November 3rd Ballot Issues

COLUMBUS —
In a decision that could be crippling for Cleveland, the Ohio Supreme Court this morning upheld a 2006 state law that bars cities from enforcing residency rules.

Writing for the 5-2 majority, Justice Paul Pfeifer dismissed arguments from Akron and Lima attorneys who said the General Assembly violated cities' home rule authority.

The 5-2 ruling deals a crushing blow to Cleveland, which requires its employees to live within city limits. The state legislature set up a showdown over the issue in 2006 by approving a law that made such requirements illegal. Cities contend that home-rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution allow for local residency laws.

Mayor Frank Jackson, in a meeting with reporters at City Hall, acknowledged that the ruling upholds the 2006 law and said the city will abide by the law.

Jackson said his staff is working to implement necessary changes to comply.

"At the end of the day, Cleveland will survive," he said. "We've been through difficult times before."

In dissent, Justice Judith Lanzinger wrote that home rule should have prevailed.

The majority, Lanzinger argued, "has opened the door for the General Assembly to use this section ... in a conceivably limitless variety of situations to eviscerate municipal home rule."

The state's high court had agreed to consider laws in both Akron and the Allen County city of Lima and gave other cities a chance to weigh in on the cases.

In a blunder last September, Cleveland lawyers missed a deadline to join the Akron case despite signing on in time for the Lima dispute.

In Cleveland, emergency dispatchers announced the ruling over radio channels about 9:30 a.m.

"Residency went our way 5-2," the broadcast said.

"We won on residency, 5-2," parroted another.

Dozens of police officers at the downtown Justice Center roamed the corridors this morning on cell phones, high-fiving each other.

Despite the state law outlawing residency,the city has continued to enforce its residency requirement, citing the city ordinance.

In 2006, Mayor Jackson vowed to follow state law before the city decided to appeal, Steve Loomis, head of the patrolmen's union said. Now the highest court in the state has ruled.

"I hope the mayor does what he says," Loomis said.

Earlier, Loomis said the 20-year battle is finally over and that police officers will now have the freedom to live anywhere, just like other citizens.

"We are happy with the end result," he said. "Now we can be happy in our professional and personal lives.

He does not expect a negative impact on the city because of the bleak housing market. People who buy cop's houses will still pay taxes, he said. Neighborhoods won't fall apart if police move out of the city, he added.

"We'll still pay income taxes and property taxes," he said. "We'll still maintain our professional work ethic and commitment to the city no matter where we live."

When told about the ruling, a longtime officer said: "I just got chills. This is unbelievable. Oh my God."

City officials shouldn't worry about a mass exodus, another officer said.

"Who can afford the price of gas to commute to Medina County?" he said. But in the end, "it's all about choice."

Another officer said he plans to move out of the city, but declined to say where.

"This makes a good job even better," he said. "This is the best day of my life."

Although the ruling has been anticipated for sometime, a firefighter said he just bought a house in the city and does not regret his decision.

"I like living here," he said. "There are advantages to living in the city."

The firefighter is not married and has no children. He said the city needs to greatly improve its public schools to keep and attract residents. Most workers will move to the suburbs to put their kids in better school districts, he added.

City officials need to stop putting up fire walls for its workers and focus on the issues that matter, he said.

"It's not the neighborhoods, it's the schools that'll drive people away," he said. "If you live in Cleveland and care about education, you have to send your kids to private schools. The city needs to demonstrate a commitment."

Cleveland voters approved the city's residency rule in 1982.

Michael Polensek, the City Council's longest-serving member, was a champion of the measure. He said Wednesday morning that he expected the court's decision but is worried about the ramifications. His Collinwood neighborhood has the second-highest concentration of city employees.

"I have for the most part a middle, working-class community," Polensek said. "The only thing is that, with this economy, it's going to be very difficult to sell a home."

Councilman Kevin Kelley represents the Old Brooklyn neighborhood on Cleveland's southwest side, an area saturated with police and firefighters. Kelley was floored upon learning of the high court's decision, calling it the worst news he's heard in some time.

"I don't have any words right now," said Kelley, a lawyer who planned to read the entire ruling. "This is just devastating, not just for the neighborhoods. It's terrible for the concept of home rule. This is something that is so fundamental, such a matter of local self-government."