Since the residency requirement issue periodically pops up in Worcester, I thought folks might find it interesting that Springfield, which is a municipality in Massachusetts that does have a residency requirement, is going to start enforcing that requirement this year.
They will require employees to certify where they live by February 1, but there is no plan to terminate employees who do not live in Springfield.
From the Springfield Republican:
The residency law was adopted in March 1995, requiring newly hired city employees from that date forward to live in Springfield and maintain residency. In addition, employees who have been promoted since 1995 are also required to live in Springfield.
However, teachers, firefighters and police are among employees exempt from the residency requirement either by contract or state law. In addition, 35 of 37 city employees and supervisors granted waivers received them since 2007 by either Mayor Domenic J. Sarno or the former Springfield Finance Control Board.
I recommend reading the whole article. Among other interesting tidbits, 67% (!) of Springfield teachers live outside of the city. (And they are one of the groups who is exempt from the law.)
I’m no fan of these kinds of ordinances because they’re tough to enforce and because I don’t think the “you can only do a good job if you live where you work” argument holds up.
But this is well worth filing away for the next time Worcester starts talking about residency requirements.