Wrong

Utica, NY

#21 May 20, 2010
Topic King wrote:
<quoted text>why dont you explain where u work.....if you work at wal mart then u can only shop there?......the money isnt staying at wal mart if you dont
I didn't say that I agreed with the policy. All I am saying, is that if an officer signs the contract, and it is the city "law", then the officer should abide by it, plain and simple. If an officer thinks it's a shit law, then that officer, the officer's union or whoever, should do what they can to change it. But just like with any other laws, they should abide by it until it can get changed.
And yes, if a condition of Walmart employment was that all of their employees could only shop at Walmart, and they agreed to it before taking the job at Walmart, then that should be what they do. What's so hard to understand about the "point"?

“You reap what you sow”

Level 1

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#22 May 20, 2010
Topic King wrote:
<quoted text>heres how it works. mind your own business
It is the business of those who live in the city, friend. Lest we forget whp pays the taxes and it turn pay the salaries of those officers. It is certainly the business of the citizens of Utica.
Ridiculous

Syracuse, NY

#23 May 20, 2010
unbelieveable wrote:
<quoted text>lol, this is unbelievable what I'm hearing. Don't you people arrest citizens everyday for not following the rules, but you shouldn't have to? where is your integrity? Start a petition to change the rule, seek exemption from your superiors, but knowingly circumventing established law as a LE officer is unethical and wrong. Jurors around the city are asked to punish individuals based on your testimony alone and now you tell me you have no integrity? The law is you must live in the city to be paid by the taxpayer. If you don't like it educate yourself for promotion to the state or federal level.
I believe the fire dept has the same requirement minus the grandfather clause. Somebody correct me if i'm wrong.
YOU ARE WRONG! They do not have to live in the city just an adjoining county. And the rule for the residency was suppose to read anyone hired after Jan 1 2009 has to live in the city and anyone hired before that was grandfathered in and can live were they want but things changed once the vote came in and now everyone must live in the city. Don't worry though the UPD is grieving this one and is going to win and the city knows this yet they wish to spend taxpayers money having their lawyers try and uphold this.
really

Syracuse, NY

#24 May 20, 2010
does it matter where the police live as long as they do their job. They could live in a cardboard box in guam for all i care as long as they show up and do their job that is what they get paid for and what we taxpayers pay them for to do their job.
umm

Utica, NY

#25 May 20, 2010
they can't enforce this law, b/c you can't force a child to go to a school with a bad education level, as it is in utica. you can't force a parent to send their child to a less than steller school, it just hurts the kids being forced to attend utica schools
Be Fair

AOL

#26 May 20, 2010
Ridiculous wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE WRONG! They do not have to live in the city just an adjoining county. And the rule for the residency was suppose to read anyone hired after Jan 1 2009 has to live in the city and anyone hired before that was grandfathered in and can live were they want but things changed once the vote came in and now everyone must live in the city. Don't worry though the UPD is grieving this one and is going to win and the city knows this yet they wish to spend taxpayers money having their lawyers try and uphold this.
And, they SHOULD win! If they have to live in the city, then ALL city employees should, too. Including those working in CITY HALL, DPW, FIRE, ALL!

Level 1

Since: Jan 09

Topicville

#27 May 21, 2010
Wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say that I agreed with the policy. All I am saying, is that if an officer signs the contract, and it is the city "law", then the officer should abide by it, plain and simple. If an officer thinks it's a shit law, then that officer, the officer's union or whoever, should do what they can to change it. But just like with any other laws, they should abide by it until it can get changed.
And yes, if a condition of Walmart employment was that all of their employees could only shop at Walmart, and they agreed to it before taking the job at Walmart, then that should be what they do. What's so hard to understand about the "point"?
ok but if this happend for everysingle person who worked they wouldnt be free to shop where they want or tan where they want....it would be like communism

Level 1

Since: Jan 09

Topicville

#28 May 21, 2010
really wrote:
does it matter where the police live as long as they do their job. They could live in a cardboard box in guam for all i care as long as they show up and do their job that is what they get paid for and what we taxpayers pay them for to do their job.
I agree 100%... i live in topicville n.y.......i dont care if my police or fire or dpw lived in pennslyvania......as long as they do their job and do it the right way.
follow the law

Syracuse, NY

#29 May 21, 2010
Ridiculous wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE WRONG! They do not have to live in the city just an adjoining county. And the rule for the residency was suppose to read anyone hired after Jan 1 2009 has to live in the city and anyone hired before that was grandfathered in and can live were they want but things changed once the vote came in and now everyone must live in the city. Don't worry though the UPD is grieving this one and is going to win and the city knows this yet they wish to spend taxpayers money having their lawyers try and uphold this.
No my friend read what you wrote. The law is the law. It doesn't matter what the law was suppose to read before the vote. Legislators voted in the current law and we're required to abide by it. If UPD thinks the current law is unlawful fight to change it. You may not care if they live within city limits, but i hope your care about them knowingly breaking the law.

I know people who think the state speed limit or federal marijuana laws should change. But that's just an opinion and they too must follow the existing law.

The solution is simple. Follow the law until you're able to get it changed. It's the same advise you would give a civilian. Everything else is irrelevant.
CryBaby

Albany, NY

#30 May 21, 2010
Cry me a river. Boo Hoo
Tell

Syracuse, NY

#31 May 21, 2010
me about it. Police officers crying about following existing law!
Justice

Camillus, NY

#32 May 21, 2010
Justice

Camillus, NY

#33 May 21, 2010
follow the law wrote:
<quoted text>No my friend read what you wrote. The law is the law. It doesn't matter what the law was suppose to read before the vote. Legislators voted in the current law and we're required to abide by it. If UPD thinks the current law is unlawful fight to change it. You may not care if they live within city limits, but i hope your care about them knowingly breaking the law.
I know people who think the state speed limit or federal marijuana laws should change. But that's just an opinion and they too must follow the existing law.
The solution is simple. Follow the law until you're able to get it changed. It's the same advise you would give a civilian. Everything else is irrelevant.
Are you commenting just for the sake of being recognized? You posted: "Legislators voted in the current law and we're required to abide by it."

The issue here is that the city's Common Council is interpreting the residency law (which we many Uticans voted on) incorrectly. The law everyone voted on stated that it would not affect those hired before Jan. 1, 2009. In other words, they can live wherever they want. Maybe our local news media isn't clarifying the issue or most of you people don't seem to care whether or not you make any sense. There is not a current problem with anyone who has been hired after January 1, 2009. You, including others, keep repeating yourselves by saying the law is the law. For your information, there are no current Officers that broke the residency law. The issue is that the residency law (everyone voted on) is being manipulated by the common council for the simple fact that they are now trying to say the law includes all officers. The vote was NOT for anyone hired before January 1, 2009. Nobody has broken the law here. As I said, we're not debating over someone hired after January 1, 2009.

Tell me if I confused you or if you still don't understand the matter at hand.
thats an opinion

Syracuse, NY

#34 May 21, 2010
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>Are you commenting just for the sake of being recognized? You posted: "Legislators voted in the current law and we're required to abide by it."
The issue here is that the city's Common Council is interpreting the residency law (which we many Uticans voted on) incorrectly. The law everyone voted on stated that it would not affect those hired before Jan. 1, 2009. In other words, they can live wherever they want. Maybe our local news media isn't clarifying the issue or most of you people don't seem to care whether or not you make any sense. There is not a current problem with anyone who has been hired after January 1, 2009. You, including others, keep repeating yourselves by saying the law is the law. For your information, there are no current Officers that broke the residency law. The issue is that the residency law (everyone voted on) is being manipulated by the common council for the simple fact that they are now trying to say the law includes all officers. The vote was NOT for anyone hired before January 1, 2009. Nobody has broken the law here. As I said, we're not debating over someone hired after January 1, 2009.
Tell me if I confused you or if you still don't understand the matter at hand.
That's how you perceive the issue but the council sees it differently and many of us agree. If you're promoted regardless whether your initial hire date is before jan 09, you must be a resident 6 month prior to the promotion. That's what the law says. Your correct in pointing out the people voted FOR the measure. They want public servants living in the city.
Justice

Camillus, NY

#35 May 22, 2010
thats an opinion wrote:
<quoted text>That's how you perceive the issue but the council sees it differently and many of us agree. If you're promoted regardless whether your initial hire date is before jan 09, you must be a resident 6 month prior to the promotion. That's what the law says. Your correct in pointing out the people voted FOR the measure. They want public servants living in the city.
How about if you're not promoted and you were hired before January 1, 2009.
mom

Syracuse, NY

#36 May 22, 2010
I would rather have a Utica police officer reside in New Hartford, Whitesboro, NYM or wherever, doing a great job of protecting me and the community, than one residing in Utica and being a horrible cop. Simple as that. Where they live doesn't reflect on the job they do.
Wrong

New York, NY

#37 May 22, 2010
Topic King wrote:
<quoted text>ok but if this happend for everysingle person who worked they wouldnt be free to shop where they want or tan where they want....it would be like communism
Once again Topic King...I agree with you 100%! It shouldn't matter at all where the officers live! But that IS NOT the point here! The point is, if it is a requirement of the job, or city law, whatever you want to call it...then the officers have a duty and a responsibility to abide by it! It's about following the rules and not breaking the law! No different than what the general public is expected to do! If the Police union or officers disagree with the requirement, then they should work to get it changed! But until a change is made, they have a responsibility to honor the law!
The question is not "if" the requirment is unfair or it sucks..that's completely understood! The question is, should a police officer be allowed to willingly disobey the law, the rule, the requirement..whatever it is? And the answer to that question is a big fat NO!
Justice

Camillus, NY

#38 May 22, 2010
Wrong wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again Topic King...I agree with you 100%! It shouldn't matter at all where the officers live! But that IS NOT the point here! The point is, if it is a requirement of the job, or city law, whatever you want to call it...then the officers have a duty and a responsibility to abide by it! It's about following the rules and not breaking the law! No different than what the general public is expected to do! If the Police union or officers disagree with the requirement, then they should work to get it changed! But until a change is made, they have a responsibility to honor the law!
The question is not "if" the requirment is unfair or it sucks..that's completely understood! The question is, should a police officer be allowed to willingly disobey the law, the rule, the requirement..whatever it is? And the answer to that question is a big fat NO!
The issue here is that the city's Common Council is interpreting the residency law (which we many Uticans voted on) incorrectly. The law everyone voted on stated that it would not affect those hired before Jan. 1, 2009. In other words, they can live wherever they want. Maybe our local news media isn't clarifying the issue or most of you people don't seem to care whether or not you make any sense. There is not a current problem with anyone who has been hired after January 1, 2009. You, including others, keep repeating yourselves by saying the law is the law. For your information, there are no current Officers that broke the residency law. The issue is that the residency law (everyone voted on) is being manipulated by the common council for the simple fact that they are now trying to say the law includes all officers. The vote was NOT for anyone hired before January 1, 2009. Nobody has broken the law here. As I said, we're not debating over someone hired after January 1, 2009.

Now, which Officer willingly disobeyed the residency law?
no justice

Syracuse, NY

#39 May 22, 2010
Justice wrote:
<quoted text>How about if you're not promoted and you were hired before January 1, 2009.
Then your grandfathered. The city can't force those individuals to move into the city as they already established a home outside the city. That doesn't mean those individuals can abandon that home and continue to live outside the city. The city can enforce the intent of the law which is to have city employees reside inside the city. Any change of residency effective after Jan 09 is subject to the new law. Remember, city employees living outside the city shouldn't be the norm but the exception.

Its a tough managerial call. Should we spend taxpayer money worrying about police officers living outside the city? Its not a great number and they'll eventually move inside the city or risk advancement.

The other side would argue, with over 500 registered sex offenders in the greater Utica area the city has a responsibility to enforce the law like any other.

My opinion, the Chief of Police should draft a memorandum and have all officers sign as being being briefed on the residency law. The city has to enforce the law as interpreted...its the only right thing to do.
no justice

Syracuse, NY

#40 May 22, 2010
Actually that was way to easy. Maybe i should be Mayor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
corn hill NANO GLOBAL PLANT 3 min noway 2
Teachers, Students Call For Governor Cuomo To F... 18 min Just sayin 260
"Nano Utica" - The Great Taxpayer Fleecing 31 min Callin BS 12
my husband has been cheating on me with a man (Aug '12) 42 min Ttsaa 84
sooper duper nano-bananno center quad-quarters!! 45 min republic 5
Bart depaul (Oct '10) 51 min Johnny Belmont 27
Why can't Uticans achieve their full potential? 55 min Excellent 10
Bullying Utica judge censured for calling lawye... 1 hr NO LIFE APES 44
That ridiculous "Utica Sign" celltower! 3 hr fake cs 17
West Utica in the 70s-who/what do you remember (Dec '09) 4 hr Dom 894
Utica Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Utica People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
The Jets Best Non-QB Options at No. 6
NFL 5:17 AM
Kiko Alonso will 'definitely' be 100 percent by camp
Yahoo! Sports 7:21 AM
Mad Dash: Rex Ryan now driving a huge Buffalo Bills truck
Bleacher Report 9:23 AM
Report: Chris Canty Released by Ravens
Bleacher Report10:18 AM
Fact or Fiction: Breaking Down Revis, Mariota Rumors
NBC Sports 3:23 PM
Casey McGehee's move to Giants a homecoming of sorts
Yahoo! Sports 4:05 PM
Browns agree to terms with QB McCown
Bleacher Report10:25 AM
Fan Surprised by Gift from Giants
NBC Sports 8:23 AM
Rex's Bills need a quarterback, and Sanchez and Vick are available
Bleacher Report12:46 PM
Issues the Jets Need to Address This Offseason