Now isn’t the right time for the city to impose a police residency requirement

ACity Hall schism over whether police o cers should be required to live in the ve boroughs has gone public in recent weeks.

Mayor Eric Adams, a former New York Police Department captain, and his police commissioner, Keechant Sewell, have taken opposite sides. He is for a residency requirement; she is against it.

Given the department’s struggles with recruiting and resignations, Sewell’s argument wins our endorsement. For now, it would be wise not to implement a New York City residency requirement for police o cers.

e commissioner told a Crain’s audience in March that she opposes a city residency requirement for police o cers, emphasizing that “as long as they’re connected to the community” where they work, that’s more than adequate.

In response, the mayor reiterated a stance he took in his rst month on the job, saying that the city gets more value when o cers live in the neighborhood. When o cers leave the city after a shift for one of the ve neighboring counties where they’re allowed to live, the city loses the o cers’

OP-ED protection in those o -hours, his argument goes. e debate isn’t likely to end soon. An Adams ally in the Legislature, state Sen. Kevin Parker from Brooklyn, plans to continue introducing a bill— rst considered in 2020 after the George Floyd murder—that would require new recruits to live within the ve boroughs.

“You are paying for other counties to be safe,” Adams has said.

Requiring police o cers to live in the city can indeed increase accountability and improve community relations.

It’s important, however, to weigh the potential impact on recruitment and retention. A residency requirement could limit the pool of recruits and make it more di cult to attract quali ed candidates. Police Department data indicates that 69% of recent recruit classes have consisted of city residents, who receive extra points on entrance exams. at seems like a good carrot-versusstick incentive.

Instead of geographic diversity, Sewell said she’s focused on ensuring a greater gender and racial mix of New Yorkers on the police force through recruitment.

It’s important to consider the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of a residency requirement. e city required o cers to live within its borders until the 1960s, when the rule was lifted because of corruption concerns. Local politicians were using their in uence to get their friends and family members jobs with the Police Department, fostering corruption and incompetence. Broadening residency was seen as a way to professional- ize the force. e mayor’s side of the residency argument is worth revisiting in the future. e city should never take its eyes o the goals of better safety and improved police–community relations. ose objectives are equally essential to strengthening public safety, police–community relations and Police Department morale. ■

For now, it’s essential for the city to build and maintain a diverse police force with adequate numbers.