Winnipeg Police Headquarters | Graham Ave. - Page 12

esquire · #**221** Posted **Jul 15, 2016, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

And that's pure bullshit. How are you supposed to maintain a social contract with the people you're supposed to serve and protect when you can't even condescend to living amongst them?

It's not that unusual for cities to require their employees live in the city. Chicago does. London even goes as far as trying to get their police to live in the neighborhoods they work in. I'm not down with city employees doing a shitty job because they can't be fucked about some city they don't actually live in, and I'm not down with them fleecing the local economy.

I agree, but it's a strange and strongly enforced social code. One of my buddies with the WPS doesn't even really love motorcycles but he bought one anyway because of the social pressure.

I think part of it may be the cop mindset that the entire city is overrun with criminal sleaze. This is not entirely surprising given what they have to deal with day in, day out.

Riverman · #**222** Posted **Jul 15, 2016, 9:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I think part of it may be the cop mindset that the entire city is overrun with criminal sleaze. This is not entirely surprising given what they have to deal with day in, day out.

This. After all the human garbage police deal with day after day, it is the last thing they want to see when at home.

Besides, no one can be told where to live.

rrskylar · #**223** Posted **Jul 16, 2016, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

But what if they did make it housing, just for police. I know it's unpopular in this town to suggest that the people working fort the city making money off the city actually live in it but there's real value in having police live in the communities in which they work.

Totally agree! There is a real disconnect between members of the WPS and the citizens they are paid (very well) to protect!

Authentic_City · #**224** Posted **Jul 16, 2016, 3:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

And that's pure bullshit. How are you supposed to maintain a social contract with the people you're supposed to serve and protect when you can't even condescend to living amongst them?

It's not that unusual for cities to require their employees live in the city. Chicago does. London even goes as far as trying to get their police to live in the neighborhoods they work in. I'm not down with city employees doing a shitty job because they can't be fucked about some city they don't actually live in, and I'm not down with them fleecing the local economy.

While morally, I can agree with this position, it would be unconstitutional to require employees to live in the city or municipality where they work. This might have been a policy in the past (I believe it was at one time in Winnipeg). However, in a post-Charter world, this cannot happen. It's one thing to 'encourage' police to live somewhere, it can't be mandated as a condition of employment. I also know many cops who express a strong preference to live outside of Winnipeg. They say it's because they want their families to be safe (and Winnipeg is a high crime jurisdiction). It's a disappointing and cynical view to be sure, but it's widespread among many WPS cops. Also, cops are notoriously cheap and like to own lots of toys, so low municipal taxes are a big draw too.

buzzg · #**225** Posted **Jul 16, 2016, 4:57 PM**

Ok this is a little off topic, but does anyone know of any places that tax people who work out of their employment jurisdiction's boundaries? Say your employer must tax you if you don't live in the city they are located, to be turned to the municipal government? No idea just curious.

On topic, does anyone know what the hell the plan is with putting bollards around the HQ? The "temporary" concrete jersey barriers look awful. I'd like to see some thought/design go into them. The sidewalks around the building are in desperate need of repair and landscaping. Will help soften the "bunker" look they went for. I'd also like to see the entrances jazzed up a little. Hard to even tell where to go in at a glance.

biguc · #**226** Posted **Jul 17, 2016, 8:33 AM**

Telling people where they can live is at the heart of property rights and zoning. The charter of rights does not guarantee my right to live in riverman's house. Nor does it guarantee my right to live in an industrial area. Freedom of movement is not freedom of residence.

And even if freedom of residence were guaranteed by the charter, employment is not. It's easy to make conditions of employment, like, where you live. That happens all the time. For example, a bar owner in Toronto has every right to not employ someone who lives in Vaughan because they could never make it to work on short notice. Similarly, police who can't perform their jobs properly by not living in the city they work have no right to be employed there.

Hecate · #**227** Posted **Jul 17, 2016, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

While morally, I can agree with this position, it would be unconstitutional to require employees to live in the city or municipality where they work. This might have been a policy in the past (I believe it was at one time in Winnipeg). However, in a post-Charter world, this cannot happen. It's one thing to 'encourage' police to live somewhere, it can't be mandated as a condition of employment. I also know many cops who express a strong preference to live outside of Winnipeg. They say it's because they want their families to be safe (and Winnipeg is a high crime jurisdiction). It's a disappointing and cynical view to be sure, but it's widespread among many WPS cops. Also, cops are notoriously cheap and like to own lots of toys, so low municipal taxes are a big draw too.

Ha ha ha! Low municipal taxes... I live in Springfield... taxes here are not low!

Riverman · #**228** Posted **Jul 17, 2016, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

Similarly, police who can't perform their jobs properly by not living in the city they work have no right to be employed there.

Why? The best foreman I had worked in the factory in Winnipeg but lived in Komarno. Where you live has no bearing on the ability to perform tasks.

But, if you think this is such a great idea, bring it up with police union. I wish you the best of luck.

esquire · #**229** Posted **Jul 17, 2016, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Authentic_City

I also know many cops who express a strong preference to live outside of Winnipeg. They say it's because they want their families to be safe (and Winnipeg is a high crime jurisdiction).

I asked my buddy what the cops living out of town make of the crime that goes on outside of the city... his response was "we don't know about that stuff"... I guess it's really a case of ignorance being bliss.

Authentic_City · #**230** Posted **Jul 18, 2016, 4:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biguc

Telling people where they can live is at the heart of property rights and zoning. The charter of rights does not guarantee my right to live in riverman's house. Nor does it guarantee my right to live in an industrial area. Freedom of movement is not freedom of residence.

And even if freedom of residence were guaranteed by the charter, employment is not. It's easy to make conditions of employment, like, where you live. That happens all the time. For example, a bar owner in Toronto has every right to not employ someone who lives in Vaughan because they could never make it to work on short notice. Similarly, police who can't perform their jobs properly by not living in the city they work have no right to be employed there.

Sorry, but it doesn't work this way. No employer -- the city and province included -- can discriminate based on place of residence. However, you can fire an employee who is chronically late (like your hypothetical example of the employee living in Vaughan who can't get to work on time). Even so, I personally know people who have their main residence and family in another province and commute to Winnipeg for their job during the week. So Winnipeg cops and firefighters can live in Stonewall or wherever and there's nothing the city can do. You can't dictate residence as a condition of employment. To use your analogy of zoning, the city can zone all it likes within city limits, but it can't force anyone to live inside the city of Winnipeg.

CoryB · #**231** Posted **Jul 18, 2016, 3:05 PM**

You might not be able to tax an employee that lives outside the jurisdiction (city) but you could do the opposite give them a "residency bonus". If something like that is done though it should apply equally to all City of Winnipeg employees and not just police, ie fire, water and waste, parks, etc.

Gm0ney · #**232** Posted **Jul 18, 2016, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoryB

You might not be able to tax an employee that lives outside the jurisdiction (city) but you could do the opposite give them a "residency bonus". If something like that is done though it should apply equally to all City of Winnipeg employees and not just police, ie fire, water and waste, parks, etc.

How about "WPS employees who reside outside of the City of Winnipeg are not eligible for overtime"?

borkborkbork · #**233** Posted **Jul 18, 2016, 4:33 PM**

Could the city create a rush-hour toll for crossing the Perimeter into the city? This would reduce the tax benefits to moving to exurbs just outside the city limits.

CoryB · #**234** Posted **Jul 18, 2016, 5:41 PM**

Creating a commuter toll seems appealing but runs into a lot of challenges as Winnipeg is the provincial capital and gets provincial funding for things like hospitals, post-secondary schools, etc.

Cyro · #**235** Posted **Jul 19, 2016, 3:22 PM**

Strange, I guess I'm the only one here who knows anyone involved in one of the various levels and departments of law enforcement residing in a non-suburban neighborhood...

CoryB · #**236** Posted **Jul 19, 2016, 3:49 PM**

I came to know outgoing Chief Clunnis when we both lived on the same street in Winnipeg and took the same bus to work in the morning. This would be while he was already employed with WPS. We both moved since and I don't know where he lives now.

Riverman · #**237** Posted **Jul 19, 2016, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gm0ney

How about "WPS employees who reside outside of the City of Winnipeg are not eligible for overtime"?

An easily won greivance, one time, would negate that forever if it ever did come to exist.

Authentic_City · #**238** Posted **Jul 19, 2016, 7:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyro

Strange, I guess I'm the only one here who knows anyone involved in one of the various levels and departments of law enforcement residing in a non-suburban neighborhood...

Of course, there are some exceptions. I can think of a couple of examples of urban dwelling cops. For instance, a friend of mine recently purchased an Exchange District condo from a WPS cop. I imagine there were a few cops who didn't mind living walking distance from the old PSB. Mind you, the Exchange is a more developed neighbourhood than the SOPO area. In time, perhaps some cops will buy or rent in the area when it becomes established.

BigG · #**239** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 4:08 PM**

I'm glad someone's taking action to get some questions answered. Otherwise it'll just be swept under the rug and will just be a distant memory.

http://www.cjob.com/2016/09/30/winni...ing-police-hq/

esquire · #**240** Posted **Jan 26, 2017, 2:14 PM**

Is anyone the least bit surprised by this new revelation?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...rcmp-1.3950228

Quote:

Manitoba RCMP alleged the former head of Winnipeg's public service gave inside information about the city's new police headquarters to a firm that paid him $200,000 — and that he then shared the money with the city's former mayor.