How would you put an extra cop to work?
Larry Williams/Post-Dispatch
On March 3, voters in St. Louis’ Shaw Neighborhood will decide a local tax initiative. Actually, “hyper local” better describes it.
The tax would apply in just 1/100th of the city, the 54 blocks that make up the neighborhood just to the east of the Missouri Botanical Garden (bounded by Grand Boulevard to the east and Interstate 44 and Tower Grove Park, to the north and south).
The funds would be used to pay for more police service and other security improvements in a neighborhood that, while thriving, is not immune to common urban problems.
Voters must decide whether to nick themselves an extra $100 to $200 a year per parcel of real estate in hopes of helping to keep the neighborhood’s more than 8,200 residents safer. The tax would raise about $250,000 a year. That’s enough to put one experienced cop on the street 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Could this be the start of a trend? There isn’t a municipality in the region whose police budget isn’t being pinched by recession. For years, some “gated” communities have supplemented police protection by hiring private security to patrol their streets.
But now comes Shaw, an economically diverse city neighborhood, trying to do the same thing.
The strategy involves funding a “special business district” to pay for security services. The process is available to other Missouri communities that want more security than their city halls currently provide.
Shaw is a neighborhood where people are so involved and passionate about community affairs that significant initiatives are scrutinized like a microbe under a microscope and argued almost endlessly. No aspect of the proposed public safety tax has been left unhashed.
More than a few people oppose the tax — in part because they believe they already are paying for police service. That, of course, is true; about a third of every city tax dollar goes to pay for police services. Others say they simply can’t afford the new tax, at least not without hardship.
Others in Shaw say the cost is relatively minor and that the initiative could have a significant effect on crimes like burglary, car thefts and muggings.
Still others are offended by the idea of “private” patrols. They see them as divisive, creating a two-tiered system of police protection. This works against a “community” ideal by bestowing a greater portion of what should be a common benefit on an elite few.
And others argue that regular police patrols inevitably would give less attention to Shaw, that the police may assume that the private patrols could handle things.
Proper planning could alleviate many of these concerns. A seven-member neighborhood commission would oversee the process. Its records and meetings would be open. Shaw is full of the kind of engaged citizens who might attend such meetings. And if people were unhappy with the results, voters could dump the entire enterprise in five years simply by not renewing it.
This page makes no recommendation on the issue, except to note that it’s an interesting concept that could build on other initiatives underway in other city neighborhoods and that might spawn similar efforts, outside the city, throughout the region. Long term, what happens on a hyper-local level could be a factor on municipal budgets and planning and, indeed, on the basic question of where people decide to live.
Getting an alarm system for your house is $30 a month. So getting your own private police officer for $150 a year seems like a bargain to me. Will it create a two-tiered system of police protection? Of course. But the alternative is to say that nobody in the city has the right to be safer than somebody in Walnut Park, even with their own money. When you’re trying to attract middle class families to the city, that isn’t such a good position to take.
What puzzles me is why “this page makes no recommendation on the issue.” Would the Post have an objection to an individual purchasing an alarm system for his home? Would you have a problem with somebody installing a motion light in their back yard? This is simply home security on a neighborhood scale, something that anyone with a little common sense should wholeheartedly support.
Larry, thanks for the picture of the St Charles toy police car by the way. Nothing like a revelant photo to really bring it all together, eh?
“Common urban problems”…what a great politically correct way to refer to CRIME.
I live in South County. We may not be as “economically diverse” in my neighborhood, but we also don’t have “common urban problems” either. What are the odds that the two are connected?
If people in that neighborhood want to try it, more power to them. It isn’t unconstitutional, and I can’t blame them for trying something different.
This is so stupid I’m wondering if today is April 1. Have you people not learned enough from living in the city that any tax money given to any govt or neighborhood fiefdom will just be wasted away?
So any area of the city that does not suddenly implement a “block tax” gets shoved down to the bottom of the list when it comes to police services? What’s next? A special tax for having the street sweeper come down your block twice a month instead of one? One to get extra trash pickup?
If I wanted to move to this particular neighborhood and then found out there is a special tax, I’d be looking elsewhere. Again, just one more tax dollar is not going to fix your problem.
Funny the PD made no recommendation. This is a tax, PD is all about increasing taxes. Oh but wait, this will only benefit the chosen, not the masses.
I have paid my own protection tax, the Glock 9mm Tax. It is only applicable in my house and surrounding property and I gladly pay it. It makes up for the fact that the cops show up AFTER the crime, pen and paper in hand, to write up the report. Sometimes they are accompanied by the coroner who will draw a chalk outline. Point here is there are other ways to protect yourself and your property. Ever heard of a motion detector light and an alarm system if you don’t want to go the gun route? An incentive killing tax with the ability to be defrauded is not the way to go.
Nick, it looks like it’s more than $150/year. According to one of the links in the story if your property is assessed at $45K you’ll pay $225/year. The rate is $.50 per $100 of assessed valuation. If I have a home assessed at $100k, I’d be paying $500/year. Wow! That’s a lot of scratch. My current alarm only $320 a year.
I am one of the proponents of the Shaw Special Business District. We have had repeated reports from neighborhoods around us, and at this point virtually all of them have some degree of private off duty police patrols, that these have been very beneficial at stemming crime. It sunsets in 5 years, so if the people of Shaw do not see a result it can be shelved. It is subject to Sunshine Law, and is administered by a Commission of 7 Shaw residents, so the risk of malfeasance is low. It does not go to the alderman or mayor to utilize. It is specified in the ordinance to be used for safety/security measures-for us it is about policing. As for cost, in Shaw only about 50 building out of 1946 will have to pay over $250 per year, and these are very large buildings such as apartments. Shaw is a wonderful place to live, and we would like to take it to the next level of being a lower crime area as well. As for me, I think it is worth a try.
Doesn’t the mob offer a similar program called protection money. Folks the biggest crooks in town are the cops. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is the way it is in modern day America.
Maybe the new officer can make sure the SLMPD isn’t palnting drugs on residents, stealing their cars or otherwise breaking the law!