Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bitpushr t1_j2086yv wrote

Reply to comment by 2old4badbeer in Globe Editorial Board: Boston police union needs to accept new realities of policing by GlobeOpinion

The residency requirement is so dumb I am surprised they could find people to defend it with a straight face.

10

Yak_Rodeo t1_j208kfp wrote

im not following. its not a good thing to have police living in and invested in the community they police?

13

bitpushr t1_j20c7c2 wrote

> im not following. its not a good thing to have police living in and invested in the community they police?

I suppose it is in theory, but how do you quantify it? How do you weigh the benefits (which are admittedly difficult to measure) with the reality that you are drastically limiting your pool of applicants for jobs?

Do you think someone living in Roslindale is going to be a better cop (or 911 dispatcher or arborist or...) than someone from Needham just because they live in Roslindale?

And if the answer to this is "Yes", how do you reconcile that with the fact that Boston Public Schools does not require its teachers to live in Boston? I would argue that teaching kids is a pretty important job...

18

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20eepv wrote

i think policing is a different beast from teaching or being a 911 dispatcher and officers are expected to be nearby to be able to respond to a major event

i agree with you that they are limiting the talent pool, and i think a provision could be reached to allow people who take the position time to move into the city

i would like my police force to be able to vote in local elections, know and shop at the local businesses and interact with members of the community they police outside of negative or enforcement oriented meetings.

14

boardmonkey t1_j2178h3 wrote

I think the problem that we are running into is that it isn't affordable for many to live in the city, especially for 911 dispatch. We are tied for the most expensive rents in the nation.

The average dispatcher yearly salary is $46,624 and average rent for a 811 sqft apartment is $3772, which is $45,264. They could live in Quincy where the median rent is $2.261 a month, or $27,132 yearly.

Also, living in the city doesn't mean they live in their patrol area. They can live in Dorchester and patrol the North End. They would have the same understanding of the location as if they lived outside the city.

10

mgzukowski t1_j21p9jo wrote

It just sounds like the city should pay better. No city worker should not be able to afford to live in the city they work in.

4

bitpushr t1_j20jxqb wrote

I actually agree with you that, in theory, it is a good idea. But there is a surprising lack of evidence that residency requirements help, and there is even some evidence that they actually make things worse.

I would rather hire a great officer who cares and lives somewhere else than an ambivalent one who lives next door.

8

mycoplasma79 t1_j21huty wrote

For the same reason jury duty is localized. We know what is normal and what is egregious in our communities. Cops should too.

3

2old4badbeer t1_j23hib8 wrote

There are plenty of criminals who take their arrest personally no matter the circumstances. Why aren’t judges required to come from the community, then?

1

cyanastarr t1_j217xud wrote

Are Boston public schools known for being good?

−1

michael_scarn_21 t1_j20aw6a wrote

The residency requirement is arbitrary and the invested argument doesn't work unless it's a tiny city. When I lived in Dorchester I felt invested in Cambridge because I worked there and Somerville because I spent a lot of time there. Places like West Roxbury and Charlestown whilst in the same city might as well have been on another planet and i had no idea and honestly little interest in the issues they faced.

11

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20dinz wrote

i dont think thats a great comparison, we dont treat police like other jobs for good reason, having a “reserve” of police in the city to get to work quickly in the event of a major event is a practical reason for requiring city residency

plus most police officers in the city are from here and went to school here and it helps humanize the police to the community and vice versa. seeing off duty cops at their kids sports events, involved in the community outside of work and so on is an important part of not creating an us vs them culture

8

Dontleave t1_j21gwgq wrote

I don’t know anything about their contract but are they even allowed to be called in off duty at short notice? I know there’s mandatory overtime but I believe they are either already at work or given 8 hours notice. Unless there’s something in the contract which again I have no knowledge about that says they can be called into work at any notice then the first point isn’t really applicable to someone who lives in Revere vs Charlestown.

I do agree with your second point that there is a community benefit to seeing police officers shopping at the same stores you do off duty but obviously there is a major recruiting issue so perhaps something like giving them a year to move in plus 5 additional years of residency required once you move in would help.

They could also look at covering moving costs for new officers from outside of the city as they aren’t getting enough from inside the city already.

3

Massui91 t1_j20kbyp wrote

Lol how are people downvoting this comment?

1

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20kzuh wrote

im confused too, a lot of the rhetoric around police reform in 2020 was trying to bring the police closer to the community they serve and not being an occupying force

5

2old4badbeer t1_j215t4x wrote

What’s your stance on police living in an extreme affluent town? There are plenty of towns that have average home sales over a million. There’s no way the average entry level cop can afford that.

2

2old4badbeer t1_j208yai wrote

There’s benefits for sure, but Boston has become so unaffordable that it’s pushing most people out. Only the very rich and very poor can stay. There’s a shrinking middle class. Nearly all civil service jobs require residency at time of taking the exam, but very few have such a strict residency rule. Plus many officers prefer to live outside where they work. Nobody wants to pick up their kid at school standing next to the guy he locked up last week.

3

jgghn t1_j21q10i wrote

> Nobody wants to pick up their kid at school standing next to the guy he locked up last week.

This is literally one of the reasons for residency requirements for police officers. They should be comfortable in their neighborhood and know the people they're policing. Otherwise it sets up a "The Others" situation for the officers, and they dehumanize the people they're policing.

3

2old4badbeer t1_j23hoym wrote

I mentioned this in another comment. Some criminals take their arrest personal no matter the circumstances and seek confrontation. It’s not always ideal. If we make police live directly with people they arrest, why aren’t judges required to live amongst the people they sentence?

1

jgghn t1_j23z37m wrote

Good point. Perhaps they should as well?

I don't think the problem with judges is quite as top level. We're all very familiar with how abusive police departments are to the people under their watch. A bad judge can have just as, if not more, of a profound impact on a person's life, but there's a reason why we see "ACAB" and not "AJAB".

0

2old4badbeer t1_j242uac wrote

I think it’s anti-police rhetoric that is the root of this “work where you live” thing. Let’s just call it what it is. A cop can make a bad arrest, the prosecutor can pursue and win the case, but a judge decides how long you go to jail and somehow the cops the only bad guy? We don’t hear “AJAB” because judges in Massachusetts are appointed by the governor. How do they get appointed? Well, look at their political donations. It’s an easy line to draw. Massachusetts governors, particularly in recent history, prefer judges who defer criminals from jail for better or worse. Judges are often a last hope for a defendant and they usually deliver. But that’s beside the point. I concede there are probably benefits to cops living where they work, but it’s not always practical and should be a choice. But to expect one group of city employees to and not others is unfair, unless there’s hard evidence that proves a benefit to everyone.

1

Yak_Rodeo t1_j20f18c wrote

i agree, but thats more of an issue with the city itself. i think the city could do some unique things to remedy it like significant homebuyer rebates for city workers who sign an agreement to stay for a period of time or some variation of that

we are kind of at a perfect storm with the city becoming prohibitively expensive for middle class workers while also national opinion is steering potentially good candidates away from police as a career. the days of the civil service exams having lines out the door for the cop test are long gone

1

SkiingAway t1_j215fdz wrote

Realistically, that's just pushing deck chairs around on the Titanic. The city can either build a fuckton more housing, or the city can cripple itself by pricing workers out of the area and coming up with increasingly absurd methods of trying to privilege certain groups of workers over others.

Beyond this, I'm not particularly convinced that someone living in West Roxbury has a better grasp of the issues facing East Boston than someone in Chelsea does.

3