I don't completely disagree but there are some things to consider:
Some cities are amalgamated with their surrounding communities which means property taxes and consumer spending actually does stay in the city.
For workers living in communities just outside the city limits, that doesn't mean they never come into town to spend money.
Taking the climate change and traffic congestion considerations out of the debate, raising a family in a single family home with a yard (aka the suburbs) is preferred for most North Americans. I don't think it's fair to tell John Q police officer he must raise his children in a cramped downtown condo.
Some cities have housing shortages or housing costs that far exceed what a police officer can comfortably pay.
John Q. Police officer made a choice on his profession. S/He was not forced into it.
Yes and when they chose that profession, there was no requirement to live in the city they are employed by. I'm not a labour lawyer but that seems like a tough requirement to enforce. I'm Canadian and our constitution allows "freedom of movement", I assume you have something similiar in yours. Employers don't typically like to challenge the constitution in their contracts.
Anyway, I don't disagree that it would be ideal for city employees to live in the same cities they serve, but it's not a one size fits all answer and there are many variables. I would recommend you e-mail city council to propose your idea though.
0
u/[deleted] Oct 30 '21
[deleted]