By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM
The St. Louis City Police Board will again be listening to opinions from the public about the residency requirement for civilian employees of the Department. But this time the board will be meeting in north St. Louis.
Tomorrow at 7:00 p.m., the Board -- which includes Mayor Francis Slay -- is supposed to meet at the Tandy Center, 4206 W. Kennerly, for its monthly meeting. Over the past few months, they have heard comments from groups in south St. Louis that were largely stacked with civilian employees and their families who mostly spoke in support of lifting requirement to live in the City of St. Louis.
Those opponents of the requirement point to the state of the city schools, the rise in property values, and even crime as reasons all employees of the Police Department should be able to move out of the city.
At past meetings, supporters of the current rule were often met with loud interruptions and booing from the audience. It will be interesting to see how different tomorrow's northside meeting will be.
8 Comments:
The South Patrol meeting in St. Louis Hills was stacked with off-duty police, many of whom ironically live near by. The Central Patrol meeting at St. Raymond's was held the night of the big storm. Now, even if the North Patrol attracts a large crowd in favor of residency, expect the Police Board to have the lame excuse that 2 out of 3 of their meetings saw a "majority" in favor of ending residency requirements.
These meetings are a sham. The non-binding referendum this November will be the most accurate guage of public opinion, but the Police Board will instead refer to the "results" of their calculated "open houses."
8/15/2006 12:15 PM
Nobody cares if police live in the neighborhood or not in North St. Louis. Let the police live where they want to live. The less police that live in North St. Louis, the more crime that can occur and opportunities for killings, stabbings, murders, homicides, and all the other things that already occur in North St. Louis with police residency in effect right now!
8/15/2006 12:32 PM
If this has been predetermined, then I think citizens should either fight to keep the requirement (unlikely), or fight to create incentives to keep police in the City.
For example, give officers a raise, extra vacation time, or exemption from the earnings tax if they decide to remain in the City Limits.
I think keeping police in the City is essential for growth, and safety. If it has been predetermined, then incentives are a good middle ground for both parties.
8/15/2006 2:25 PM
Doug brings up a good point that even if officers live outside the City, they will still have to pay earnings tax for working in the City. So exempting only resident officers from the tax, granted, would be an added incentive for them to live within the City. However, since that tax is 31% of revenue, while 56% of the budget is spent on public safety, I don't think our City could afford to cut its biggest funding source to the benefit of workers contributing to its biggest expense.
8/15/2006 3:24 PM
Remember, these meetings and the current question does not relate to the police officers, but rather the civilian employees of the police department. Additionally, you cannot give preferential treatment to any employees, police or civilians, because they live in one area or another. Exepmting all city employees from the earnings tax, however, might be a way to attract more candidates to civil and police service.
8/15/2006 6:07 PM
OK you don't have anything against whites Brian Harris. But what do you have against puncuation? You may have set a record for the longest sentence and usage of a comma in your post. I'm contacting Guiness for verification.
8/16/2006 9:31 AM
I will be at the meeting tonight to let them know that if you want to serve and really help our community then you need to show us that you really care and give a damn, and live next door to the same people that you are suppose to serve and protect. I don't want our police to start acting like our school board president (making decisions for the very schools that she won't send her kids to). If you don’t have a connection or interest in the community that you serve, a lot of times you don’t care about how your actions affect the people you work for. If the reason you don’t want to live in the City of St. Louis is because of the crime rate, then if you are police officer and you are forced to live in an area then you better believe you are going to go that extra step to make sure things get better. But considering the sad state that our school system is in I know that leaves families with a hard to choice to make, so I hope that they compromise by allowing officers to move only after serving 15 years (by that time you should really feel a strong connection)!!!
8/16/2006 10:06 AM
I hear you Brian, but I actually don't have any problems with children on my block. There is not a person on my entire block that is under the age of 21. And although I don't know those parents that leave behind me, I do what I can in my community. I'm not all talk (like you seem to be), I spend more time volunteering with different organizations and churches than I do at home. So I don't know what you are talking about when you say, "stop pointing the finger at the drug dealer.” I did not do that nor did I point any finger at “the whiteman.” Although I do understand that there a lot people that do those things, but I haven’t. I think a lot of the problem is you have everyone talking (or writing) but not enough people doing something.
Exactly what “hood” do you live in and what are you doing to make it better?
8/16/2006 2:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home