Ease Residency Rule

To the Editor:

I read with interest your latest article on the lifting of the residency requirement on certain city jobs (Feb. 16 issue). Councilman Jackson's strong opposition to the plan baffles me, however.

I can understand encouraging Sanitation workers to live in the city so they could be on hand in case of a snow emergency, but they are not required to live in New York City.

I can understand encouraging a police officer or firefighter to live in the city, in case of a disaster, but they are not required to live in New York City.

But I cannot understand why an analyst or an investigator who prepares requisitions or monitors data for the City of New York has to live in New York City.

The city and the unions must encourage talent and give people opportunity. Lifting the residency requirement allows city agencies to choose from a larger, more-diverse pool of workers, and raises the bar on the standard of work expected by the City of New York.

For a city worker, buying a home in the city on a city salary is very difficult. But there is a better chance that there are homes he or she could afford in Suffolk or Nassau that could provide more room for the family. The commute from Nassau to Queens is no worse than the subway ride from Coney Island to Queens.

According to your article, Jackson is " ... pretty adamant for not opening jobs for people outside New York City." But the truth is, he gives no viable reasons for his decision. Saying that a non-resident does not know about the city or that living in Brooklyn will make someone process document requests faster just does not make sense.

Change the city's current residency requirement and it will change the city for the better.

EUGENE TOWBA