Readers have mixed views on local control of St. Louis Police

One of the biggest current issues is the push for local control of the St. Louis Police. This was the topic of the poll last week:

Q: The STL police has been controlled by Missouri since the civil war. How would local control impact police corruption?

1. Hard to say but corruption should be addressed here rather than in Jefferson City: 73 [50%]
2. Would be more corrupt under local control: 33 [22%]
3. Would be just as corrupt under local control: 24 [16%]
4. Would be less corrupt under local control: 7 [4%]
5. Unsure: 5 [3%]
6. Other answer… 2 [1%]

Half were unsure if corruption would be more or less under local control but it should be addresses locally rather than at the Missouri capital in Jefferson City. If you ask the man on the street if citizens should have control over their own police force most would agree.  So what is the holdup?  The police themselves don’t want a new boss.  The following in the full statement of the Saint Louis Police Officers Association (SLPOA):

ST. LOUIS POLICE OFFICER’S ASSOCIATION IS AGAINST

SB675, SB 643 AND HB1601

(LOCAL CONTROL OF THE ST. LOUIS POLICE DEPARTMENT)

Mayor Francis Slay and St. Louis City politicians are not genuine in their attempt to gain control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). They cite that the Police Department will be more accountable to the City of St. Louis, and that the City will be more financially sound, if the City takes control of the Police Department. However, the slanderous campaign organized by Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters is misleading and its purpose is to create a false sense of panic among the citizens that live and visit St. Louis, and sway STATE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.

– The Mayor is an Ex-Officio member of the Board of Police Commissioners. The mayor has input into every decision made. The remaining four members are prominent St. Louis City residents.

· St. Louis City government has direct fiscal oversight of the SLMPD; it sets the Police Department’s budget. In fact the City of St. Louis reduced the Police Department’s budget last year, which directly forced the Police Department to reduce manpower by over 100 officers.

· The hidden agenda of Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters is to gain control of the SLMPD Pension System. They claim the pension system, along with the Fire Department and Civil Service pension systems, will bankrupt the city. They claim that city employees do not contribute to the pension systems. While this is true for the Civil Service system, Firemen contribute 8% and Police Officers contribute 7% of their salaries. WE DO CONTRIBUTE. In fact it is quite apparent with the recent ballot initiatives filed, in essence by Mayor Slay, that their true intention is to obtain control of our pension system.

· Mayor Slay, his political allies and his supporters cannot answer our one simple question: “How will City control make the SLMPD a better department”? The fact is crime was reduced this past year and has decreased each of the last three years. St. Louis City politics will interfere with the day-to-day operation of the Police Department. The mayor, 28 alderpersons, and other appointed and elected officials, will have direct influence on the daily workings of the Police Officers.

· The structure of St. Louis City government has not adapted to the decrease in population of the City. The structure, which has been in place for over 100 years, continues to mandate the same number of Alderpersons today with roughly 350,000 residents as opposed to when this government was first formed with twice the population.

· St. Louis City government has grossly mismanaged most, if not all, departments under its control, as determined by State Auditor Susan Montee. The audits of The Department of Public Safety, The Streets Department, and Lambert International Airport, to name a few, all have serious monetary discrepancies and procedural inefficiencies.

· A financial analysis of the City of St. Louis conducted by PolicePay.net demonstrates the financial constraints of the City of St. Louis are caused by the poor fiscal management of Mayor Slay and City Politicians and not influenced by the SLMPD. The audit clearly shows that police protection for the City of St. Louis is not a priority of the Mayor. The audit cites:

“Police Expenditures, per capita, are up 12.45% during the last 13 years when adjusted for inflation. Total expenditures per capita have increased 52.91% over the last 13 years. Most of this growth is by design. It is not being caused by uncontrollable forces.”

“This is very rare, most cities since the 1990’s have spent more in terms of growth on public safety and police then all expenditures as a whole. St. Louis is the total opposite as all expenditures have increased at over 4 times the growth rate then Police expenditures. It is clear that the City of St. Louis has many other main priorities then Police Protection.”

· Local control of the St. Louis Police Department and the Police Retirement System will negatively impact the City’s ability to recruit and retain quality police personnel, as well as other City staff.

The members of the St. Louis Police Officers Association, and its retirees, ask that you please oppose any legislation relating to control of the Police Department or the Police Retirement System.

So what do we do? Nothing? I support both local control as well as protecting the officers’ pension.  I fully agree with one of their observations above; “The structure of St. Louis City government has not adapted to the decrease in population of the City. The structure, which has been in place for over 100 years, continues to mandate the same number of Alderpersons today with roughly 350,000 residents as opposed to when this government was first formed with twice the population.” I don’t think the structure is over 100 years old but their point is valid.  They don’t want to be managed by the current city government.  Any bills before the state legislature to return control of the police to St. Louis should be tied to charter reform.  We need to do both — revise our outmoded municipal government and control the police from within our city limits.

– Steve Patterson

Support for the City to River concept growing rapidly

The groundbreaking for the main span of the new bridge over the Mississippi River was canceled last week because federal officials were unable to get out of Washington D.C. to make the event.  But the contracts are set and work is starting:

The New Mississippi River Bridge is part of a group of roadway improvement projects that will connect I-70 at the I-55/64/70 interchange in East St. Louis to I-70 near Cass Avenue in Missouri. The entire project will cost a total of $670 million and is being funded through a combination of federal and state funds. The New Mississippi River Bridge project is expected to be completed in 2014.

When complete, in just four years, I-70 traffic that is currently routed between the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (aka The Arch) and downtown St. Louis will now bypass the area to the North.

With I-70 traffic being rerouted we are given an rare opportunity to correct a past mistake.  For decades the Arch grounds have been disconnected from the rest of the city.  Many of us now share a common vision to make a better connection and  support is quickly growing:

“Today’s editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch calls for big thinking in aligning solutions for transportation and the decades-old challenge of eliminating the barriers between Downtown and the Arch. The Post suggests that the new Mississippi River Bridge is the key: this major public works project is expected to carry a lot of I-70 traffic, potentially making it possible to eliminate the depressed freeway and create a boulevard that would connect Downtown to the Arch. More details about this radical idea are available at www.citytoriver.org.

Before the naysayers get going, thought I would share: this is similar big thinking to what they did in downtown Fort Worth ten years ago. An elevated six-lane freeway divided the southern end of their downtown, cutting the downtown in two, and contributing to blight for more than forty years. When a freeway expansion was proposed by TXDOT in the late 1990’s, downtown leaders rallied around an alternative solution to instead tear down the elevated decks, and build a grand boulevard designed to slow traffic and revitalize the southern end of their downtown. This big idea was very controversial, and it took tremendous political capital, funding and even legal action to accomplish — but it got done, when many said it would never happen. Since the freeway was re-routed and the new Lancaster Boulevard opened there, millions of dollars have been reinvested in adjacent mixed-use properties, and most recently a new $200M convention hotel opened within a block of where the old elevated freeway stood. Similar projects have been undertaken to remove or reroute freeways adversely affecting the downtown experience in cities like San Francisco and Milwaukee; the effects are transformational. Today’s editorial calls for creative solutions and inclusion of this idea of a boulevard as a viable solution in the National Park Service’s Gateway Arch International Design Competition currently underway…..sounds reasonable and worth exploring to me. – Maggie Campbell Partnership for Downtown St. Louis President & CEO March 1, 2010″

Can’t get a much better endorsement than that! Still not convinced? Read on….

Last year MoDOT finally improved the ability to cross over the depressed highway lanes:

But the ramps and crossings don’t make the experience anymore inviting.

The experience of walking along Memorial Drive is anything but memorable, except that you may remember how drab it is.

Can it get any worse than the above? Why yes, it can.

Just rotate to look to the West and there between the buildings is Busch Stadium. The distance as the crow flies is 960 feet, less than a quarter mile walk.  Before and after the 81 home games per year fans should be walking up and down Memorial Drive and spending time on the Arch grounds.  The nearest route from Busch to the Arch grounds is along Walnut. That requires a walk of 2,570 feet to reach this same spot.  For the new accessible crossing at Market St you’d need to walk 3,250 feet. People will walk a quarter mile but not more than a half mile each way.

Hopefully you will support the effort to remove what never should have been built in the first place!  Many predicted disaster when MoDOT shut down 8 miles of I-64 for two years but we survived.  This can happen. This should happen!

Please support the City to River movement:

• website
• Twitter
• Facebook

With a competition  (FRAMING A MODERN MASTERPIECE: The City + The Arch + The River 2015 international design competition) currently underway now is the time to tell everyone you know about this idea.  Ideally we’d spend the next four years planning the work while the new bridge is being constructed.  When the new bridge opens to carry non-local I-70 traffic then work can begin on removing the old lanes as well as lots of private development on adjacent land.

– Steve Patterson

Disabled parking not always closest parking to the door

Many, incorrectly, believe that disabled parking is right in front of the door and that those of us with state-issued parking permits always get the best parking.  In many cases we do get prime parking relative to other spaces.  Yesterday was a good example to dispel this myth.

I went to a crowded event at the Webster Groves Community Center.  In the above picture the people in red are walking into the building entrance.  The white car on is closer to the entrance than where I parked at right. I parked in the disabled space closest to the entrance.  Other disabled spaces behind me are closer to the ramp shown on the left but I was lucky to get the space I did — I waited about 10 minutes for it to open up.  Why not just park closer?

There were no closer spaces open but even if there was I couldn’t have parked there anyway. I have the ability to do the steps that would have been required at the main entry so why not park there?  To get in & out of my car I need to open my driver’s door fully.  Sometimes I get a regular space next to say a sidewalk or planter where I can open my door fully but in those cases the curb makes stepping out of the car difficult.  Regular spaces, even those closer to my destination are generally not an option for me or others.

– Steve Patterson