Firefighters Endorsement: Statement by John Zbesko, Candidate, 7th Ward Alderman
Since the issue of the the firefighters union endorsements has flared up, I would like to describe my interview with the director of the firefighters' PAC. I was eager to win their endorsement. I know several firefighters who are Evanston residents and I have coached some of their children and they have coached some of mine. I appreciate the major efforts they have made in helping elect Democratic candidates to county, state, and national office.
At my interview, I expressed my strong view that police and fire protection is an essential service that should be last on a list of cuts should the need arise. I listened to a presentation about how staffing levels in relation to the number of calls/incidents is stretched and agreed that this was an issue to be further examined. I also stated very clearly that the police and firefighters pension plan has been woefully underfunded, that I supported making the required City contributions and suggested that any one-time revenues, such as the proceeds from the selling of City property, should be transferred to the pension fund. I also stated that I do not think the taxpayers of Evanston would support an increase in any tax for the sole purpose of making additional pension fund contributions.
I do not know what else I could have said to win their endorsement. I do not know why my opponent gained their endorsement. I asked my firefighter friend about the endorsement process; he did not know because the rank and file did not vote or otherwise discuss the endorsements. I guess I'm learning a lesson about the political process.
Printer-friendly version
Furthermore , which was not
Furthermore , which was not mentioned, most police and fire personnel cannot afford to live in this town.
Let voters decide on a residency requirement with a referendum
Uh, anonymous, you're not being honest here. I bet you're in the union, too.
First, you wrote in your last post that Geneva, Danville and Moline have SOME FORM of residency requirement. So, I'm right, and therefore, my batting average is pretty good.
Second, you made no argument in terms of residency requirement for firemen - bullying and the criminal element don't apply to them. So, let's start with a residency requirement for Evanston firemen.
Third, it doesn't matter how many Illinois towns have residency requirements. What matters is what Evanstonians want in their town.
Police, WHEREVEVER THEY LIVE, do worry about the criminal element. So, regardless if cops work in another town, they will always be wary of criminals in their neighborhood. And yes, cops can arrest a neighbor in another town - criminals do conduct business outside the town they reside in. BTW-if cops can't handle themselves during off hours they should consider a career change.
LET'S HAVE A REFERENDUM and let the voters decide if they want a residency requirement for police and fire personnel.
It's the least our elected officials can do as our taxes go up mostly to pay off the outrageous pension police and fire unions get in Evanston. Who outside the public sector get pensions?
I think I might ask Evanston candidates what they think. And, heck, maybe just after the next Evanston tax hike, I might send a petition around to get a referendum to enact a residency requirement for police and fire unions.
Now, that would be fun.
Rah Rah Residency!
Anonymous Al you have missed the point. This all began when someone stated residency requirments would lower crime rates, improve neighborhoods, and impact elections in Evanston. If, like the three towns you listed above,Evanston had a radius of 6-20 miles how would this directly impact this city. I can almost gaurantee no one would choose Evanston over all the other options. Even the short 6 mile leash would get you into improved and affordable environments.
I purposely avoided the residency requirement for firemen because their schedules keep them in town and stationed at the fire house long enough. There is almost always a sufficient number of fire members available. I think 24 hours on duty in this town is enough. Let them get away from here as well.
You stated ".. it doesn't matter how many Illinois towns have residency requirements. What matters is what Evanstonians want in their town." Well then why did you attempt to do a 'quick search' of the other towns in Illinois, if it has no bearing? Was this an attempt at appearing knowledgable?? Evanstonians want more than most. They have to realize that even they are not more powerful than the unions. I see a veiled threat in your posting regarding a petition.
I would suggest you start with yard signs. They pop up like weeds in this town. I will even let you use some ideas of mine. How about a sign that resembles a century 21 real estate sign, however it can read "For sale...to police only" Then stick it in a yard near Church and Dodge.
As you said Police do worry about the criminal element. And that is exactly why they avoid living certain places and more specifically where they work. They avoid certain areas in other towns too. Police are a very tight nit group that watch out for one another. I gaurantee phone calls are made to other Officers and the real truth is told about a town before an officer decides to move in. Most often this will be the area in town where all the other out of town police live. It is not by coincidence.
If you find starting petitions and referendums 'fun', as you stated, I would suggest a long hard look at some things. Maybe a hobby or career change is in order. I hear Moline Police Department is currently hiring!
Again I wish you luck with your efforts.
Self Reflection on Issues
I'd assume that residency requirements are something that you impose on other people. Of the people that support the requirement, would your reaction be the same if your employer required you to live within the city limits of where they are located? (assuming of course that you don't live and work in the same city)
As far as the Police and Firefighters are concerned, the city is just an employer.
Residency requirement is not a silly argument
Ah, Michelle, Michelle.
I bet you must be or once were a union member.
First, Evanston doesn't have to compete with other municipalities for police and firemen any more than other cities, especially during a severe Recession. That's silly talk.
And it is naive to suggest Evanston is somehow "limited" on what can be asked of its employees because the city has to allegedly compete for employees.
It's the other way around. Current and potential police and fire employees have to compete with EACH OTHER to get or keep a job in Evanston. Elected and appointed city officials, representing its residents, should, in theory at least, have the power to decide on issues relating to fire and police employment, including residency requirements.
I wonder how many Evanston fire and police employees would quit Evanston and risk their pensions if a residency requirement ordinance were enacted? I mean, who in the private sector gets a pension?
What is really interesting is the union's support of politicians who negotiate contracts and vote and make policy decisions on issues affecting union employment.
Mayoral candidate Liz Tisdahl, for example, just got the union's endorsement. Whose interests will she represent when she makes decisions regarding union employement? The union's or the general public's.
Don't think for a second that the unions' and the public's interest never clash. Just look at the doozy contract and pension deal the unions got from elected city officials. No thanks to those city officials, Evanston taxpayers are faced with serious budget shortfalls and tax hikes just to pay down the massively bloated debt incurred by the union pension.
How can you run an effective business or city government when it's nearly impossible to fire or layoff union employees because of over-protective union contracts as well as facing extreme difficulty in hiring non-union people?
The unions have just about managed to bring down the three U.S. automakers, and a few airlines. Now, they're on the verge of bankrupting countless cities such as Evanston because of unrealistic and unsustainable pensions and contracts.
And taxpayers can't even ask for a simple residency requirement from their police and fire personnel?
What's wrong with asking police and firemen who are paid a king's ransom to not only work in Evanston but to live in Evanston - to give a little more to the community?
And, do we really want to vote for a politician that has the union's support?
Michelle, are the unions working for the city or is the city working for the unions?
Residency requirements do work
As I have said on this post, there are Illinois towns and cities that have successful police and fire residency requirements. A quick search found Geneva, Batavia, Oswego, Danville, and Moline to name a few.
Police and fire unions, however, are on the attack against those cities that do have residency requirements, and in some cases, the requirements have been overturned.
The argument police and fire unions always make is that they don't want to live next to the criminal element they arrest and their children are targeted in schools.
These arguments don't apply to firemen, first of all.
Second, whichever city a cops resides in there's always a chance there will be the criminal element in the neighborhood and criminals don't always conduct business in the town they live in. As for the cop kids getting bullied, there's no evidence for that and no school district is immune to bullying.
Further, Illinois law dictates that elected and appointed officials must reside within city limits. Do their kids get bullied? What about them living among residents who might not be happy with some ordinance and so on.
I don't hear a peep from elected and appointed officials, complaining about residency requirements.
You know why? They're not unionized.
They're also paid more, and have less contact with citizens
Like many post about the upcoming election, this is a silly argument. The reality is that the other municipalities listed don't have to compete with neighboring suburbs for employees in the way Evanston does; this means Evanston is limited in what can be asked of those employees.
Second, and most importantly, this (and many of the other issues posted here) isn't really an issue decided by council, but one handled by the City Manager (eventually, with Council's approval.)How about we focus on issues our elected officials have a say in?
Find out more about Brummel Park Neighbors and 75,000 Hours
Correction
Apparently this is a power of council.
However, this is not an argument that brings anything to the table. Just making things different doesn't necessarily make them better. Blanket statements do point up a lack of understanding of how difficult it is to implement policy, and how changes might affect the City. At issue is HOW you plan to change and WHY making those changes will be beneficial and outweigh the negatives. Policymakers need to show they understand both sides of the argument clearly, and have a strategy to implement their ideas.
So this remains a silly argument.
Find out more about Brummel Park Neighbors and 75,000 Hours
residency referee
Michele,
Although I appreciate what I read, as your limited support of the ban on residency, I would say this...Can we have a simple discussion on this web-site without the Brummel Park Neighbors getting involved? This ongoing discussion isn't just about how it impacts the upcoming election. It is a friendly difference of opinion that does not need a moderator.
Please clarify?
Could you clarify what you mean? First of all, I'm not certain why you refer to Brummel Park Neighbors. I post under my own name, my signature is there only for reference.
Second, this "simple discussion" as you call it, was initiated because a candidate for office made a general statement about firefighters. The effect of the ensuing responses has been to silence thoughtful discussion or questions pertaining to the candidate, and frustrate responsible voters looking for information.
Find out more about Brummel Park Neighbors and 75,000 Hours
Clarifying the Residency discussion
Michele,
I included the Brummel Park Neighbors because you choose to include it in all your posts. Simple as that. Give credit where credit is due.
Secondly, I hardly believe that the ongoing discussion about the residency issue has 'frustrated responsible voters' to the point that they cannot navigate through this web site. Let's give everyone a bit more credit.
what statement?
Michele - what statement are you talking about?
"Second, this "simple discussion" as you call it, was initiated because a candidate for office made a general statement about firefighters."
Residency...one more time
OK Anonymous Al,let's go over this again....
First of all your information regarding residency in the towns you listed is false. Your 'quick search' of the internet was just that...a quick search. Unfortunately you are obviously one of those 'informed' people who rely on Google to fill your mind with 'facts'. Here is a tip for you...telephones still work. I'll save you the hassle and tell you what I found out. Geneva and Moline have a 20 mile radius for their police/ and fire employees. As of November of 2008 Batavia has released their requirement based on "the current economy regarding the sale of homes, as well as the fact that many desired employees have unique circumstances which the City Council(Batavia) may want the flexibility to accommodate". Sounds pretty liberal huh? Oswego has no residency whatsoever. And finally Danville has a 6 mi. radius from the city limits. Once again this would have no impact on voting issues or crime rates. So you are batting 000.00 %. I would suggest another 'quick search'.
You are correct that Police, and sometimes fire unions, will always use the valid reason of not wanting to co mingle with the criminal element as neighbors. I would be willing to bet you have never had a physical fight with your neighbor and lived happily amongst them.
As far as the officers child being bullied. The fact that his son came to him crying because a drug users son threatened him is all the evidence I would need. I'll arrest the guy for possession of crack cocaine and then see him at the kids basketball game when he bonds out...sounds wonderful.
As far as the elected/appointed officials go I will say this. The elected officials ie. Mayor, city council, etc. do not, and I repeat, do not come into contact with the criminal element in the same manner as the street officer. When was the last time an alderman had to wrestle someone into handcuffs at 2 in the morning? Does our mayor have to break up a domestic fight and arrest her neighbor? Nope... she calls the police just like everyone else.
So, can we put this to bed now? It's not going to happen. I think I'll go back to reading about the "Tower" drama.
Limiting basic freedom
The residency requirement puts an unnecessary burden on personal freedom. The US Constitution clearly states that all duties not clearly laid out in the constitution are delegated to the States. Most States' run under the basis that all duties not clearly managed by the State are delegated to the local governments.
We get to vote every few years, but we are not limited in our voice to those times. If you don't like what your City is doing, you are supposed to have the freedom to leave. If you don't like what your County is doing, you have the freedom to leave. If you don't like what your State is doing, leave the State. If you don't like what your Federal government is doing, you are out of luck.
By requiring any group in city government to live within the city limits, you are taking away that freedom. Nobody should lose their job when they feel that they have to move out of a city, whether for personal, economic, or political reasons. And the rising cost of living in Evanston poses a real problem in this regard.
Police/fire residency
Being a city employee myself, I couldn't blame the firefighters/police if they left their jobs due to a residency requirement. I wouldn't want to deal with any of these residents on my time off either!
Residency requirements are not that unusual
In response to anonymous who would like to know why it's a good idea to require Evanston police and fire personnel to reside in Evanston, I'd like to say this:
First, residency requirements are not that unusual - there are cities that have it - Chicago for one.
Second, it's a no brainer to understand that police and fire personnel care more about the town they live and work in. So, if Evanston cops and firemen get sweet pension deals, and bankrupting the taxpayers, the least they can do is be required to live in town. The neighborhoods would be safer.
Talk to any Chicago cop, and if they're honest they will tell you the hoods where they live have an unusually low crime rate. I wonder why? Just think if a large cluster of Evanston cops live in South Evanston. The crime rate would decrease at NO COST TO THE CITY OF EVANSTON.
If you have crime problems in your neighborhood wouldn't you want some cops to move in?
Should all city employees live in town? I don't know. But why not start with the cops and firemen. Let's see how many actually leave their Evanston employment and pension deal if the residency requirement were miracoulously enacted here.
Yes, the police and fire unions are too strong. One might say, possibly too corrupt. Just ask Blago, Burris, Jan Schakowsky and now apparently Tisdahl.
Residency requirement for new hires should be considered
It is my thought that our new City Council should review and discuss residency requirements for new firefighters and police persons being hired. If a new applicant want an offered position, they could be required to have residency within six months.
Current employed firefighters and police persons should be exempt from a residency requirement.
After sucessful completion of a probationary period, new hires who are first time home buyers should be offered some type of pay back assistance with a down payment on a home and/or reduction in their real estate taxes.
Our community is best served with the presence of our fire fighters and police persons living within our community. Such allows our youth to have salient role models within their community as the grow up.
It is my final thought that if you live in the community you will most likely spend most of your money within our community.
Role models?
Shouldn't our "youth" have role models such as their parents, relatives, neighbors, etc?? Why would a police officer living next door take a parent's place as a role model? That's the most absurd reason I've ever heard for a residency requirement.
Residency issue
John,
Your comments on residency, again, sound great 'on paper' but simply will not work. Evanston is not that special that they would attract quality applicants if this were enacted. First off, there many other agencies in this state that offer better pay, equipment, working conditions, etc. Not to mention better relations with the population they serve. Secondly, even with assistance from the city, the homes that would be affordable would not be located in the better parts of town. Therefore you would very likely be living next door to those you have the most contact with throughout your workday. I know employees of this town that once lived here and have moved simply because their children were being harrassed at school because their parent was a local police officer that arrested another childs father. NO THANK YOU. The firemen are most often well liked and very much appreciated. Police officers have a different situation. Most contact with citizens is not that pleasant. Simply because the officer is out of uniform does not make him or her invisible. I wouldn't want to be shopping in Dominick's with my family and run into someone who I just arrested the night before and is still very upset.Clearly you don't understand this conflict. Everyone likes to leave there jobs when they are done for the day...yourself included.
Anonymous: You make some
Anonymous:
You make some very good points about the undesirability of residency requirements with respect to the potential threat posed to officers and their families by those they have arrested.
This is part of a much bigger problem caused by drug laws requiring police to arrest those who have done no one any harm. Unfortunately, to our shame, we as a society have allowed intolerant busybodies to dictate at gunpoint what we may put in our bodies. This puts all of us, not just the police, in peril. Addicts commit real crimes to finance their habits because drug laws drive up the cost of their cravings. America has a greater prison population than even communist China. Many of these inmates are nonviolent, harmless drug users incarcerated at great cost to taxpayers. This is madness on a grand scale.
We tolerate, even celebrate, health destroying substances such as alcohol, tobacco, hydrogenated oils, refined grains and all kinds of sweeteners. Parents mindlessly pump their children full of donuts and soda and then wonder why we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic. Yet America continues to destroy the lives of those who dare to smoke or snort politically incorrect stuff.
We would become a much safer, less fearful and more peaceful and civilized society by repealing all drug laws.
City employee home ownership
Information about the City of Evanston’s
Employer Assisted Housing Program
from April, 2006
The City has established a Employer Assisted Housing (EAH) program for City employees purchasing a home in the City of Evanston, in partnership with the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and Housing Opportunities Development Corporation (HODC). This is intended as an OVERVIEW of the program.
Program Services
• Homebuyer education and counseling through HODC
• Down payment/closing cost assistance of $8,000 in the form of a 5 Year forgiveable loan from the City of Evanston towards the purchase of a home in Evanston
• Additional assistance of $3,000 to $5,000, depending on income level, in the form of a 5 Year forgiveable loan from the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA)
• Applications will be processed on a first-come, first-served basis as detailed at the Information Sessions
Program Eligibility
• Be a full-time employee of the City of Evanston, for at least six months
• Have completed any probationary conditions of employment
• Have a household income of no more than 100% of the region’s Area Median Income. If a household consists of more than one City of Evanston employee, that household is only eligible for one grant of $8,000.
• Demonstrate commitment to working with EAH program by meeting program conditions, such as credit counseling and home buying education.
• Have a credit record which qualifies for mortgage financing not considered “predatory lending”
• Be able and willing to contribute at least 1.5% towards the transaction
Sounds good....on paper
I would first say that residency requirements are very unusual. Check with any local municipality around, with exception to Chicago, and you will be hard pressed to find one in place. At the very most, you may see some towns require fire/police to live within a certain raidius of say maybe 25 miles.
Secondly, your "no brainer" scenario is not entirely accurate.Simply because the police and firemen live in town will not make it 'safer'. Perhaps maybe in their little bit of the neighborhood or street. More accurately, all the members would live in one particular 'nice' area (which doesn't include south east Evanston, or the area around the Church/Dodge)and keep that area 'nice'. Your 'honest' talk with Chicago police is a falsehood as well. I know many police in Chicago. When they are 'honest' they all (100%) say they would flee Chicago in a heart beat if the residency requirement were lifted. Nearly all of the police and firemen in Chicago live in the far north west corner of the city limits. I would be willing to bet that very few live in the 'hood'. Why subject yourself to the same morons, criminals and problems on and off duty? Perhaps in your world you would do this for free and out of the kindness of your heart?
I will tell you that many police/firemen with less than 10 years on the job would definately leave if the residency requirement were enacted. There are many other fine agencies out there that have long since done away with this rediculous requirement. And good luck hiring replacements when you tell them they must live within the city limits.
Fortunately this will never happen so this discussion is 'just for fun'.
Does it really matter
It is not very clear to me why an endorsement from the firefighter PAC should really matter. I am under the thought that most Evanston's fire fighters live in another city or town. Hopefully, if Mr. Zbesko is elected he will push for our police and fire persons have residency in Evanston.
Residency Requirement for Fire and Police
You are correct that most fireman live outside of Evanston. This includes the vast majority of the police department members as well. I would like to know why you feel it necessary to have these city employees reside in town? Please don't tell me you believe by having these employees reside in town, the residents will be better served. Should the all city employees be required to live in town? What about the members of the forestry department? What if an infected tree on Ridge should fall down? If these employees were residents would it be removed quicker? Residency requirements were originally established to allow for quicker response times in an emergency situation. Cell phones, blackberries, e-mail, improved transportation, etc. have all made this an archaic rule. Furthermore, even if your candidate,Zbesko, should be elected, the police/fire unions are far too strong to have residency instituted. Good luck with that wish list!
Residency for Police and Fire
Furthermore, which was not mentioned, most police and fire personnel cannot afford to live in this town.
residency requirement - bad idea
I used to think that it would be a good idea to have police and firemen live in the city - not required, but maybe encouraged by giving breaks on housing costs or something...but then after seeing how elections go in Chicago, and Tisdahl's dealings with the firemen - maybe it would be better to have FEWER city employees coming out to vote.
Almost nobody votes in municipal elections, so the NIMBYs and special interests have power out of proportion with their numbers. If City employees are able to vote, they will all come out and support their jobs.
I would like to see our City employees living in Skokie, Rogers Park, and Wilmette.