Fired for living outside of Toledo

From 13abc. Employees being terminated because they do not live in the City.
The Toledo city charter states that employees must reside in the city, unless a waiver is given. The mayor decides who gets them, on a case-by-case basis. But if you don't get one and you live outside the city limits, you'll be canned.

Tonya Ayers worked for the city of Toledo for almost seven years. Everyday she would commute from Michigan to Toledo. Until she got the memo. Ayers said, "I'm charged with conduct unbecoming and gross insubordination."
Read the rest at:

No votes yet

Where does Bob Reinbolt live? I heard it was perrysburg.

According to Aries there is a Robert Reinbolt,

Address : 5162 PAWNEE RD

This entire setup works well for promoting cronyism. Also, intentional ignorance is used to let employees hang themselves when required.

The entire system should have been either-or, not by-mayor's-whim.

our town will be considered a joke as long as this mayor is in office. We need "competent” individuals who are not power hungry or egomaniacs to run the ship.

The mayor may be a dumbass but personally I do think that if you work for the city then you should live in it.

that if you are a TEACHER in the Toledo Public School district then you should live in that district. Right?

After all, the teachers are making their money inside Toledo, too.

Why shouldn't they live in the community they are working in?

I think its pretty common for teachers to live outside of districts...and not just in "bad" districts like Toledo.

I know teachers in Sylvania who actually reside in Toledo. I also know of at least one Anthony Wayne teacher who lives in another district. Hell, one of my neighbors in Sylvania is a Principal in another suburban school district. And I'm sure there are countless more examples, outside the limited group of teachers that I happen to know personally.

(When I was growing up, I'd say that close to half my teachers didn't live in our district. A good solid public school district in another state...not one that teachers would try to avoid living in, they just happened to live in neighboring communities.)

Only seems to be a hot button issue when you're talking about Toledo teachers living somewhere else...not vice versa.

Why the hell should they have to live in Toledo?

Should a Jeep worker have to live in Toledo?
A Kroger employee??

Teachers are just like anyone else - they are paid for the service they provide. Why should they be forced to live some place any more than anyone else?

You people need to get the greed out of your head. If an employee is delivering the service they are hired to provide, then that's it, Period.

All you bastards want to do is worry about the employee's tax dollars.

Billy, are the Jeep or Krogers employees paid out of our tax dollars?


Who cares? Are employees hired because of the tax dollars their property generates, or are they paid for services rendered?

But you made a false comparison, Billy. You implied Jeep and Krogers workers are exactly the same as city employees. They aren't. Tax revenue pays the salaries of city employees. Hence, taxpayers have a rather direct say in the manner of the employment. So, as to the "who" -- it's the taxpayers. Sure, not all of them.

That's why in part the city Charter states that it's legal to stipulate a residency requirement for their employment. If this bothers you, get the Charter changed.

If a petition were circulated about implementing such a change, I would sign it. I would also probably vote for it. But don't pretend that the taxpayers have no right to even place such controls on the use of their money.

This is just happening now? I know a person who was forced out of a job with the city last summer, because that person lives maybe 2 miles outside the city limits in Oregon.

I thought they forced all those people out last year at the same time. Interesting.

Well, I guess the people who held onto their jobs until this year should consider themselves "lucky" by comparison...the person I know hasn't been able to find a permanent full time job since last summer. Has been working on assignments through a temp agency when available. At least the people who just lost their jobs now got another year of gainful employment out of it.

carols - TPS teachers have come to the city for employment from all over northwest Ohio and lower Michigan. Many had already established their homes and families in other areas before they became teachers. There's no reason they should have to uproot them. Toledo should be glad to have them, and others, come into the city to work. Their income tax dollars go to Toledo, as well as much of their spending dollars.

I'm glad to see that segregation is still alive. It used to be enforced by skin color, now it is enforced by residenceny.

I should have made a **sarcasm alert** with that post. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous the whole residency thing is.

I do not personally support residency requirements. I think they are unnecessary, archaic and professionally defeating. The ONLY time I can see a residency requirement making sense is when a person is running for public office. In that instance I feel they should live in the area they are wanting to be elected to.

IMO if Toledo (as in administration) wants to be able to pick and choose from a pool of the "best and brightest" then it needs to be more flexible in the residency battle. After all, it's no secret that some (many) of the most successful graduates from our area have moved on to more business friendly climates.

Only a fascist state would want to control where someone chooses to live. Freedom used to be something special and unique in America (our foundation) and was what inspired the rest of the world to strive for it. Now, we (America) are becoming the joke of the planet.

When is enough enough?

Isn't it obvious that the mayor's view is that if you love the city, you will live in it and if you live in Toledo people should have the "privelage" of working for the city?

On the other hand, if you don't live in the city, it is somehow viewed by the mayor as being disloyal and not loving the city and should therefore be denied the "privelage" of working for the city.

If this is the mayor's logic, it does not necessarily follow that residency determines whether a person is "loyal" or disloyal since loyalty is an internal mindset they take with them regardless of where they live. Where people choose to live is based on a whole list of factors including lifesyle, needs, finances etc.

In fact, people who do meet the residency requirement while working for the city are still quite capable of being disloyal.

So if one of the reasons for the residency requirement is based on the false perception of a person's loyalty, then it is a bogus reason.

He lives apart from the loud music, busy carry-outs, and crime of the city.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.