Pittsburgh voters to decide in November on police residency requirement
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 1:57 p.m.
Pittsburgh City Council members voted unanimously Tuesday to allow voters to decide in a November referendum whether police officers and other city employees should be required to live within the city limits.
A city lawyer advised council members before the vote that they had the legal authority to take such action.
The Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 has challenged the residency requirement for city workers, arguing it hinders recruiting and limits school choice options for officers' families, among other things. The union challenged the requirement after wording in a state law was amended stating that officers “may” reside in the city limits instead of “shall” live in the city.
An arbitration panel heard FOP testimony and is scheduled to hear the city's side in October.
A spokeswoman for Councilman Ricky Burgess, who sponsored the legislation, said Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has 10 days to sign the measure. It then would go to the Allegheny County elections office to be placed on the fall ballot.
Burgess and black leaders have argued that allowing officers to live outside the city would only widen a divide that exists between officers and the neighborhoods they serve.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers to release LaMarr Woodley
- Fear of building collapse closes Tarentum road
- Primanti’s manager admits stealing $30,000 from restaurants
- Kovacevic: Big Ben’s contract clock ticking
- Talented center Sutter is proving to be ‘pretty important’ for Penguins
- Ex-Sandusky lawyer investigated in divorce case
- Analysis: Kesler still on Pens’ radar as Shero aims to bring back ‘Big 3’
- Penn State’s Franklin cherishes memories of time spent in Pittsburgh
- DEP tests Loyalhanna after fuel spill
- Parking tickets in Downtown Pittsburgh spark outrage
- Pitt’s Patterson second-team All-ACC, Zanna honorable mention