wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

As a City worker who would be affected by the residency change, I would certainly like to see even a compromise bill enacted by the City Council. While I am currently very happy living in Brooklyn with my family, I would certainly like to have the option of moving out of the City at some point in the future if I would need to do so due to my family circumstances. In my case, we have a young son with a severe disability (autism). While we are happy with our child's current educational program in New York City, we would certainly like the option to move out of the City in the future should we need to do so to find a good program for him when he ages out of his current program in a few years. I am sure that other City employees have other good reasons for wanting the option to move out of the City without sacrificing their City careers should they need to do so in the future. My understanding is that even if City employees are allowed to move out of the City, the City would still be able colllect the City income tax from such employees. I would certainly hope that a compromise bill could be passed by the City Council on this issue.

Any economist will tell you that if you restrict supply (i.e. requiring city workers to live in the city) you'll reduce the quality and increase the price. Seems pretty foolish to me.

The caller is wrong: if city workers were required to live in the city as housing prices as they are, MORE white people would work for the city because they're the ones who may have the resources to subsidize living in NYC.

Take your cue from DC. In the 80s the city started a works program by hiring minorities for the city government. However, instead of staying and living in the city (and adding to the wealth and tax base of the city) those minority workers moved to the suburbs, leaving the poorest and unemployed here. Require city workers to stay in the city, and provide middle-class housing.

I agree with this caller. They're just trying to run all the minorities and poor out of the city. It's disgusting quite frankly. We should be talking about the number one problem of this city EVERY BLOODY WEEK...the lack of AFFORDABLE housing. And I mean affordable in the true sense of the word...not what they call "affordable". I mean ACTUALLY affordable.

That should be the recurring topic quite frankly, week after week after week. The city is being destroyed due to this "luxury" housing bs.

New York City shouldn't hand city jobs over to suburbanites who don't pay taxes into our city.

The city should require workers to live in New York City. But in order to require this, housing needs to be made affordable. We need to create new housing options like Mitchell Lama and Stuy Town.

STOP "LUXURY" HOUSING!!! IT'S DESTROYING THE CITY!!!

With all due respect, Councilman Addobo has no idea what he's talking about.

Ms. Williams is right: the city already hires tons of people from outside of NYC. Many of my coworkers are Canadians. No New Yorkers apply to city jobs because they know they can't live on the salary the city pays!

I just graduated law school two years ago and the first job I took was with the City of NY, and included the "residency requirement." My parents live closeby in NJ and I was intended on residing with them in order to save money and pay back significant student loans. To require a recent law graduate to pay the high rents of NYC is absurd. The City DEFINITELY loses out on talent because of this requirement.

Why aren't New Jersey or for that matter Ct. residents eligible to work in city jobs?

and the war on the middle class continues. why not build more middle class housing in the city.

I'm a DC 37 city worker and I believe we should have freedom of choice, but I wonder if we were required to live in the city, the city would actually make provisions to make affordable housing for us.