Comments on: Mayor may require appointees to live in the city

By: baliad

baliad — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:42:32 +0000

i agree, this rule shoulda been made a while ago…

By: Jeppy

Jeppy — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:44:54 +0000

Hey, perhaps this can be a money-making opportunity for those of us who do live in Detroit. You can rent-out your apartment’s mailbox to Detroit officials who don’t want to sell their $400,000 homes in the Northern suburbs. Figure $50 a month per official, and 20 official “Fake Mail Addresses” and you’re pulling in an extra $1,000 a month.

By: SNWEB.ORG

SNWEB.ORG — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:32:45 +0000

I agree 100% that this should be required

By: max

max — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:12:03 +0000

if i’m not mistaken, up to just a few years ago it was a rule that city employees, including police officers, had to be city residents. the theory is that they’ll do their job better because they wouldn’t want to live in a high crime, dirty, corrupt city. sort of a “slum lord” theory i guess…it’s okay to earn money there but they wouldn’t actually live there. rumor has it that East English Village (were i live) was dubbed “Copper Canyon” because all the “cops” lived there, but further investigation found that most were simply using “borrowed” or flat out fake addresses so the rule was tossed out instead of cracking down on the violators. i have a feeling that if you asked the head of the water department to move from West Bloomfield back to the city just to keep his job he would just buy an 18 thousand dollar shack just for the mail box. i would aggree that it should be the rule but i feel, just like before, no one will enforce it.