Locally, we constantly hear local business leaders and city officials lecturing us to support our city, local merchants, schools, services — even live in the city. That is a reasonable expectation! Yet, is this a policy being adhered to by those suggesting it? We have local business executives who have stood before City Council meetings speaking to local residents on living here and supporting our businesses and schools. At the same time, some of these leaders reside in other cities, send their children to schools other than Talladega and shop elsewhere.
At the risk of sounding archaic, it appears to be an example of, "Do as I say not as I do!" I know of multiple examples of management-level personnel being recruited to work in Talladega but refuse to live here or to send their kids to Talladega schools.
Related to this issue, should our City Council require all department heads to live in the city? Is it reasonable to expect these supervisors to be readily accessible in the case of emergencies such as fires or natural disasters? Is it prudent for the city to provide vehicles, travel expense and insurance for department heads to travel home and back from other cities? I am aware that this practice has been allowed for several years, nevertheless, that doesn't make it right.
James W. Anderson