By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 2:17 AM
The president of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, Kevin Ahlbrand, debated 6th Ward Alderman (and possible Aldermanic President candidate) Lewis Reed on the question of police residency last night. Labels: Police
The informational debate, which occured at a meeting of The Tilles Park Neighborhood Association, is largely moot since the state-appointed police board voted last week to significantly relax the ban just seven weeks before voters are scheduled to let their opinion be known on the matter in a non-binding referendum.
Reed joked that the debate took place on Ahlbrand's home turf, in SLPOA's hall in south St. Louis. Those in attendence -- including Ald. Jennifer Florida, state senate aide Harold Brown, mayoral aide Charles Bryson, and current Aldermanic Pres. Jim Shrewsbury -- also heard debates on the stem cell initiative and the proposed tobacco tax increase.
9 Comments:
Looks like J-Flo is supporting Lewis against Jim.
9/27/2006 9:53 AM
Every single employee of the police department agreed to the residency requirement when they took their job. If they don't want that job now, give it up for one of the thousands of unemployed college graduates in this city.
9/27/2006 2:25 PM
95% percent of all people who live in the City of St. Louis A population of 350,000, chose to live in the City, 5,000 City employees are forced to live here. The City does not provide adequate pay raises, better benefits, fully fund pension systems or better schools. Employees of the City must work second jobs just to send their kids to Private schools.
I say let St. Louis come into the 21st century. Lets allow our employees to live anywhere they want. We get a better applicant pool, and morale would be greatly enhanced. Back in the 20's coal companies had company towns, they owned the stores, restaurants, and homes that they rented to workers. It is no better than being an indentured servant.
9/27/2006 3:15 PM
If employees are upset then the City could create incentives. Merit based raises could be increased in amount or the earnings/property tax could be exempted. What must be understood is that these incentives should be issued upon merit. Those individuals who are doing a good job should be given incentives to remain our neighbors. Police are underpaid and those who are going above and beyond should be compensated accordingly. These individuals are protecting our infrastructure, personal property, and our lives thus we should strive to keep the excellent officers. Without a Police Department St. Louis would not exist and with an excellent department St. Louis can excel. The City issues incentive for corporations and I do not see why we shouldn’t do the same for the Police. Although I disagree with the argument that the City is too expensive, I do agree that the SLPS is a mess; therefore these underpaid hard-workers should be given the means to pay for private schooling or other expenses. Alas, this entire argument is inane. It is quite undemocratic that City residents have no voice in the operations of the Police Department.
9/27/2006 3:51 PM
If all the city employees would send their kids to public schools maybe they would improve as involved families took an interest. I don't have to live here, but I do because I want to, and I work to improve my community, not just whine about how awful it is (I don't think it is, first of all). I send my kids to the SLPS. None of us are guaranteed pension benefits or pay raises, I don't get those. A job is a job, take it or leave it, if no one applies then they'll change requirements in order to fill it. Until then, there will always be someone happy to bring home that paycheck if you don't want to. Go live and work somewhere else, no one is stopping you.
9/27/2006 3:52 PM
Anon #3, the problem with your argument is that you aren't "forced" to live in St. Louis. You can move any time you like. No one made you live in the city, no one is making you stay. The rules said you have to live in the city. If your job said you have to show up at 8 would you show up at 8:15? The city, as an employer, has made a decision about its employees. Everyone who signs up to work for the city lives by those rules.
9/27/2006 4:42 PM
We new that we had to live in the city we also were told we would have health insurance after retirement. The department can destroy are retirement insurance but we cant change are mind about where we live.
9/27/2006 8:34 PM
To City Luvr:
You are correct, This is Anon # 3 again. When I took the job I knew what the rules were, I also knew how much I would make in a year. I did not assume that my salary would remain the same each and every year. Through negotiations with the City occassionaly I have received a pay raise. Why do I expect that my work rules have no chance of changing too. And by the way it is not a work rule it is a City Charter Provision.
Back when the residency rule was established it was put into the Charter to prevent White Flight from leaving the city. The residency requirement had its time and place. Now our city is on the rise, it is on the increase. The City has determined that Tax Increment Financing and Tax abatements are good for businesses that will stay here for the next 10 years, and then leave for their next tax break. Paying for these on the Back of the same city employees that are forced to live in the City.
Julius Hunter said last week at the Police Board Meeting, that as an African American in his lifetime he as been told where he could live and where he could not, where he could eat and where he could not, which restroom and which water fountain he could use. It was wrong pre 1960's and it is wrong now. How in the world do true progressive cities in this country survive.
When you bought your house in the neighborhood you live in did you examine your neighbors to find out who worked for the Street Department, Who worked for Forestry, who worked for the Fire Department, who on your street were Doctors, Lawyers, and mechanics. Is your neighborhood safer because an employee for the Water Department lives there. Your City taxes pay for the services you receive here in the city, why does it matter if I live on your block or in Florissant. You get the same services.
9/27/2006 10:47 PM
This is a ridiculous argument. It comes down to job retention and job recruitment. When you have such a small pool of applicants to choose from then you tend to get the bottom of the barrel. I know that everyone says that it not true but I think that you can look at the recent hires of the Police Department and see that is true.
I don't think that you or any other tax payer wants to hire the bottom of the barrel when it comes to police officers. This is for several reasons but it all comes down to liability. I know that I don't want to pay hire taxes to pay out lawsuits when police officers abuse their privileges. I don't want to work with other police officers that are not here to help people but only advance the criminal element. I don't want to work with other police officers that violate the rights of the citizens. Those are just a few of the things that you get when you hire the bottom of the barrel and that is all that is left in the City hiring pool.
The easing of the residency rule is not only a good thing for the police officers but ultimately it is a good thing for the residents. You just have to have a little foresight to see it.
I like to address the issue that rules are rules and go somewhere else if you don't like them. Well the rules used to be that police officers can live anywhere they want and they changed that rule. Time has finally come to fix a bad rule and they have changed it back to allow freedom from residency requirements.
Also I hope that Alderman Reed does his homework a little better next time because the same old argument that he uses is as outdated as the vote.
9/30/2006 6:11 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home