Poll Results on Mayor Slay’s Odds of Getting Charter Reform
My poll last week asked:
Will Mayor Slay get 1) Charter Reform, 2) local police control; 3) the city back into STL County by the end of his 3rd term (April 2013?
Forty percent of the responses say none of the 3 will happen:
But more importantltly, 60% of you think some change will happen in the next four years. I think the 12 that thought all 3 would happen are foolishly optimistic. I don’t see St. Louis County taking the city back after a 130-year separation. Of course I also didn’t think county voters would approve the Page extension through Creve Coeur Park. I’m not convinced we need to be back in the County. I’m on board with charter reform and local control of our police.
The city does not need control of the police department. The main reason for the City wanting control is so they can control the pension funds that the department has. Our PD has not been the best run department, however I feel that city control could only make that worse.
Why shouldn’t the city control its own police department? The only reason anyone would oppose that is to maintain fewer controls on accountability. As a city taxpayer, I want the police department accountable to me and my neighbors, not a governor appointed board.
The department is accountable to you and your neighbors, if you call them, they come to you. If you have a problem with them, you make a complaint about them. City control would not change accountability. It would only give the alderman and women of the city a new toy to play with. Most alderpeople already think they can control officers and city control would only make that worse.
No, they don’t always come when you call. There are plenty of stories of people dialing 9-1-1, then waiting 1 minutes or more for an officer to show up.
Don’t get me started on the police. Just like the defense department in the US Budget, the police department take up a huge percentage of the city budget (considered “non-discretionary), and note that the first issue you bring up is protection of your pension.
Why should the SLMPD be under state control, when just about every other police department in the country is under local control? The arrangement is an anachronism and needs to be brought into the 21st century.
The towing scandal, police cover ups, world series tickets, Mokwa. The way I see it, the current system of state control under the governor puts city residents in a taxation without representation situation.
Why should the mayor, the comptroller, and the Board of Aldermen not have power over the city police department? Give one real reason. Don’t think of protecting the cops’ personal interest. Think of the public interest. Think of the public’s TRUST.
Oops, that should have read waited 15 minutes or more for a response to a 9-1-1 call. Personally, I was involved in a traffic accident, the driver of the other car called for a police car to file a report, we waited two hours, saw multiple police cars pass us by on Kingshighway (without lights or sirens), and not one stopped. We gave up.
You think that because the City has control of the PD that it would change whether or not officers respond for a traffic accident? The reason I mentioned pension is because it is one of the main reasons officers are against city control. Officers are working in one of the “most dangerous cities in the country” and make less than a manager an Assistant Manager at Walgreens makes. Sure, you could chalk this up to career choice, but one of the benefits for those on the department is the option of a 50% pension upon 20 years of service. Thats one of the first thing that would go bye bye under city control. Is that fair to do to the men and women that put their lives on the line everyday. Look what happened with Prop. S. That money was supposed to be earmarked for public safety raises and equipment. Instead in went towards alderperson’s pet projects and the police officers are now looking at at least 3 years without a raise.
There was a reason that The City Control Bill never even got assigned to a committee during this year’s legislative session.
At the end of the day, the police should not get the choice who controls them. Would it be better under the city or for the policemen? I don’t have an answer and can’t speak as a city resident. However, In my mind if the majority of city residents want local control they should get local control. As a resident of this state I support that notion 100% and would express that opinion as such to my state representative.
Tim E – thanks for making the most articulate point yet in this discussion. The current relationship between the SLMPD and state politicians is a sort of gang brotherhood. The SLMPD works for the citizens of StL City, not the state of Missouri. The city police force is not a state militia, it is a local police department.
Yet, the strong union among police officers, combined with the machine politics of Missouri, has sustained a model that serves the interest of the gang brotherhood, while disenfranchising city residents and local leaders. It’s high time for the police board itself to call for an end to this arrangement.
As far as the comment about “aldermen and their pet projects”, “Erich”, you are letting your anti-city bias show. The aldermen are the elected representatives of the city of St. Louis. Those “pet projects” you refer to are the business of the city, just as the police department should be. God knows the police department already takes up a huge percentage of the city budget.
“Erich”, here’s a question for you…why is it that so many city cops seem to disdain the city? Don’t believe me? Just spend a little time reading the comments over at STL CopTalk.
I don’t have an anti city bias at all… I love the city and love living in it. I might have a bit of an anti-city alderman view due to the fact that some seem to screw up everything they touch. And I really do not understand how the police department serves the interest of a gang brotherhood?
The gang brotherhood among union police officers and union supported democratic politicians at the state level. Blood before country.
Police in Missouri are not allowed to form a union. They are part of the FOP, but that is not a union..
“fraternal order” or “gang brotherhood”: you make the call.
I’m split on this issue. On the one hand, yes, the city should control it’s own police. (Just like it’s damn schools!) 😉 But on the other, I agree with Erich. I don’t trust city aldermen one bit not to toy with the police force.
If you hate the city’s government so much, why stay?