Residency choices

According to letter writer Eric Russell ("The City Needs Them," June 29), all city police officers should continue to be required to live in the city of Pittsburgh, even though the other 2,500 municipalities in the state do not have the same requirement. He is opposed to Sen. Jane Orie supporting legislation that would remove that requirement. Does Mr. Russell live in Morningside because he has to by state law, or does he live there because he wants to?

Where police officers vote, worship, coach or send their children to school does not make them do their jobs less effectively or more effectively. Any officer who is sworn to protect and serve the people in a community doesn't take any less risk, or make any less effort, because he eats dinner and goes to sleep in an adjacent borough or township. The residency requirement was enacted in 1990. Improvements to our interstate and turnpike systems during the last 20 years now provide access to the city from all areas that are within commuting distance.

The real problem is that the city does not want to lose taxpayers at a time when it can least afford to lose them. Some will stay and some will go, but it should be up to the individual to choose. Sen. Orie wants to give police officers that choice.

If Mr. Russell would look at a map of Sen. Orie's district, he would see that she serves most of the communities directly north of the city, including West View and Etna. If Etna is "out of town" to him, then perhaps he should expand his horizons and see more of Western Pennsylvania.

K. ELIZABETH PICARD
McCandless