In other words: Should city officials reside within the city limits?
Published 12:00 am Friday, August 3, 2007
Last Thursday night, Ironton City Council agreed to put on the November ballot an ordinance that would eliminate the requirement that non-elected employees must live in the city.
Voters will decide in November if they want a citizenship requirement — or not.
Do you think that non-elected city officials must live in the city of Ironton?
Email newsletter signup
“I just think if there’s any benefit at all to you in this town that you should be a part of it. If you’re going to benefit from it, you should live here.”
— Lynda Bryant, Ironton
“They should live in Ironton so they know what the problems are. If they didn’t live in Ironton, how would they know? If there are any problems, how would they know if they didn’t live here?”
— Madison Geswein, Ironton
“I think the Ironton city officials should live within the city limits. I think they should because we have to pay extra for our water bills and we have to make up for their taxes, so they should have to pay the same as we do. They just now jacked up our water bill for extra stuff and if we’ve got to pay it, I think they should too.”
— Jessica Osborne, Ironton
“If they work here, they should live here.”
— Courtney Mowery, Ashland, Ky.
“If they don’t live in the city, they don’t know what’s going on. I think they should live in the city limits due to the fact that there’s a lot of jobs that someone may be more qualified for that lives in the city limits. But, if somebody from the outside comes in and fills a position, then somebody that lives in the city that may be qualified would not have the job.
— Molly Depriest, Ironton