City's middle class is under siege;
residency law should be kept in place

By Phil Carver

George Washington wrote in 1796 that, "Every matter, and thing, that relates to the city ought to be transacted therein and the persons to whose care they are committed [should be] residents."

In case you missed it recently, the city of Boston quietly and with little fanfare negotiated a landmark union contract with the AFSCME Union. (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.) The contract, modest in most respects, is significant because it weakens the city's residency requirement by allowing city of Boston employees who have worked for the city for as little as 10 years to move out of the city after just a decade of employment retroactive to the employee's hiring date.

By way of background, since 1997 the city's health insurance costs have increased by $81.7 million. Instead of finding creative solutions to the very real problem of escalating healthcare costs, the city chose to place those costs in part on the backs of its employees by increasing their health insurance contribution. In exchange, the city agreed to weaken its residency requirement for city employees. Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Mayor Thomas Menino, the self-styled "urban mechanic," has uncharacteristically decided to gamble with the future of our city in a fool hearted move of political expediency. Be assured once this AFSCME contract is ratified each and every other city union will expect the same residency concession in their respective contracts and undoubtedly will receive it.

Now, City Hall will tell you that Boston has changed and the need for residency is no longer there. While it is true that Boston has made great strides under Mayor Menino's stewardship, the tenuousness of these strides is unsettling. All across America middle class neighborhoods are disappearing at an alarming rate, creating a chasm in metropolitan areas the likes of which some cities may never recover from. Case in point, Los Angeles, the most hollowed out metropolitan area in the country; according to a recent Brookings Institution study, poor neighborhoods are up 10 percent, rich neighborhoods are up 14 percent and middle income areas are down 24 percent. This scenario is being played out repeatedly in city after city. What does it mean? It means that moderate income neighborhoods with decent schools, reliable work, low crime and stable services are becoming extinct. Most cities are acting proactively in their attempts to retain their middle class in order to preserve their economic and social stability. Sadly however, the city of the Boston has decided to gamble that the stable city funded middle class base, i.e. city employees, will choose to stay within the city limits.

Contrary to what some city of Boston employees claim they find in their informal polling, the weakening of Boston's residency law will undoubtedly have a negative impact on our city. This assertion is based in a time tested theory; some call it the "domino effect" while others call it the law of "cascading failure." Different names, same result. When you have a system of interrelated parts, and the service provided depends on the operation of a preceding part, the failure of a preceding part will trigger the failure of successive parts. Simply put, Boston is a desirable place to live due in large part to residency. Erode that stable base and Boston will slowly regress to what she resembled circa 1980 when, reeling from a decade of middle class flight (both black and white) Boston was near bankruptcy, the city had lost over 200,000 residents and the housing authority was in receivership. We were in dire straits.

Bostonians have witnessed first hand how the residency law has impacted our city and had a positive effect that continues to this day. Having Boston's finest living in our midst has lifted this city to unprecedented heights. The city employees and the city residents have become one and the same and now we all have a common vested interest in the community's vitality. Requiring its employees to live in the city has made the city more accountable to its residents. No longer would we stand for rampant crime and poor education, both of which were excuses used by many to flee the city for decades. If Boston was going to require its employees to live here, then its services needed to improve, and improve they did. Schools improved and crime went down dramatically via the much-heralded "Boston Miracle."

The city must and should recognize that middle class Bostonians are under siege and there is little relief in sight. As great as Boston is, she is still a work in progress; as great as the strides we have made are, we must temper them with that fact that since September 11, 2001, federal funding for policing has been stagnant, diverted to homeland security, and thus inner city crime has risen exponentially. The Boston public schools still impose forced busing on its residents at a taxpayer cost of $70 million a year, money that could be used more efficiently for teacher incentives, computers and new school infrastructure. Homeowners are dealing with their fifth year of property tax hikes. The average Boston residential tax bill for a single family home rose 12 percent and for condos rose 11 percent. The Archdiocese of Boston has launched its 2010 Initiative, which in a nutshell is the Archdiocese's attempt to respond to declining enrollment, inadequate financing, and older buildings by streamlining existing schools (i.e. closing schools.) Individually these issues are daunting, but together they pose the perfect storm for the city as middle class residents may choose the path of least resistance: suburbia.

The city must take residency off the negotiating table and the unions must readdress their priorities toward city livability. Housing costs, crime, and education are the three key components that impact us all in some fashion. Like most things in government ideas cost money, so I proffer that the city immediately eradicate forced busing and create 100 percent walk-to-school zones. This decision would be a dynamic catalyst of change in our city: first, neighborhood schools would encourage parental involvement by putting students in schools close to home, allowing parents to become active participants in their children's education and enforcing school. Also, the city would free up millions of dollars a year, some of which you could use to create a housing relief fund for lower earning city employees. The city could also lower the residential tax burden for homeowners, which would conversely result in reduced rents. Lastly they could hire more safety services, which are always an area of concern. All this while keeping city employees where they belong &endash; in the city.

The city of Boston must think and act progressively. Weakening residency without addressing the real problems facing this city is a recipe for disaster. As a husband, father and homeowner I have real fears about the direction of this city. I ask you, what family will stay and fight for a city that is unwilling to fight for them?

Philip J. Carver is a lifelong Dorchester resident, neighborhood activist and current president of the Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association.