News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.7K     0 

2022 Highlights

i think that's nonsense. just because someone lives in the county of strathcona or st. albert or spruce grove etc. doesn't mean they're not vested in the region overall and in edmonton, particularly if they work there. as well as working there, they probably also attend eskimo and oilers or oil king games, they're kids are likely to attend the u of a or nait or macewan, they are as likely to have friends and family living in the city as not...

besides which if you lived in broadmoor your commute to downtown would be 12 km and if you lived in windermere it would be 24 km.

as for the province's moves regarding athabasca and athabasca university, stupid is doesn't have to be copied by stupid does.
Until we become a real region where it feels more interconnected like say a Burnaby and Vancouver, I think it’s very fair to expect high up city workers to live in the city. Same way execs running ETS should at minimum be using transit for commuting and other reasonable trips.

I hear what you’re saying about windemere, you could make an argument pretty soon that St. Albert is better than chapelle/heritage valley in the sense of proximity. But I think the premise of being paid by one tax base and then choosing to yourself pay into a different area is a bit weird. Especially when the reality is that most of this is driven by wealth. EPS high ups get paid 200+ a year from Edmonton tax payers to help make out city safer, then use that money to buy big homes in Sherwood park to avoid “less safe areas” in Edmonton. I think that lacks integrity. Like at least live in glenora or magrath or windsor park.

It’s pretty clear that St. Albert, SP, etc get to avoid having to deal with crime and homelessness because they can push those problems to Edmonton. Yet those residents get all the benefits of being next to a big city. It’s exploiting how things are setup imo.
 
Until we become a real region where it feels more interconnected like say a Burnaby and Vancouver, I think it’s very fair to expect high up city workers to live in the city. Same way execs running ETS should at minimum be using transit for commuting and other reasonable trips.

I hear what you’re saying about windemere, you could make an argument pretty soon that St. Albert is better than chapelle/heritage valley in the sense of proximity. But I think the premise of being paid by one tax base and then choosing to yourself pay into a different area is a bit weird. Especially when the reality is that most of this is driven by wealth. EPS high ups get paid 200+ a year from Edmonton tax payers to help make out city safer, then use that money to buy big homes in Sherwood park to avoid “less safe areas” in Edmonton. I think that lacks integrity. Like at least live in glenora or magrath or windsor park.

It’s pretty clear that St. Albert, SP, etc get to avoid having to deal with crime and homelessness because they can push those problems to Edmonton. Yet those residents get all the benefits of being next to a big city. It’s exploiting how things are setup imo.
^
i still don't buy the argument. on the other side of the same coin, would you take the position that an rcmp officer working in strathcona or st. albert or stony plain or at the airport should not be allowed to live in and pay taxes to edmonton?

and why would you restrict that coin to police services (noting that you at least also referenced transit albeit with a different reference criteria). should we not purchase public art from artists who don't live in edmonton (even though the work will be domiciled in edmonton)? remembering of course that the other side of that coin is that artists living in edmonton would be restricted from selling their art outside of edmonton city limits. she we not emply teachers who live outside of our city limits? what about doctors or nurses or carpenters or plumbers?

one of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy as canadians is freedom of movement and i think what is being espoused here would be contrary to any individual's charter rights. section 6 has been used to protect the right of a person to be employed outside his or her resident province with the supreme court of canada finding that one does not actually have to settle in another province to be able to invoke section 6(2) (b) rights to "pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province." i don't think it defensible to try and assert that what applies nationally to provinces somehow doesn't apply to municipalities, particularly given that provincial boundaries are fixed but municipal boundaries are not.
 
With all that has been said about EPS members choice of residence, the question that hasn't been answered is why is the percentage so high of those living outside of Edmonton?

Has that question been asked of and answered by EPS?

I have no other stats but I think it's safe to assume no other profession or municipal government department have anywhere close to 47% of it's workforce (or a segment thereof) living outside the city.
 
^

from my perspective the whole "living outside the city" is a completely artificial construct. at one point beverly and jasper place were "outside the city". prior to that, everything south of the river was "outside the city". until more recently, large portions of the south side, particularly west of highway 2, were "outside the city" and future annexations and consolidations are likely to continue that long-term trend.

we wouldn't think of insisting that everyone that works downtown lives downtown or that everyone working at the u of a live on campus or that everyone that works at west edmonton mall live in summerlea. we wouldn't think of that because we know that it would limit the ability to attract the most capable workers to work at those locations.

could we take steps to make eps a more attractive career choice for those living in edmonton or more attractive for people to move to edmonton if they already don't live here already? I think we can do that not just for those wanting to work for eps but for those working for the fire department or streets and transportation or planning... by example, i would suggest free ets transit passes (which would also boost ets ridership and perceptions of safety), free family passes to city amenities such as fort edmonton or city rec centres would be worthwhile investments in our municipal workforce and their families.

but if the city is going to recruit the best and most appropriate talent available for eps, excluding their ability to hire ex-rcmp officers living near their current posting who may prefer working for eps to being transferred elsewhere or excluding their ability to hire ex-armed forces personal living close to where their current station who may not want to re-enlist or who also may want more stability for their families, or excluding their ability to hire indigenous recruits who may want to continue to live on reserve rather than being forced to move to the city doesn't seem to be a particularly attractive policy to build the type of force that we deserve.
 
^
i still don't buy the argument. on the other side of the same coin, would you take the position that an rcmp officer working in strathcona or st. albert or stony plain or at the airport should not be allowed to live in and pay taxes to edmonton?

and why would you restrict that coin to police services (noting that you at least also referenced transit albeit with a different reference criteria). should we not purchase public art from artists who don't live in edmonton (even though the work will be domiciled in edmonton)? remembering of course that the other side of that coin is that artists living in edmonton would be restricted from selling their art outside of edmonton city limits. she we not emply teachers who live outside of our city limits? what about doctors or nurses or carpenters or plumbers?

one of the fundamental freedoms we enjoy as canadians is freedom of movement and i think what is being espoused here would be contrary to any individual's charter rights. section 6 has been used to protect the right of a person to be employed outside his or her resident province with the supreme court of canada finding that one does not actually have to settle in another province to be able to invoke section 6(2) (b) rights to "pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province." i don't think it defensible to try and assert that what applies nationally to provinces somehow doesn't apply to municipalities, particularly given that provincial boundaries are fixed but municipal boundaries are not.
Yeah, that’s just not the point though sorry. I get what you’re saying, but this isn’t some legal restriction on where someone can live. It’s more about alignment of values and integrity. If the owner of a bike company never rode a bike, it’d be less compelling to support that brand. If a chef won’t eat their own food, or a guitar craftsman didn’t play guitar, I think many people would see that as disappointing or even suspicious. Shouldn’t you support the thing you’re building?

So the executives that run our city, those making 150k+ especially, should be invested in our city. And while of course there’s ways to give examples of how you can live in st albert and be a huge Edmonton supporter, I think it’s fair to say that’s not the average case.

If someone leading the charge on improving Boyle street lived in windemere and never crossed the river, would you think that person is bought in to finding solutions and improving Boyle street?

Companies require people to move cities or come to offices all the time. It’s not about restricting freedoms. It’s about having requirements that ensure people’s lifestyles align with the work their committed to.
 
^

if it's not about some legal restriction on where someone can live if they want to work for eps, then what exactly is it that you are espousing?

as for "alignment of values", that's a reflection of background and belief and ethics etc., not one of residency. i don't need to live in the ukraine to support their efforts against russia. i don't need to live in yellowknife to be convinced that the giant mine needs to be cleaned up and that we don't facilitate future disasters in the making. i don't need to live in boyle street (although i do live close) in order to care about finding solutions for some of its problems and to support improving it for its residents and for all edmontonians.

as for "supporting the thing you're building", you're insisting that there is only one binary choice to be made.

as for companies requiring people to move cities or come to offices all the time, they are interested in your ability to perform the job, not the neighborhood you choose to live in or which municipality its located in. as long as you get to the office on time, it doesn't matter where you start your commute from.

the other thing that's not being recognized is how many households now include more than one worker. if your spouse works the family farm or owns a small business in a neighboring community or works in enoch's band office, should they be required to give up their career in order for you to work for eps?

as for your summary statement that "it’s about having requirements that ensure people’s lifestyles align with the work their [sic] committed to", who do you suppose should be able to arbitrate that and how does one's place of residence either create or preclude having that very alignment?
 
^

if it's not about some legal restriction on where someone can live if they want to work for eps, then what exactly is it that you are espousing?

as for "alignment of values", that's a reflection of background and belief and ethics etc., not one of residency. i don't need to live in the ukraine to support their efforts against russia. i don't need to live in yellowknife to be convinced that the giant mine needs to be cleaned up and that we don't facilitate future disasters in the making. i don't need to live in boyle street (although i do live close) in order to care about finding solutions for some of its problems and to support improving it for its residents and for all edmontonians.

as for "supporting the thing you're building", you're insisting that there is only one binary choice to be made.

as for companies requiring people to move cities or come to offices all the time, they are interested in your ability to perform the job, not the neighborhood you choose to live in or which municipality its located in. as long as you get to the office on time, it doesn't matter where you start your commute from.

the other thing that's not being recognized is how many households now include more than one worker. if your spouse works the family farm or owns a small business in a neighboring community or works in enoch's band office, should they be required to give up their career in order for you to work for eps?

as for your summary statement that "it’s about having requirements that ensure people’s lifestyles align with the work their [sic] committed to", who do you suppose should be able to arbitrate that and how does one's place of residence either create or preclude having that very alignment?
We just see this differently. That’s totally cool. I think there’s times where it’s not a huge problem, but I can’t see how having 50% of our police live in other cities is ideal. And our leaders should be in the city too. Same reason councillors live in wards they represent, it increases their awareness and makes them more present to the people they serve. Having execs at ETS live in St. Albert and drive to downtown everyday doesn’t make sense to me. We made a policy that required our city manager to live in the city as well, I think that should be true of any high up position. There’s definitely exceptions or scenarios you can imagine where it makes sense to have flexibility. But let’s be honest, it’s primarily very well paid (by taxpayers) people who like to take advantage of the cleanliness, home sizes, schools, etc while still benefiting from everything the city offers.

We wonder why things like transit and downtown safety are bad but then are happy with the leaders of those areas having basically no lived interaction with the areas they’re tasked to improve.
 
With all that has been said about EPS members choice of residence, the question that hasn't been answered is why is the percentage so high of those living outside of Edmonton?

Has that question been asked of and answered by EPS?

I have no other stats but I think it's safe to assume no other profession or municipal government department have anywhere close to 47% of it's workforce (or a segment thereof) living outside the city.
This was discussed in an Edmonton Journal article from April 2022. Many cities in North America struggle with residency requirements for police, not just Edmonton.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/edmont...wcm/6b80fd6c-5ecb-406c-ade3-a33c38dc8af4/amp/

I agree that it is ideal to have public servants live in the communities they serve. However, this is not always practical, as described in the article and Ken's comments above.
 
I think the trend of treating every police officer as a politician has to stop. These people are just private employees. They aren't elected. As employees they have certain rights along with all other employees. It's pretty orwellian to tell them where they must live.
 
The requirement to live in the community they serve should be made mandatory for police officers. If an Edmonton police officer decides to move to Sherwood Park then they should work for the Sherwood Park Police force, simple as that.
 
The requirement to live in the community they serve should be made mandatory for police officers. If an Edmonton police officer decides to move to Sherwood Park then they should work for the Sherwood Park Police force, simple as that.
Completely disagree. It's difficult enough finding talented people for this job. Putting extra restrictions on hiring criteria narrows the hiring pool even more.
 
The requirement to live in the community they serve should be made mandatory for police officers. If an Edmonton police officer decides to move to Sherwood Park then they should work for the Sherwood Park Police force, simple as that.
so how do you define “community” in that sense itom? should a downtown beat cop have to live downtown? to drive a patrol car in londonderry should you have to live in the northeast? to investigate a burglary in windermere should you have to live south of the anthony henday? to investigate a drug deal on white avenue should you have to live in strathcona? which “community” should an air one helicopter pilot have to come from - any of the edmonton neighbourhoods it patrols or the country of parkland given that it’s stationed at villeneuve (and closer to st. albert than edmonton)?
 
With all that has been said about EPS members choice of residence, the question that hasn't been answered is why is the percentage so high of those living outside of Edmonton?

Has that question been asked of and answered by EPS?

I have no other stats but I think it's safe to assume no other profession or municipal government department have anywhere close to 47% of it's workforce (or a segment thereof) living outside the city.
Think about it...as an EPS officer, would you want to live where you are arresting most of these people who have friends (fellow gang members or accomplices, etc.) who could track you down? I mean, they do have means to come find you out in the burbs but if you're farther from where you work, especially in that line of work, I'd think you'd want to get away from it and just be with your family.

I had an RCMP officer tell me he's had a few cases of guys he's arrested or their friends showing up at his house where his young family lived. Needless to say, he moved away from there and out of the city he worked in.
 
FWIW, my parents live in a subdivision in Parkland County, a stones throw from the Edmonton border. Their next door neighbour was an EPS officer for decades. I asked him once why live out here when you're a cop in central Edmonton, and the sentiment of his answer was something in the realm of when you deal with crime and craziness all day at work, you just want a quiet place to unwind and get away from it all.
 
In doing a quick Google search on the topic, it is definitely common to have half a police force or more live outside where they patrol. Actually one of the more common reasons given by officers in various cities is that it is more expensive to live in the city they work and based on their salaries, they live in less expensive bedroom communities.

But some police districts do find value in having officers live in the city they patrol and so they offer a bonus for officers who do.

In the case of EPS, if safety is a major factor (and I think that is understandable) it's impressive that more than half still decide to live in Edmonton.
 

Back
Top