Police relate many reasons for leaving city

For some, it’s about better schools. For others, it’s lower taxes — or bigger yards, newer homes and even walk-in closets.

And for almost all Pittsburgh police officers, it’s about having the freedom of choice — to live in the city that hired them or to move outside the city limits, as the state Supreme Court this week said they could legally do.

“I just don’t think anyone should tell me where I have to live,” said Sgt. Jim Glick, vice president of the Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1. “Things change. Laws change. Needs change.”

Pittsburgh police officers had long been required to live within the city limits, but the state

Legislature in 2012 opened up the issue for debate. And in 2014, the police union won an arbitration award allowing officers to live within 25 air-miles of the City-County Building on Grant Street.

On Monday, the state Supreme Court upheld the arbitration decision, and short of another statewide legislative change, the issue appears to be settled.

Officers are required to alert the administration if they move outside the city. Since Monday’s ruling, the personnel office said, five officers — of a roughly 900member force — have filed for a domicile change or submitted paperwork.

Sgt. Glick, who lives in Banksville, hasn’t submitted his paperwork yet. But his children are only 1 and 3. As they become school age, he said, it is likely he’ll move.

Matt Marks retired as a burglary detective in 2014 after 20 years.

For eight years, he paid for his children to attend private schools. But to do that, he said, he had to work much overtime. And that meant lost time at home. “It cost me a lot,” he said. Mr. Marks concedes that when he was hired, he knew he would be required to live inside the city limits. But he also was told that he’d be guaranteed a certain salary, as well as raises, vacation, holidays and personal days. Not to mention health care and pension. But when Pittsburgh entered distressed city status, those guarantees were lost.

Mr. Marks said he believes that when the possibility arose that the city could take things away, it should have given something back, such as the freedom to move.

Homicide Detective Anthony Beatty, who is chairman of the FOP’s political action committee, said he never really took a position on residency. But he does recognize the need for officers to try to stretch their income as far as they can. By moving outside the city, Detective Beatty said, an officer’s salary would increase simply by paying a lower wage tax.

“Where can I get the biggest bang for my buck?” he said.

Detective Janine Triolo said that moving outside the city would provide better amenities. She wants more modern housing — a master bathroom, walk-in closets. She also wants to be close to better shopping.

“I think the options for housing in the city are very limited,” she said. “There’s nothing modern.”

Outside of the potential for keeping more officers on the job in the city, Sgt. Glick said he believes the change in residency requirement also will provide a big boost in recruitment. Mayor Bill Peduto said the city has long sought to recruit officers from areas outside the city and the state and would continue to do so.

But City Councilman Ricky Burgess worries that recruiting from a wider area will decrease the number of minority candidates.

“In the catchment area you’ve enlarged, you’ve diluted probably the percentage of diverse candidates because those broader communities are not as diverse as the city,” he said.

Whether the administration would offer incentives to keep officers in the city, Mr. Peduto said that would be something to consider in future contract negotiations.

“I would hate to have to incentivize anyone” to live here, he said, though “having officers in our neighborhoods helps the city.”

Mr. Peduto also does not know if other city unions might look to challenge residency restrictions.

Rev. Burgess worries how officers living outside the city will affect community relations.

“It can be a challenge in continuing the momentum to improve the relationship between the police and the community,” Rev. Burgess said.

But officers interviewed on Thursday strongly disagreed with that statement.

“I’m a professional policeman. It’s my job,” Detective Beatty said. “You have to engage in the community we’re serving.” Detective Glick agreed. “We take a lot of pride in our work and in our city,” he said. “We work in the city because we love Pittsburgh. Where I live has nothing to do with when I come to work.”