From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), a longtime proponent of local control, said Monday that Gov. Scott Walker's call to end residency rules statewide could hurt some of Milwaukee's best neighborhoods.If the only thing propping up Milwaukee is the residency rule, the city is in BIG trouble.
Grothman said that, while he viewed the end of residency rules statewide as a good idea "in the abstract," Milwaukee is the state's most important city.
"We have to be mindful that it might be devastating to some of the city's best residential neighborhoods," he said. "It will be big trouble in Milwaukee."
...Asked if he would actively oppose the measure, Grothman repeated his statement that it would harm some of the city's neighborhoods.
Asked if the measure belonged in the state budget, as opposed to a separate measure, Grothman said: "Of course it doesn't belong in the budget."
Milwaukee is important to Wisconsin, being the state's largest city; but that's no reason to impose rules that hold people hostage.
According to Grothman, abolishing the rule would be "devastating to some of the city's best residential neighborhoods."
Why?
Why would people leave great neighborhoods? Why would they choose to uproot if where they live is so desirable?
They wouldn't. There's no reason to assume the best residential neighborhoods would be devastated if some city employees are no longer forced to live within the city limits.
Is Grothman saying that only the residency requirement is keeping the city afloat?
Arguing that lifting the residency rule would mean a mass exodus from the city's good neighborhoods is to argue that people would never choose to live in Tom Barrett's Milwaukee without being coerced. It's to admit that the city has so many negatives and the quality of life is so poor that people will escape even the "city's best residential neighborhoods" if given the chance.
Not good. Not good at all.
If the residency rule is the only thing keeping Milwaukee from collapsing then the city may be too far gone to save.
6 comments:
It is not "the only thing" but yes, the residency rule ensures a base level middle income population for Milwaukee. And past easing of residency requirement in other major markets have shown exodus rates of anywhere from 10-60%; I'd guess Milwaukee would be in the mid-range of those numbers. Of course there would be the accompanying decrease in housing stock values and decreased tax revenue. This will be a huge kick in the teeth to Milwaukee at a time it can least afford it. Don't forget WI-GOP, as goes Milwaukee, so goes Wisconsin. If you don't understand that, you are kidding yourselves.
Do you and your fellow Leftists have any ideas as to how to make the city a desirable place to live?
Government handouts and the creation of welfare as the family business didn't work. The city needs taxpayers, but many left.
Who's to blame for people wanting to escape from crime, high taxes and dysfunctional schools if the prison doors are opened?
Blame Tom Barrett and Milwaukee's leaders for allowing the city to go to hell.
Bottom line: I don't think people should be forced to live in the city.
It took 40 years for American cities to reach this depth, it will likely take longer to pull them out.
As for your bottom line, wouldn't it be the conservative line that it is up to localities to set the policies, you know, local control and all, and if employees don't like it, they can look elsewhere? All free markety and such? I understand this is conflicting for you guys, but at some point, you're going to have choose between which ideals you're going to jettison.
Individual freedom trumps "localities setting policies."
No conflict here.
Well there you have it. Local control is no longer a conservative value. That's very big of you to admit.
You have problems with logic.
MY belief that individual freedom trumps local control does not mean local control is not important to me or a "value," as you put it.
Declaring local control to no longer be a conservative value based on my comments is an illogical leap.
I don't speak for anyone but myself. I'm not a spokesperson for conservatives.
Post a Comment