Readers Split on Residency Requirement for Police
The City of St. Louis has had an employee residency requirement for years now. The concept is simple, if you want to work for the city you need to live in the city. Their wages stay in the community and multiply as spent locally. It’s easier to understand a community when you’re part of it — not just an outside observer.
Fifteen or so years ago I listed a friend’s south city house for sale, the buyer was moving to St. Louis after accepting a city job. I recently saw the buyer at an event — she and her husband still live in the house and she still works for the city. This is the ideal outcome.
It seems the St. Louis Police are having a hard time filling vacant positions because qualified applicants in the region don’t want to move. This is common, as people all over the St. Louis region tend to commute to their jobs — they don’t necessarily move to the municipality where each new job is located. This explains why I-64 and I-270 have daily backups as motorists commute to/from work.
This is one of those rare issues where I’m undecided. Here’s the non-scientific results of the recent Sunday Poll:
Q: Agree or disagree: St. Louis Police shouldn’t have to live in the city.
- Strongly agree: 15 [31.25%]
- Agree: 6 [12.5%]
- Somewhat agree: 2 [4.17%]
- Neither agree or disagree: 2 [4.17%]
- Somewhat disagree: 2 [4.17%]
- Disagree: 11 [22.92%]
- Strongly disagree: 9 [18.75%]
- Unsure/No Answer: 1 [2.08%]
While I’m undecided I’m also not sure how I feel about removing the residency requirement for only one of many city jobs. Is the law enforcement profession so different than refuse handlers, bookkeepers, etc?
Oh right, some cops in St. Louis beat up a black colleague working undercover as a protestor. So here’s my question— would dropping the residency requirement mean we’d have more or less racist police? Or would the percentage remain unchanged?
— Steve Patterson