Long time since a post on this forum so I thought I would put this up. I'm sure some buns will be frosted....
Click here
It seems that Cleveland lawyers were a day late in their support of residency requirements for city employees. I do believe that cities should have the right to require city employees to live within city limits.
I presume that Cleveland and its lawyers support residency, you would think with how much money these city lawyers get paid that deadlines would not be an issue....
Oh well....
Residency Requirement
Moderator: Jim DeVito
-
- Posts: 751
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 3:10 pm
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Lakewood
-
- Posts: 3313
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm
Re: Residency Requirement
Tim Liston wrote:It seems that Cleveland lawyers were a day late in their support of residency requirements for city employees. I do believe that cities should have the right to require city employees to live within city limits.
There seems to be a rising level of incompetency in government and business.
The Panama Canal was built on time and on budget using steam shovels and wheel barrows but a new high school costs $350 million:
http://news.aol.com/article/350-million ... ens/159733
A couple of years ago I went to see the Hoover Dam. The most interesting part of the story came at the end. That's when they explained that the dam was completed on schedule and under budget. 80 years later the visitors center took longer to complete than the original dam, was substantially over budget and was completed way behind schedule.
-
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:41 pm
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:53 am
Here is an update of what is going on in the Courts that I came across this week in the e-Newsletter from the law firm of Downes, Hurst & Fishel:
STATUS OF RESIDENCY STATUTE
Ohio Revised Code §9.481 was enacted by the Ohio General Assembly and took effect on May 1, 2006. The statute specifically prohibits any political subdivision from requiring its employees to reside in any area of the state. The only exception is that those employees who are required to respond in the event of an emergency or disaster may be required to reside within the county in which the political subdivision is located or in any adjacent county.
Five cities challenged the residency statute as violating the home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. In City of Lima v. State of
Ohio, unreported, 2007 WL 4248278 (3rd Dist. Ct. App. 12/3/07), the Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional
because it violated the municipal home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for
review on May 7, 2008.
In State of Ohio v. City of Akron, et al., 2008 WL 81506 (9th Dist. Ct. App. 1/9/08) both the City and its unions filed a motion for declaratory judgement regarding the residency requirement in Akron’s charter. The Summit County Common Pleas Court ruled against the City, but the 9th District Ct. of Appeals ruled in its favor, finding that the statute violated the municipal home rule provision of the state constitution. The State appealed and oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court will be scheduled on the same day as those in the Lima case.
In City of Dayton v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2222706 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. 5/30/08) the Court of Appeals found the statute to be constitutional. The Dayton case has been accepted for review by the Ohio Supreme Court but has been stayed pending outcome of the Lima and Akron cases.
In both City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2252542 (8th Dist. Ct. App. June 2, 2008) and City of Toledo and City of Oregon v. State of Ohio, unreported 2008 WL 1837256 (6th Dist. Ct. App. April 25, 2008) the Courts of Appeals found the statute to be in violation of the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. Both cases have been accepted for review, but, like the Dayton case ,have been stayed pending the outcome of the other two cases.
Of the five (5) cases challenging the statute, only one Court of Appeals has found the statute to be constitutional. Downes, Hurst & Fishel is filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the Ohio Public Employer Labor Relations Association in support of the cities’ position in these cases.
A Periodic Publication of Downes, Hurst & Fishel
STATUS OF RESIDENCY STATUTE
Ohio Revised Code §9.481 was enacted by the Ohio General Assembly and took effect on May 1, 2006. The statute specifically prohibits any political subdivision from requiring its employees to reside in any area of the state. The only exception is that those employees who are required to respond in the event of an emergency or disaster may be required to reside within the county in which the political subdivision is located or in any adjacent county.
Five cities challenged the residency statute as violating the home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. In City of Lima v. State of
Ohio, unreported, 2007 WL 4248278 (3rd Dist. Ct. App. 12/3/07), the Court of Appeals found the statute unconstitutional
because it violated the municipal home rule section of the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for
review on May 7, 2008.
In State of Ohio v. City of Akron, et al., 2008 WL 81506 (9th Dist. Ct. App. 1/9/08) both the City and its unions filed a motion for declaratory judgement regarding the residency requirement in Akron’s charter. The Summit County Common Pleas Court ruled against the City, but the 9th District Ct. of Appeals ruled in its favor, finding that the statute violated the municipal home rule provision of the state constitution. The State appealed and oral arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court will be scheduled on the same day as those in the Lima case.
In City of Dayton v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2222706 (2nd Dist. Ct. App. 5/30/08) the Court of Appeals found the statute to be constitutional. The Dayton case has been accepted for review by the Ohio Supreme Court but has been stayed pending outcome of the Lima and Akron cases.
In both City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, unreported, 2008 WL 2252542 (8th Dist. Ct. App. June 2, 2008) and City of Toledo and City of Oregon v. State of Ohio, unreported 2008 WL 1837256 (6th Dist. Ct. App. April 25, 2008) the Courts of Appeals found the statute to be in violation of the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. Both cases have been accepted for review, but, like the Dayton case ,have been stayed pending the outcome of the other two cases.
Of the five (5) cases challenging the statute, only one Court of Appeals has found the statute to be constitutional. Downes, Hurst & Fishel is filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the Ohio Public Employer Labor Relations Association in support of the cities’ position in these cases.
A Periodic Publication of Downes, Hurst & Fishel
-
- Posts: 2260
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
hoover
Henry Kaiser was one of the chief contractors on the hoover dam. He didn't have a degree in engineering or an MBA.
tens of thousands of high schools have been built. it should be easy enough to apply the designs of old high schools to new spaces. but the trend these days is to build them like one story prisons or shopping malls.
It takes more sophistication today to build less sturdy less affordable buildings and infrastructure.
it makes sense for most city workers to live in the city: they are more likely to have insight into how to get the right departments involved when something goes wrong. They are paid by tax dollars, so should have a greater interest in the quality of life issues in the city.
tens of thousands of high schools have been built. it should be easy enough to apply the designs of old high schools to new spaces. but the trend these days is to build them like one story prisons or shopping malls.
It takes more sophistication today to build less sturdy less affordable buildings and infrastructure.
it makes sense for most city workers to live in the city: they are more likely to have insight into how to get the right departments involved when something goes wrong. They are paid by tax dollars, so should have a greater interest in the quality of life issues in the city.
"shall we have peace" - Henry Charles Carey
-
- Posts: 3313
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:10 pm
Re: hoover
ryan costa wrote:tens of thousands of high schools have been built. it should be easy enough to apply the designs of old high schools to new spaces. but the trend these days is to build them like one story prisons or shopping malls.
The new high school in Los Angeles was ten years behind schedule and cost $350 million dollars to build.
It will serve as many students as Lakewood High.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1471781
-
- Posts: 2260
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
Re: hoover
Bill Call wrote:ryan costa wrote:tens of thousands of high schools have been built. it should be easy enough to apply the designs of old high schools to new spaces. but the trend these days is to build them like one story prisons or shopping malls.
The new high school in Los Angeles was ten years behind schedule and cost $350 million dollars to build.
It will serve as many students as Lakewood High.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1471781
It is sad it takes 350 million to build a high school in Los Angeles.
http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=BFS
about 100 years ago Cleveland did not have to look far for an architect and construction supervisor. They appointed Frank Seymour Barnum Architect and Superintendent of Buildings in the Cleveland Public School District. Frank Seymour Banum designed and supervised the construction of 75 Cleveland public schools. They were solid buildings. I'd like to see what was on his resume before he was hired for this job.
"shall we have peace" - Henry Charles Carey
-
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
-
- Posts: 2260
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:31 pm
Stephen Eisel wrote:LOS ANGELES (AP) - A decade behind schedule, a $350 million downtown high school finally opened on Wednesday after years of environmental, seismic and legal troubles.
Has Los Angeles always been this unsuccessful at buildin high schools?
What about San Francisco? How well did they get high schools built within living memory of the big Earthquake?
"shall we have peace" - Henry Charles Carey
-
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
That is like building the Brown's stadium.....ryan costa wrote:Stephen Eisel wrote:LOS ANGELES (AP) - A decade behind schedule, a $350 million downtown high school finally opened on Wednesday after years of environmental, seismic and legal troubles.
Has Los Angeles always been this unsuccessful at buildin high schools?
What about San Francisco? How well did they get high schools built within living memory of the big Earthquake?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests