Salami - you're changing the subject because you got corrected for making an inaccurate statement. Your assertion that the Chief was
MIA last night, or during most major events, and insnuation that he does not spend the majority fo his waking hours ibn the City is
simply wrong. If you say something inaccurate on a public emssage board, don't be upset when you are corrected.  Check your facts
before posting.

With respect to the issue of a bloated chain of command  - that's a different issue for you and others to weigh in on as you see fit.   But
again, that wasn't what the correction was about.  

RE: DEpt. Heads living outside the City, people should hav the right to live where they want.  You obviously think that commitment to the City is correlated with where you lay your head at night and pay your taxes.  We disagree on the issue.

My post in no way could be construed as an assertion, insinuation, etc. that MC1 or Salami did not have a right, repsonbilitity, morale
duty - whatever- to criticize City government.  But with that right comes responsibility - the responsbility to be accurate.

MC1 - not DVOR and have no idea who he is.  

You are changing the subject because you don't want to admit where the chief lives. The property owners are all tired of this. It's about more than where someone has a pillow. If the chief doesn't live in the City why should any other officer obey the residency law? You are a minority of a minority in defending this activity. You need to check your facts about the residency law.

Quoted from visitor

   ....

MC1 - not DVOR and have no idea who he is.  

Hmmmm.

My posts were:

Quoted Text

…Oh yes, DVFOL …..says crime is down…

Quoted Text

…Oh, but DVFOL claims….

Quoted Text

…Well DV?  …

Quoted Text

…Let's ask DV why…

So then, I read this post by Visitor (a NEW name).    And I can't help but notice some similarities.    And I respond with:

Quoted Text

Sounds like DVFOL under an assumed name

And Visitor responds with what?

Quoted Text

....,notDVOR and ....

Oops


.

Quoted from visitor

  

RE: DEpt. Heads living outside the City, people should hav the right to live where they want.    

Sorry, but there IS a residency requirement in the city, howver, the dems have CHOSEN to ignore it for the high paid patronage jobs.

Department heads get the fat paycheck because they are not paying the taxes.  Except for police on duty, the departments don't have to live with trash piling up, houses next door falling apart, don't have to worry about letting their children play outside, never have to call in to work, because the roads aren't plowed, etc.  

Salami

I have a pretty solid undretsanding of the residency law and it does not apply to the officers as it does to other City workers, primarily
because of the collective bargaining agreement. The Command Staff are drawn from the  bargaining unit members.  The PBA members
are required to live in the City; however, during their first six years of employment they are allowed to move out but they must forfeit
their Holiday Check (Holiday bonus).  After six years they can live where they want without penalty.

The residency law applies to Dept. Heads and has never been applied to the Command Staff before, so, by the time most have reached a Command Level appointment - they have already purchased a residence.  Thus, if they lived outside of the City, they would have to
sell their house and move back into the City upon being promoted. This also creates a problem because these promotions occur near
the end of their careers, so, in some cases - they might be selling a house and reloacting for a position they may only hold for several
years.  Whether they should be compelled to do that is a matter of opinion.

But, the PBA bargaining unit members are excluded contractually from the residency requirement. The same applies to SFD (I think but am not certain).

I know that my opinion may very well be in the minority, but it is my opinion, you are certainly entitled to label that opinion wrong.

Visitor is far too respectful and far too reasonable to be Ronald McDonald.

MC1

For the second and last time, I am not DV and will certainly not engage in the bickering I've seen betwen the two of you on this site. I
am not siding with either of you.  Beleive what you want.  If you insist on calling me a liar - you are clearly someone whom I think should be avoided. It's a big site so it's quite doable and I'm certain there are other eraders who do not enjoy reading the personal bickering.

Quoted from visitor

Salami

The residency law applies to Dept. Heads .

Uh, what department head lives IN the city and pays city taxes?   And, please provide proof too, if you aren't DVFOL, well, as a new member, be advised that when you post, you really better have proof to back up what you say

It's not a policy of the board, per se, just know that lack of proof is indicative of no credibility

I owe you nothing in the way of proof.  This will be my last response to you.

Salami - we disagree, but have no problem discussing this or other issues with you.  I do not agree with you on some of these current
issues are discussing, but in my opinion, a lot of the your arguments are logical and held by many, if not the majority of City residents.  

1st sentence meant for MC1.

Quoted from visitor

RE: DEpt. Heads living outside the City, people should hav the right to live where they want.  You obviously think that commitment to the City is correlated with where you lay your head at night and pay your taxes.  We disagree on the issue.
  

I disagree with your assertion on this issue. How the heck can government officials promote their city by asserting how wonderful it is, and how it has jobs when in fact they themselves choose not to live here and raise a family here? BECAUSE they know that crime is increasing and schools can't graduate 50% of it's students. Roads are a mess and taxes are the highest in the state!! The dept heads will tell you that themselves. Just ask them yourself!

But shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... ..........no one is suppose to know!

Thank you visitor. My opinions are also held by many officers and City candidates. We fondly remember the Chiefs father who was one of the greats in the history of the SPD. I have always been a strong supporter of the SPD and realize the tough duty they all have.

     Things are getting hot in Vale and many are questioning the officers actions. The reports on TW-9 are very disturbing. We can respectfully disagree on residency laws but it is more than heads on a pillow at night. Nothing can improve until we get more officers/City employees living in the City. This also applies to the finance department. We need to work together to find answers because the crime/gang problem in the City is not getting any better.

Until a complete investigation is conducted and its results made public - there is nothing gained by making any comments on the incident.

Quoted from visitor

I owe you nothing in the way of proof.  This will be my last response to you.

.  

DV never provides proof.   And the "...last response...." phrase, DV's words many times over.


Whenever a poster posts the cheers for the crap that's running the city and cheers for  raising taxes on the financially struggling homeowners, such poster never provides anything to support the comments they make.  

Visitor cheers for the cronies to get high pay thanks to the theft from the financially struggling homeonwers, cheers for the cronies to live in nice safe neighborhoods and have a nice quality of life, while the people who pay those high taxes suffer.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Until a complete investigation is conducted and its results made public - there is nothing gained by making any comments on the incident.

We heard the same crap on McClellan Street. Can we comment about that now? People have every right to sound off. That is what this board is all about. We don't have to agree on every issue but hopeful some consensus can be achieved.