Okay, here is a simple question: why are residency requirements such a hot button issue for municipal employees?

Now, I’ve heard arguments from police officers that it is a matter of their personal safety that they do not live in the community they serve and protect. The point is usually made they do not want their family or home to be the object of revenge from people they have arrested.

I understand that to a certain degree, but the Internet has made finding someone much easier than a generation ago. If someone is really dedicated to exacting some sort of retribution does the mere act of living in another town really provide much protection in this day and age?

For the sake of discussion, let’s eliminate police from this examination. Teachers, firefighters, Parks and Rec. staffers and Department of Public Works employees, for instance, don’t really have much of an argument why residency shouldn’t be required, do they?

The issue for many communities is not whether whatever ordinance about residency is on the books, but rather is it enforced or are there waivers?

If a municipality elects to turn the other way then what’s the point?

There is a real financial and social effect from having middle class municipal employees living in their city that pays them.

It can strengthen neighborhoods, improve housing stock and build greater relationships between these employees and residents.

It also eliminates a form of elitism.

It sends the message that town employees are not a privileged class.

Would I want city employees living next to me? Absolutely – as long as they don’t play their music so loud I can hear it in my own house! That is my new standard for being a good neighbor.

The issue came up with the recent turn of events that culminated in Springfield Fire Commissioner Joseph Contant essentially being fired because he did not enforce a residency requirement for a deputy chief.

Mayor Domenic Sarno announced he would not extend Contant’s current contract. Sarno clearly sent a message that if you’re supposed to live here you should live here.

I applaud the mayor for his stand, although I’m sorry to see it affect a long-time dedicated city employee. Not being privy to the discussions behind the closed doors of the mayor’s office I would have hoped for a less drastic resolution, but perhaps one simply couldn’t be reached.

It’s not prudent to be quiet

My Facebook feed has been ablaze of late with people who are insisting that I must accept the president-elect as “my president,” that I and the others who did not vote for Donald Trump should simply shut up and stop offering any criticism of his recent actions, statements or appointments.

I understand that Trump’s supporters are enthusiastic about the election results, although they seem to ignore their candidate did not win the popular vote.

That’s okay. I’m a patriot and support the results from the Electoral College.

I do have to say that I’ve never seen such sore winners, though, in my life. There is little effort on their part to bridge any gap between sides as winners in a political contest have traditionally done.

It would be refreshing for a candidate who framed himself as being an “outsider” – no billionaire is an outsider to politics – to lead a way to bring coalitions between the left and right in this country. So far, Trump’s tweets haven’t gone in that direction, but we’ll see what changes after he is in office.

In the meantime, as long as the First Amendment is still in operation, I support anyone posting anything on Facebook, even if I disagree with it.