Residency requirements for government workers are often favored by those politicians who would like a moat to exist around their fiefdoms, and Pittsburgh City Council has been a hotbed of such sentiment.
Two years ago, though it was strictly none of its business, council went on record in opposition to a bill that sought -- successfully in the end, and with the support of the Post-Gazette -- to allow teachers in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to live outside city limits.
Now Senate Bill 290, sponsored by Sen. Jane Orie, a McCandless Republican, would grant the same favor to city police officers (indeed, all officers employed by municipalities). Already one of the strongest voices raised against it is freshman Sen. Jim Ferlo, a Highland Park Democrat, who is, of course, an alumnus of that same unprogressive City Council.
But while he may still be motivated by the old reactionary instincts, he just happens to be right about wanting police officers to live in Pittsburgh.
After the Fort Pitt Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police failed in federal court to get the same freedom for its members that teachers now enjoyed, the Post-Gazette observed that, while most residency requirements are indefensible, police are the exception that proves the rule.
It's not a matter of shoring up city finances or making sure that city tax dollars go to pay for only city residents as if city government were an employment agency. Parochialism aside, a social benefit accrues to having city officers live in the city.
City-dwelling officers are better placed to become familiar with residents and their problems. In minority neighborhoods, where policing by white officers can be a challenge at the best of times, the job can only grow harder if officers are perceived as suburban mercenaries.
In this one area, residency requirements make some sense and are best left to individual communities. Sen. Orie's bill, which is likely to be the subject of public hearings, is a one-size-fits-all approach. But police officers are different.