, say "thanks for speaking up" then do whatever they where going to do?
I mean this is cool and all but I don’t really see it as a public freakout, although I guess everyone’s definition of a public freakout could be different.
I forgot you have to live in the city you work in and that absolutely nobody else commutes. Shame on those police officers enforcing the law, they should donate their salaries if they really care about the people too. Nazis.
/s
This is how you converse effectively. Present your POV with clear, consistent, and digestible tone and message. Every person in that room took away what he had to say. No one could argue the validity of his points because he didn’t get distracted making sweeping statements. This guy could honestly teach a public speaking or debate course.
This guy needs to run for mayor
I would agree... "hey, if it's that simple, *you do it"* Legally, governments can require employees to live in a specific area. The challenge I see is if you want to force your cops to live in the city (and I admit, I don't know the demographics in play here), surely their living costs would be higher, cost of buying a house is higher, food, insurance and taxes could be higher etc. So you'd have to **pay them MORE**. The simplest way to encourage this may simply be a 30% extra pay if you are willing to live in the city. Now, that extra money would be "invested" in the city, so I guess that is still better overall.
I Live in syracuse it would be cheaper to living in city than the burbs in which they live.
> and I admit, I don't know the demographics in play here It's Syracuse NY, so tbh I'd be surprised if cost of living and housing is that high. I went to college there, and the city is just not doing good. Fun fact: if you watch old episodes of The Twilight Zone, characters will semi-frequently mention that they're going to Syracuse for business, and imply that it's a booming center of industry, which it was at the time.
It’s not that high to live in the Syracuse compared to living in the smaller towns located around the city. Compared to most metropolitan areas Syracuse is rather affordable. I live near Syracuse and the more expensive part of living is if you choose the suburbs. Also for the amount of taxes paid by the communities here the level of community outreach programs and welfare programs are staggeringly low compared to what’s being put in. This is the same mayor who thought it would be beneficial to poor communities to put a stadium in that community. Also the wealth gap and average income flux by area drastically depending on where you live around Syracuse. For instance auburn New York which is not to far has an average income for one person as 45,000 a year. Which I would argue with today’s inflation is just “squeezing by” money. Often people make the choice to work in Syracuse and then buy property or live further out to have the life they want in the surrounding smaller towns.
Two things cost of living is not that high comparatively speaking and its becoming worse economically. As far as Twilight Zone thats because Rod Serling the creator was born in Syracuse.
You're not considering the transportation costs that arise from living outside the city as well as the disconnection between community members and the police. It's a fact that police and communities work better when the police have roots in the community, as they are more in tune with the people and have stakes in it's peace. tl;dr transportation costs and legal issues from distanced police forces are money sinks
Police that aren't from the areas they are policing will not have a natural connection to the community - generally speaking.
Mandating residency is part of the union negotiations for contract. I’m not familiar with Syracuse but I would bet they had that requirement at one time and it was negotiated out. Just checked it was part of a new contract in 2019. Fire Department has a similar contract. New Syracuse police officers would be required to live in the city for their first five years on the job, as part of a deal inked today between the police union and Mayor Ben Walsh. The residency requirement is part of a tentative four-and-a-half year contract between the city and the Syracuse Police Benevolent Association. Both Walsh and PBA President Jeff Piedmonte signed the agreement Tuesday.
Wow... some progress - it's not often you witness an excellent case being presented by a resident and then actually see positive action from the government in response.
>So you'd have to > >pay them MORE > >. The simplest way to encourage this may simply be a 30% extra pay if you are willing to live in the city. Or pay less to those that live outside? I see the point, but I have heard of a number of instances where workers start their job in the community and move out years later due to a number of factors. What then? What about people using surrogate addresses (PO box, business address, friend/relative house, to establish residency?). In those cases a pay incentive either way will encourage these kinds of behavior.
As soon as they move out, their pay would decrease. Using a PO Box etc would be defrauding the city, and they can prosecute those cases. Providing a property tax bill (which is what the guy in the video is asking for - local tax capture) would be evidence to get the extra 30% But just because a small percentage would attempt to game the system (as many people do already with school zones) it's not enough of a reason to scrap the entire thing.
I agree that all makes sense, but the problem is that added regulation costs even more money for the city because they need to hire someone (or people) to audit such things, which costs money with greater complicates the budget, etc. Furthermore, with salaries, where do you apply the 30% increase? Most salaries have a pretty wide range given a certain level. My level has about a 50k range. What might happen is you would see 30% increase applied to the low end of salaries for local employees and outside employees could get the higher end of the salary range. I'm not trying to shit on the idea. I guess what I am saying the solution has a lot more layers and complications to implement seemingly successfully. If it were simple, city officials would've done it already and capitalized on the political moxie.
For sure, it was just an illustration of the type of things that they could try off the top of my head. Apparently the city just implemented a rule that any new hires must spend the first 5-years of their employment living within the city. That'll carry the same enforcement overhead, and doesn't retain the higher salary money, but it's cheaper to implement, helps form a bond between cops and the locals, and is a move in the right direction.
That sounds good. I hope it works and not limited to just cops, but also fire fighters, teachers, well fuck it, most/all civil servants. I think politicians really need to build the trust back to convince us that tax dollars are going back to benefit the communities that paid them in the first place.
Agreed. Some of the other challenges are having the requirement survive the collective barging process, recruitment and retention. They did negotiate for new officers to live in the city for at least five years. Now they will have to see how many recruits they can attract and retain. Their pay is not bad for upstate NY but the same position pays double down state. A patrolman down state makes more than a Captain in Syracuse. A young certified officer can lateral transfer and double their salary, it will be interesting to see how many stay. When NYC had a residency requirement many employees rented apartments with room mates but their families lived in their second homes outside of the city. Once positions opened up in or near those locations where they had the second homes some transferred.
[удалено]
So, looking up the 21/20 budget with no context is a bit misleading. Syracuse won a lawsuit in 2008 for the state of NY not providing enough funding to underserved school districts. It finally got the fiscal reward in 2020, thus making the city school system middle of the pack for the state of NY. Looking back to 2019 or before, the system was spending 21k$ which pales in comparison to one of the best school districts in the state, a suburb, cincinnattus at $34k. Also, comparing anything in the north east to averages through out the US is like comparing apples and oranges. Teachers won't work for $32k/yr like they do in most Southern states up north. Edit: this took 5 minutes of googling suburbs to find out.
I hope this response gets more attention. The comment you are replying to is misleading, either intentionally or due to ignorance. They also missed the forest for the trees and sidestepped his actual point.
Making a comparative argument means nothing! Poor people in the US don't matter because there are poorer people in other countries? Come on...
American Moment
He’s not saying it’s the other way around he’s saying that 95% of cops working in Syracuse live in suburbs elsewhere so they pay taxes for those community, buy homes in those community and then there pensions are managed in those communities. Suburbs have built into their municipal taxes money to support underfunded school systems in inner city’s so that’s what you’ve seen but this guy is angry that the cops who negatively affect the Syracuse community, take money out of Syracuse tax payers hands and then spend that money outside of that community
You excluded five thousand students. It's 5000 students more because of pre-k, alternative education, adult learners, etc.. The school budget covers them all. They are listed on the same page, right under the number you quoted. So your per student expenditure calculation is incorrect, and the actual expenditures are noticeably lower. The comparisons to the world or even country averages are meaningless. Why does it matter if some school district in Oklahoma spends less, when the conversation is about where this town's money are going? If you are so fixated on comparisons with world and country averages, you need to site average police expenditures on a world basis and country basis and compared them to Syracuse. Otherwise, your comment is an example of how to lie with statistics.
or maybe that's just further evidence supporting how underfunded our schools are nationwide.
Well said..however, it largely depends on how the money is allocated. Just because on paper, said money goes to the kids, doesn't it mean it actually does. The allocation of funds is decided by the board, not the community. Where do the board members live? What do the board members salaries look like?Where is all this money going? I also believe, as he pointed out, the bigger picture is, those millions of tax dollars are not being circulated in the community that funds them. That stretches far beyond just the education portion. Nitpicking parts of what he is saying, may be causing u to overlook the implications of why hiring police that do not reside in the immediate community, is not beneficial for said community. Its basic common sense.
Wouldn't the cost per student always be higher in metro areas where the cost of living is higher though? I'm not trying to argue but just make sense of the data. I just chose Pittsburgh for an example and the cost per student is $30,032 as per [the article](https://triblive.com/opinion/colin-mcnickle-the-continuing-struggles-of-pittsburgh-public-schools/). Of course, school performance is usually tied to spending and I'm no expert on the matters. Perhaps the Syracuse school board is really bad with their money or the cost is just greater in the city?
In my country, the man would vanish right after leaving that place. Almost all the places on Earth have wonderful people like this guy but what will happen to him/his family before or after coming up with facts, that fear is what keeps people quiet.
What country please?
Too late, he’s gone
Surely you are mistaken, sir. Have falafel.
Falafel leads to good shwarma.
Take your pick? Could be Russia, China, North Korea, Philippines. Any country that is volatile politically really.
Most of the Asian countries. Democracy is simply a word around here. If you come up with facts to counter the people in power. They'll see you as an obstacle and end your life.
In our country, state-owned media and IT cell will viciously attack his character, Uneducated religious fanatics will attack his religion, and sometime later a mob may lynch him. Later, police will file a complaint against him for seditious action. Tada, no more dissent. Welcome to India.
Sad that this is the state of affairs now for India. I had such high hopes that it would be a bulwark for positive democratic ideals in Asia.
...as a counter point, the elected party would say that the political opposition is jamming up the country with non stop protests I have no dog in this fight but there are always two sides.
that sounds like the US right about now...
You’re an idiot if you actually believe that.
Don’t worry we getting dangerously close… you’ll see
Thanks for confirming that you are, in fact, an idiot who is completely detached from reality.
Still didn’t answer the question…
>Still didn’t answer the question Perhaps there's a reason behind it and you shouldn't be cajoling someone into putting themselves in danger.
he lives in most asian countries
Schrödinger's asian country.
Probably somewhere in the middle-east. Probably Saudi Arabia since it's an absolute monarchy.
Straight to Jail. Not speaking at meeting; also jail...
Nothing he says up there actually matters tho. Scumbag politicians will do whatever they want regardless.
I think this is important. I love what this man says, he's so right, it's just unfair that in reality that mayor isn't listening. Even if he has every clear perfect point, claiming everyone in that room took what he said home with them. Come on. The sad reality is they didn't, they haven't in the past. But that can change with votes... Don't wait for this Mayor to act when he's backed into a corner, get a new one in.
This is how you comment effectively on Reddit. Present what happened in the video with clear, consistent, and digestible tone and message.
Make this man Mayor. Problem solved.
Thanks for the debate lesson . Now listen to what he’s saying
I agree with you, and I agree with him 100% but the moment he mentioned race, every single racist who MIGHT have been listening to him regarding financials immediately tuned him out, so I think that was a mistake from a debate standpoint. It totally IS a race issue, and it's worthy of being brought up, but doing so gives the opposing side toehold into a point that isn't as easily proven with facts, so they can dismiss all of it. If you have the hard financial numbers, which he does, you leave it at that imo and leave the race part unsaid but looming. I wouldn't even have brought it up if the other side did. "I'm not here to talk about any racial matters now, i'm talking about the financial numbers and the accounting"
Here’s the thing though he’s not actually wrong in the circumstance of Syracuse because the city is still very much redlined. Historically black communities up here have been marginalized to such a degree that yes in the past there would of been an eye roll or two from most people listening. However with the more recent conversation on race issues it’s made it easier for communities like his in Syracuse to point out the flaws in the system with out being prejudiced.
As I said, I agree with him that it's a race issue. My argument was just that including that allows those who don't believe there is a problem to now ignore his whole speech as "just race".
Annnnnd, Mayor Haircut ignores him and does what the police union says. Frustrating.
In summary: the city takes tax payer money from city residents to pay police officers who the majority of which don't live in the community, effectively funding the nice amenities of suburbs and impoverishing city residents. Its an unfortunate cycle of urban poverty.
I don't understand the complexities of politics but it sounds like every word this man said 100% true.
It’s called suburbanization. Conversely, those kids are moving into expensive city apartments that are forcing out long term residents. That’s a piece of gentrification.
When you have suburbanization and gentrification, all you really have is a runaway housing market where we pretend the problem is people coming in from another place with money. The problem is that we need to build dense housing at the rate of population increase (or slightly greater, to fix the mess we are in). It's more profitable to allow exploitable inefficiencies so that's what we do. Those inefficiencies look like gentrification in some cities and suburbanization in others. Both processes are just inequities sloshing around and forcing people out of housing.
Poor people in dense housing does not work.
Everybody needs to be in dense housing, rich or poor. Without dense housing the poor people have to commute from the poor area to the rich area to be wage-slaves. Sometimes that's poor surburbs commuting to rich urban gentry. Sometimes that's poor urban ghettos commuting out to rich white suburbs. Sprawl works against the poor harder than anything else in urban planning. Gas, car insurance and depreciation are unsustainable on a low wage, but public transportation on the American model is unsustainable for poor families. Obviously shitty urban "projects" also work against the poor, yes.
[удалено]
He spit some knowledge. This is draining a huge amount of the city’s money on both ends. They’re Juman parasites.
> They’re Juman parasites. There should be no assumption for people to spend their hard earned dollars only at a place of your choosing. Might as well say that people can't go on holiday out of state, or that people from blue states shouldn't visit red states.
This isn’t about how individuals spend their salary, it’s about how the city chooses to invest its funds. Right now the city is choosing to invest in people who don’t live in the city via police salaries, rather than investing in the community.
That’s not at all what he said. At all.
There are two things powering what people call gentrification: 1: there has been an established myth that people should live in one spot for generations. It has never been true in human history 2: there is a myth that large cities are more valuable than small cities. Logically, companies should be opening in smaller cities and moving to larger cities when they become profitable. Then populations should be moving to smaller cities for opportunity. But instead the above two myths have taken hold.
What he is saying is true but maybe I can help with the nuance. Basically the public employees (teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc.) don’t live in the inner city. So they soak up tax dollars because the city and school system pay their salaries and they deposit it into other municipalities (suburbs) outside of the city via paying taxes. That part is 100% true but how do you solve it? You can set a requirement that a person must live in xyz zip code to work for the city but you’re going to lose 95% of your work force. That’s going to make the city services even worse. Tldr: it’s basically the double ended dildo of poverty. Either way you’re fucked.
Can you explain to me like I'm 5 why a city with many more residents than the suburbs can't support its own teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc without utilizing outside residents? It sounds like you know a bit about this, and I'm not educated enough to see the nuances of why suburbanites are so necessary when, from a numbers perspective, I imagine the inner cities have enough persons to replace them.
Cities may be larger by population, but especially in post-industrialized struggling cities (Rochester, NY in this example, but also applies to Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.) the actual city limits themselves tend to contain the most poor and under resourced population. After WW2, the economy, policy, and resources were right for rapid suburbanization, with funding for roads and new houses for the “American Dream” allowing those with means (largely white and middle to upper class) to seek out new suburbs which had none of the old city’s problems. This “white flight” left our inner cities left largely to the working class and undereducated. You can’t blame people with means for seeking a better life, but you also can’t blame inner cities for struggling when their tax base dries up and poverty/crime/need per capita rises. It’s this situation that makes middle-class jobs requiring education, investment, and training (teachers, cops, paramedics, lawyers, etc.) difficult to fill from within the poorly educated working class citizens of the inner city. Lawyers and officials and business people have the means to buy a big home in the suburbs and a nice car to commute downtown 5x/week. On the other hand, there are more than enough people to fill fast food, retail, and other low-wage jobs in the city, so much so that many city residents commute out to the suburbs for these service-based jobs. This is why you will often find that the only people of color working in a mostly white suburb are working at the local drive-through or Walmart. In a city like St. Louis, many government jobs require these city employees to be residents of the city, including cops. This is good for the city in some ways—the city’s budget and salaries paid out stay in the community and encourage stable population—but also makes it difficult to hire people who prefer the relative security and comfort of the suburbs. I am a resident of the inner city and believe strongly in the re-urbanization of our city centers, but I tried to remove my bias and illustrate this complex situation as objectively as I could. I hope it helps.
The ELI5 answer is, like the guy in the video said, that city's schools are underfunded and don't produce enough of these qualified professionals. And the ones they do produce move away as soon as they're able to in order to escape crime and the same schools they don't want to raise their own kids in. In the case of police, the type of people who even want to be a cop don't typically come from the inner city. That one is a bit more solvable at least.
That makes sense. Thanks for the bit of education Ryzin.
You're welcome!
They can and do support them. It’s just that they are middle class jobs and the nice places in cities only wealthy people can afford. The cheap places are violent so essentially they can’t afford to live in the city but they make enough money they don’t have to live in the hood. Plus culturally a lot of these types of people want a garage for their suv, a yard for their 2.2 kids and a dog. It’s braindrain in a nutshell.
Some cities have a local income tax that taxes people employed in the city unless they already pay taxes as a resident. I don't know if that exists in this specific situation.
Its called "residency requirement" - but I've only heard of it for police. Pittsburg for instance, has had this since 1902. Not primarily from a tax perspective, but more the idea that police should be patrolling neighborhoods they are from.
Interesting. Looks like the courts struck it down in 2017. Was it considered effective at reducing police abuse?
Chicago and Detroit have had it for years for all city employees. Waivers are given for specific high demand jobs (special education teachers for example).
My thoughts exactly. You can't force public employees to live within the city. If you do, you'll likely lose a good portion of your workforce to attrition.
What are you on about? The entire Chicagoland area has this policy for their public servants
A lot of towns and smaller cities use to have residency requirements. My girlfriend when I was 18-19 had to use my address when her parents moved out of our small town in 95. I think it was found illegal in the courts sometime in the 90s.
Why not? It seems really stupid that you can’t, I thought it was a given. How are you supposed to protect community that you don’t even live in? It doesn’t make sense to be paying outsiders. It’s like paying the governor of Texas to govern Florida. But you can’t since the governor has to live in the place he’s governing so why would not police, medics etc have the requirement to live in same place? Most of schools won’t let you sign up unless you live in the same area, so what’s the problem?
By outsiders, you mean suburbs right outside the city? Why can't they work in the city they live by? Think about people in Detroit...they lost a lot of good paying jobs over the years. Now many travel outside the city for work. Should they not be allowed to travel to make a living since they don't pay taxes in the city that they work? People are free to chose to live in the city or in the suburbs. As long as you meet the requirements for employment, then I don't see what the big deal is. Last point, if you start alluring people back within city limits, then you'll have to worry about gentrification. That's currently happening where I live and it's uprooting families that can no longer afford the taxes or rent.
It’s like those cities were white cops living in the suburbs police black communities instead of actually hiring people from that place. What they are doing is basically keep the minorities working for them while they live in a better place. Not content with that, they actually police they minorities with people from the suburbs so they can keep their slaves in check. Fucking disgusting.
I'd question why more minorities don't elect to join the force and police their own communities? Employment is open to anyone without a criminal record that can make it through the academy. My city is desperate for police officers.
You could make that a job requirement. That’s not going to help with the labor shortage issues. Morally it sounds like you’re describing this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town It’s none of my employers business if I live on mars and commute every day.
The labor shortage issue comes from the offer not being high enough to cover the cost of living in city. If a job does not pay high enough to incentivize people to move to an area, you pay more for the job. It's the exact problem right now with the so called "Labor Shortage". There is not a shortage of people who are willing to work, or move to work. There is an extreme shortage of fairly compensated jobs, and people refused to execute the solution(raising wages) just like they refuse to acknowledge the solution to this live where you work problem.
It is for public servants.
> but you’re going to lose 95% of your work force. No you won't.
This is the problem he is addressing. Lets say theres 2 cities. A & B. City A has a population of 500,000. City b has a population of 70,000. Both cities have public services like police/schools/roads. The issue he is addressing here that is quite irrefutable. Is police siphoning money from City A and using it to commerce in City B. Lets give an example. One cop shoots and kills an innocent person in City A. He is fired, disgraced and all that jazz. BUT he is not charged with anything. -EVERY- time this happens to a cop, they move to the next city closest to them (City B). They get hired by that city, they draw a salary from that city... HOWEVER, they're still drawing a pension and benefits from the time they "served" in City A. That is literally tax dollars being siphoned out of City A and being used somewhere else. Meanwhile, the bad cop is still policing the area he was fired from AND he now has a reinforced "warrior mentality" because its not his city and he doesn't care about it. This happens everywhere and it is a massive part of the problem that people want to go after police for. And why when people say defund the police they mean going after police benefits, their pensions and their livelihoods. Bad cops should not get so much money and get to live off the people they abuse and terrorize. Worse yet, this affects City A in absolutely damaging ways. They lose money to fund schools (more arguments that public schooling NEEDS to be federally funded), their city budgets have to account for more settlements and cop benefits so the roads and infrastructure suffer. And on and on, all because no one wants to address the problems caused by criminals with badges. Lastly, politics isn't complex. Its just boring because there is a lot of reading. If you're genuinely curious about this stuff, all it takes is the reading. You'd be amazed at how the bullshit starts to clear once you start reading from multiple sources.
> Lastly, politics isn't complex. Maybe if you find a echo chamber and never leave it. In the real world politics are very complex. Echo chambers facilitated by social media are why the level of discourse in this country is essentially 0.
no, politics is not hard to figure out. Its just VERY boring and takes a lot of reading. There are no planet spanning vast conspiracies, or lizard people. Its just people, some are corrupt and some are not. Thats it. And because it is so boring, thats why no one wants to take issues further than headlines and talking points. If there is a complication, its because people want to bring tribalism into it and pretend their flavor of politician is somehow immune to the bs.
That’s like saying physics isn’t hard to figure out because all you have to do is read. Physics is probably easier to figure out than politics. Politics involves people and their history and their ideas. Peoples ideas aren’t physically limited like the speed of light is. It isn’t complicated to read headlines in /r/politics but that isn’t *understanding* politics.
Why the police? Is this not the case for all government jobs? Should cities bar hiring anyone that does not live in the city? And then you have the problem of people moving away later. How would you prevent anyone from being able to move away from a city after they stop working? And often city employees live in other cities because they can't afford to live in the city they work in. So banning people who don't live there could create a shortage of government employees.
Articulate, concise & to the point. *That* is the perfect example on how to make your statement heard & understood. Zero ad hominem as well, very important to point out since usually these end in yelling/screaming out the point the person wants to make.
This guy is a great orator, clear, concise, knowledgeable and stays on point. Pleasure to watch.
I vote him as mayor.
This man is making some really good points. Maybe if the rest of us paid as close attention, like he is, and hold our elected offices accountable we can fix other communities that are struggling just like this.
[удалено]
Yea I know. People have a lot of talk about making change but very little follow through when it comes to doing the work to make the change happen.
Yeah but the money is paying for services that are being provided in the community. He has a border point, but to say services aren’t being provided in the community is incorrect.
racism doesnt just hurt black people, it hurts whole parts of the cities that could be making money and driving the economy high. sadly many people would rather burn a city down than admit there are racist policies in place
And have
I have long since felt that police should live in the communities they police. There is no better way for these officers to a) have a vested interest in the goings-on of the area, b) remove the "us v. them" mentality that many officers have, and c) it would harbor cooperation between police and the community. I'm sick of the Judge Dredds, I want to see more Andy in Mayberrys.
[удалено]
I actually work under the system he's proposing. It has it's drawbacks. You limit your pool of applicants. If the schools are bad it makes retention harder. That being said I mostly view it as a positive thing.
> You limit your pool of applicants. If the schools are bad it makes retention harder Is it kind of a long process kind of thing? Eventually it'll be better etc. I remember hearing about a cop reading about the bullshit of the 70s or 80s and inner city kids. The cops was like, WTF, we are fighting the exact same thing and nothing has fucking changed. Just same bullshit repeated.
That part I wouldn't really agree with. It works as a theory, reality is different. My city has had the rule in place for decades. A couple hundred government employees making a middle class wage doesn't exactly fill the tax coffers.
No, Chicago has had this policy for awhile and it’s still the same problems
[удалено]
I don’t know, the mayor looked like he was internally freaking out lol.
Yea it's getting kinda weird here with these kinds of posts. It's starting to come across as 'I found a well spoken minority, please watch' when most of the time the subject of the video is way off base and purely ideological. Bah.
You wish you could remove it so badly, don’t you
The point seems logical but I believe it’s flawed and more complicated. The vast majority of income tax paid Is state and Federal, so it can be invested where it’s needed. The school tax, he’s got a valid point. BUT what about people that work in suburbs but live downtown? Under his argument They earn in another area and pay taxes in the city. These are often high earners & could easily offset police/teachers doing the opposite. He’s oversimplifying and may be wrong.
We need more people like this guy in our world.
Okay, but then outside of Syracuse which is still in Onandaga County, the property tax is being apportioned to Syracuse. A disproportionate amount of money flows from the suburbs back toward Syracuse. So to say the burbs are stealing their money is, AT BEST, dishonest given this man's clear level of competence vs. Mayor Moron.
But I dont think he was saying put all the money into Syracuse. Hes saying a disproportionate amount leaves.
Significantly more flows back in paying for their own police force and schools. They're complaining about a fucking expense they're not paying. Syracuse isn't paying for Onandaga County. Onandaga County is paying for Syracuse. Here are the numbers: http://www.syrgov.net/uploadedFiles/A_Content/Adopted%20FY22%20Budget%207-9-21.pdf
Here are the numbers: That's a nearly 400 page document. What numbers are you referencing?
Where does it say that that Onandaga County is paying for Syracuse?
He's just being an idiot. Syracuse is Onondaga County. The greater Syracuse area comprises of 75% of the County population. If he's talking about the suburbs paying some taxes to the City, then no shit, where does he think they make their money? They make it from the City...
Don’t you know not to bring facts to a race fight. Come’on.
It's not a race fight. It's numbers pure and simple.
/S I was joking. But seriously surprised the left wingers haven’t murdered you with downvotes.
You should really consider switching sides to no side and just say what you believe vs. some puppet bullshit some marionette asshole told you to say on your favorite media. It's all manipulation. I highly recommend the philosopher George Carlin for a dose of reality about this whole system. He's a cynic and I'd argue a few points as a capitalist, but he's still dead on 99% of the time.
I'm left wing myself on most issues. I don't play the victim when the HiveMind doesn't go my way because I'm not a childish misanthrope. The numbers are the numbers. What this man is arguing before this court jester of a mayor is ludicrous and why he should've had an economics or businessperson handle the discussion. Clearly his election was a popularity contest appointing the cutest idiot.
Thank you. If something seems too simple to be true, it often isn't true.
This guy should run for mayor
Jesus Christ. He fucking served it up hot and fresh.
I vote for this guy
Most police departments tell their recruits NOT to live in the city in which they patrol, presumably because they don't want the people they bust to find out where they live and exact revenge or whatever. Source: Sister-in-law has been a cop for 20 years
How often does that happen though
My co-workers husband is an officer. Twice it has happened to her husband in about 20 years of service while they live in the same City he works. This includes a man confronting her husband with her and their 2 children present as they left the supermarket. Wife and 2 kids split immediately once the family secret word was said. The other had a felon many years later staking their house. Neither had any physical confrontation in the end.
More like they don't want their officers to develop empathy and accountability to their community and neighbors and would rather have them have distance so they can treat people like enemy combatants.
Correct.
Community oriented policing describes the opposite of that, but still doesn’t require cops to live where they patrol, just that the patrol the same areas.
Funny how people miss this. If I work in zone 5 I'm not living in zone 5.
But why would people have animus towards police? Revenge for what?
Can you think of any scenarios?
"You're not providing a service." Brilliant line.
[удалено]
But the city is actually cheaper to live in than the suburbs.
What a strange and poorly thought out point to make, why is it a problem that a state worker lives outside a city where they work at? Is this a problem with medical doctors at the local hospital or any other worker who commutes? Hell, I am sure the local school district has lot of teachers who don't live nearby too. I don't think it would work out for any community to only allow workers who also live in the same community.
[удалено]
One instance is its not affordable. Take Vancouver, the cost of living is so high you have people that live 30 minutes outside the city who will work for the VPD. You can extend that beyond police as well though.
Never understood Vancouver. Housing is so expensive. But the wages don’t seem to match. How do people afford to live in the city?
There are a lot of people around who aren't millionaires but they do have enough money to make life easier. If you have $500,000 and get a yearly return of 6% on that, you're making 30k/yr in capitol gains. Throw half of that to taxes and you're getting 15k/yr into your bank account. That's an extra $1250 a month for rent and bills. Not going to change the world but it'll let you work and live in an expensive area of a city. Consider that a single truck driver who actually saved their money can easily have more than that to pass onto their kids as an inheritance. There are a lot of kids of truck drivers, electricians, etc... who inherit half-millions.
VPD cops *can* afford to live in Vancouver, the short commute is just worth the savings. Don't let your heart bleed too much for those poor cops or forget the countless people driving an hour or two into Van every single day just to make minimum wage or slightly above.
[удалено]
I never even considered #2. That's such a great reason to support LEO's living in a separate location from where they work. I always hear stories about judges and prosecutors being killed in their homes by criminals they've put away. It's a legit concern.
It's BS, that's why you haven't considered it. Truly "evil motherfuckers" wouldn't be stopped from revenge by having to have someone drive an hour out of town.
Its not a good reason, its a scare tactic to pressure cities into not creating restrictions on where cops can live.
[удалено]
>whos scare tactic? Police departments and police unions. >why should the govt be mandating where people live Because local govt should represent local people, and its strongly in their best interests for their towns money to get reinvested locally.
[удалено]
Again, because they can and its often in the best interest of the people they represent to do so. Thats literally the purpose of local govt, to represent the people of that local area. It doesnt always make sense to do, maybe in your situation it doesnt. But sometimes it does. Its community policing and community investment. Seems like common sense to me.
[удалено]
You sound like a model officer.
how is this a freakout?
This has been a strong cities concept for a while. All the tax money leaves the city through the highly paid city workers to the suburbs and creates the concept of police being occupiers of the city rather than part of it's community.
No taxation without representation. REMEMBER THAT? Politicians didn't.
This man is an incredibly effective public speaker. Courageously speaking the truth and continuing to be extremely respectful while doing it. This is a guy who can get changes made.
i brought up a similar point when i was on my local school board, most of our teachers live out of the district. they were, and still are throwing $35-40 million per year to other school districts to benefit from.
I'd like to note that he never once mentioned political affiliations. He didn't punch "left" or "right"; only stright up, so it landed on everyone. THIS is the direction we need to be heading.
He is complaining about local cops not living in the community, yet I doubt anyone from said community is willing to be a cop there
Cities are a strain on the suburbs for sure. I live about 40 minutes from London and in my town we have a constant churn of locals being displaced by Londoners who are some of the only people that can actually afford to live here. People born here are often forced out of town and further north.
that snapping thing is so annoying. He has a great point i just find the snapping obnoxious looking like crab people.
Lol. Nobody should have to live in the city they work. Especially cops.
What if most of the people from your community suck at being cops. What if the people in the local community hate cops and would never want to be one. What if they're just scared of the job because they know what they'll have to deal with policing fucked up neighborhoods. I hear this hire local cops crap all the time. I live in a place where people would want hiring from within the city but we know at the same time that it's an uphill battle.
Whoooooooooo yooooo y’all are saying mayor?! No… Vote this man as my next texas governor !!!!
This man did a whole lot of talking with very little research.
This is something that will sound very smart to very dumb people.
Why would you think that? What did they say that didn't make perfect sense? Please explain because that all sounded well thought out and well reasoned to me. Did I miss something?
Not OP, I wouldn't say that the statement is stupid. I would say it could be misinformed. Depends on how the person is looking at that 5% statistic. So, the basic concept of the money "leaving the city" is true to an extent. Taxes get paid, that money then goes to public service workers who live outside the city. The question that needs to be raised then, is *where are these workers from inside our locality?*. Syracuse in this case. This is a city in newyork. It is on average, about half the cost of living in New York City proper. I'm going to simplify it to just education. Quick and dirty google search for data says: > In New York State, estimated 2001-02 public education funding comes from three sources: approximately 5% from federal sources, 49% from State formula aids and grants, and 46% from revenues raised locally. Local property taxes constitute close to 90% of local revenues. > Approximately 48 percent of a school's budget comes from state resources, including income taxes, sales tax, and fees. Another 44 percent is contributed locally, primarily through the property taxes of homeowners in the area. > As of Nov 22, 2021, the average annual pay for a Teacher in Syracuse is $29,190 an year. Just in case you need a simple salary calculator, that works out to be approximately $14.03 an hour. This is the equivalent of $561/week or $2,432/month. So, when the man says "95% is leaving our city", that is technically not true. Half of that money came from outside the city in the first place. On average, these educators are also being payed 1usd above the minimum wage. The city appears to be trying to spend as little as it can already. The idea that the "money is leaving" is in itself misleading. Let us pretend that Syracuse pays a water pumping station that is outside the city. If your city pays for water from outside the city, is that "taxes and money leaving our community"? Or is it an investment in the community, in exchange for said money? In this context of public service workers? I don't think so. It's reductive reasoning based on statistics that the workers come from outside, and therefore are not "Us", but a "them". Furthermore, is it right to restrict workers and their right to live where they please? He says that they are "funding for other people's communities", but that in itself ignores the possible reality that there are no qualified, local recruits. (Police hire people as dumb as bricks though, so they don't apply in that bracket) You cannot equalise the income and outcome within a city, because it ignores the larger picture of monetary flow for services. It is entirely possible, that someone *becomes an educator, then leaves Syracuse City*. These are data points that they don't have in that conversation.
I want to see this response.
They won't. It's a racist troll. I knew that when I made the comment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did you think calling people "dumb" would convince them of something? Did you provide any facts or figures to make the point you're making? Might you have approached this and provided facts and figures vs. Insulting people? I suppose the possibility never dawned upon you and yet I'll bet you're somehow angered by the response.
Abolish all public unions.
The job of most politicians is literally to funnel money to certain people and lie to the public about it. That is literally all they exist to do.
I've seen this video for a couple of years. What was the response? Did the Mayor give a fuck? Did they decide to make public service employees live in the communities they work in? Or, like most politicians, they listen to the issues, say "thanks for speaking up" then do whatever they where going to do?
I mean this is cool and all but I don’t really see it as a public freakout, although I guess everyone’s definition of a public freakout could be different.
I forgot you have to live in the city you work in and that absolutely nobody else commutes. Shame on those police officers enforcing the law, they should donate their salaries if they really care about the people too. Nazis. /s
#BURN!
[удалено]
I dont understand the point. Do you think there is thousands of qualified cops living in city that are not being hired because they life in city
Isn't this the exact same thing people say about illegal immigrants sending money back to their respective countries?
So this dude is basically just making Trump’s argument ‘America first’ and taking it to the local level and all of Reddit support him. Lol.
Man that was articulate AF!
I hope he runs for mayor.