Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), a longtime proponent of local control, said Monday that Gov. Scott Walker's call to end residency rules statewide could hurt some of Milwaukee's best neighborhoods.If the only thing propping up Milwaukee is the residency rule, the city is in BIG trouble.
Grothman said that, while he viewed the end of residency rules statewide as a good idea "in the abstract," Milwaukee is the state's most important city.
"We have to be mindful that it might be devastating to some of the city's best residential neighborhoods," he said. "It will be big trouble in Milwaukee."
...Asked if he would actively oppose the measure, Grothman repeated his statement that it would harm some of the city's neighborhoods.
Asked if the measure belonged in the state budget, as opposed to a separate measure, Grothman said: "Of course it doesn't belong in the budget."
Milwaukee is important to Wisconsin, being the state's largest city; but that's no reason to impose rules that hold people hostage.
According to Grothman, abolishing the rule would be "devastating to some of the city's best residential neighborhoods."
Why?
Why would people leave great neighborhoods? Why would they choose to uproot if where they live is so desirable?
They wouldn't. There's no reason to assume the best residential neighborhoods would be devastated if some city employees are no longer forced to live within the city limits.
Is Grothman saying that only the residency requirement is keeping the city afloat?
Arguing that lifting the residency rule would mean a mass exodus from the city's good neighborhoods is to argue that people would never choose to live in Tom Barrett's Milwaukee without being coerced. It's to admit that the city has so many negatives and the quality of life is so poor that people will escape even the "city's best residential neighborhoods" if given the chance.
Not good. Not good at all.
If the residency rule is the only thing keeping Milwaukee from collapsing then the city may be too far gone to save.
