Would local control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police reduce corruption?

When St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was sworn into his third term last year he mentioned local control of the St. Louis Police as a priority. For those readers not aware of the back story, during the Civil War pro-Confederate Missouri took control of the police in pro-Union St. Louis.  The state has yet to return control of the police to the local citizens. Four out of five police commissioners are appointed by the governor, the 5th is the current mayor.

Last week we learned that Police commissioner Vince Bommarito made a phone call and his nephew was released from police custody after he was arrested.

On Thursday Democrat Jamilah Nasheed asked Governor Jay Nixon to take the action following news that Bommarito used his influence to have his nephew freed from jail Saturday following an arrest on suspicion of drunk driving.Nasheed is sponsoring a bill that would return the St. Louis police department to local control after a century and a half of state oversight.  (KWMU: State Rep. wants police board member removed)

I support local control of the St. Louis Police but I don’t think it will lesson any potential corruption. It may, in fact, increase it.  But problems big or small need to be handled from within, by the people we elect to represent us.  Yes, the Missouri governor represents us, but the rest of the state as well. Maybe the state will make a deal — give us back our police if we reform our own city charter?  The current city structure would do no better a job with the police than the state government.  The state has an interest in seeing the city revise it’s outdated city charter.  The ransom demands might include eliminating an excessive number of elected offices, cutting out wasteful partisan primary elections, and doing away with the Board of Estimate & Apportionment.

The poll this week asks how local control would change corruption.  Please vote in the poll in the upper right corner and share your thoughts on the topic below.

– Steve Patterson

Most readers don’t give change to homeless on the street

Over 250 people responded to the poll last week:

Q: When a homeless person asks you for change, do you give it to them?

1. never: 143 [56.3%]
2. sometimes: 87 [34.3%]
3. frequently: 20 [7.9%]
4. n/a — I don’t visit places where there are homeless: 4 [1.6%]
5. always: 0 [0%]

Four people live sheltered lives if they don’t go where they may encounter a homeless person. The majority do not give change to the homeless.  While I count myself among those who do not give change,  I do give other ways.  It is important to note is not every panhandler is homeless.  But often the homeless do panhandle to raise money.   Here is a story of the homeless:

‘I asked what he meant and heard a story that was to be repeated to me by many people. Each person I asked told me essentially the same thing: they were ignored as if they did not exist.

A pattern began to emerge. First was the loss of work, then housing, going begging to GA (General Assistance, welfare) where they were treated like second class citizens and beggars. Not finding a bed at the shelter, they are hassled on the streets by police. Then finally they get the courage, yes I mean courage, to ask others for a little change.

A person must feel awfully low inside to have to resort to panhandling as a way of getting money for food and a place to sleep, let along clean clothes and phone change. (Bus money to look for work is about as far as GA money goes).

A person gets tired of sleeping on the streets. I know. Men are lucky to get a shelter bed once or twice a month. Women fare a little better with a couple of nights a week, but even that gets tiring. After a while you need to sleep in a real bed, have some privacy, and take a bath alone. But you do not have money for a hotel room. Where do you get the money? Your last resort, panhandling. When you begin to see what a person must go through day after day, month after month, you gain a little understanding.

But you ask what you could do.

The reason why I was not yelled at was that I acknowledged panhandlers. I let them know I knew they existed. It was not much, just a look saying that I cannot help. I would look at them, pat my pocket, and show an empty hand, or I pointed behind me with my thumb indicating I gave what I could to the last one who asked me. Sometimes I have just said “sorry.” I have also said “not this time,” “I wish I could help,” or “I just gave to the last guy.” All of which was true; I would never lie.

When I did these small things I said a lot more than my words did. I said to them, “I acknowledge you exist, I do not look down on you, you are no less a human being than I, and I respect you as a person.” All that in a gesture or a few words.

A person who is down on their luck needs a little dignity left inside. If you look, you can even see the depression in their eyes. Panhandling is their last resort as it takes the loss of a lot of self respect to do it. And courage to look someone in the face and say, “I need your help.”  – Rae Chamberlain’

Acknowledging the homeless takes very little effort on my part but it means so much to them to not be ignored. Here are some other tips:

• Don’t ignore them. say hello, good afternoon or just make eye contact.  It is okay to give them dignity.
• Buy What’s Up magazine (or the street newspaper in your city)
• Give money to and/or volunteer at organizations that work directly with the homeless in your community.

Resources:

• News… From Our Shoes
• National Coalition for the Homeless
• PBS’ NeedCom

An interesting way to give change is located in the  Central West End:

“The Central West End Association and the City of St. Louis have announced the launch of the “Real Change” campaign. The goal of the campaign is to discourage the random giving of money to panhandlers while encouraging contributions to local social service providers. The campaign is conjuction with a new city ordinance restricting panhandling.

Parking meters donated by the St. Louis Treasurer’s Office have been installed at four locations in the Central West End. These meters will be used to collect change that will be distributed to area service providers. In addition, neighborhood businesses will distribute cards informing residents and visitors of the campaign and encouraging participation in “real change.” (Real Change program)

Homelessness continues to exist primarily in urban areas but that is changing:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s annual survey last year found homelessness remained steady at about 1.6 million people, but the percentage of rural or suburban homelessness rose from 23 percent to 32 percent. The 2009 HUD report, which reflected the 12 months ending Sept. 30, 2008, also found the number of sheltered homeless families grew from about 473,000 to 517,000.  (NY Times: Suburban Homeless: Rising Tide of Women, Families)

Suburban & rural communities need to address homelessness and the plan can’t be dropping them off at the closest urban center. Thanks to Jay Swoboda of What’s Up for his help with resources for this post.

– Steve Patterson

Readers not impressed by St. Ann’s new speed camera

In the poll last week (post: St. Ann’s speed camera begins February 1st) readers were clear: a speed camera in the school zone is not the best way to make the street safe, it is about revenue for the municipality.  In this case the suburb of St. Ann.  For the most part I’m not bothered by speed & red light cameras because I tend to follow traffic laws to the letter.  However, safety on the streets, especially for pedestrians, is a high priority for me.

Q: This week St. Ann begins school zone enforcement using speed-zone camera technology. These are:Bad: will only increase revenues for St. Ann: 35 [40.7%]

1. Good: will increase safety in the school zone: 21 [24.4%]
2. Other: better solutions exist to slow traffic: 21 [24.4%]
3. Neutral: won’t have much of an impact on safety but it doesn’t bother me: 5 [5.8%]
4. Other answer… 2 [2.3%]
5. Unsure/no opinion. 2 [2.3%]

The two “other” responses were:

• compensating for taxes lost from NW Plaza Foreclosure/Wal-Mart leaving
• need mass transit not more speed traps this is bs

For me the question comes back to performance.  If the cameras are successful then fine.  But do they? Trying to find unbiased information is impossible. On the pro-camera side is the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

“Do speed cameras reduce travel speeds?

Institute studies show that automated speed enforcement can substantially reduce speeding on a wide range of roadway types. Institute studies in Maryland, Arizona and the District of Columbia found that the proportion of drivers exceeding speed limits by more than 10 mph declined by 70, 95, and 82 percent respectively. Research conducted outside the United States also shows large effects of speed cameras on traffic speeds. For example, in Victoria, Australia, speed cameras were introduced in late 1989, and police reported that within 3 months the number of offenders triggering photo radar decreased 50 percent. The percentage of vehicles significantly exceeding the speed limit decreased from about 20 percent in 1990 to fewer than 4 percent in 1994.

Are there other technologies that could aid in enforcing speed limits in both urban and suburban areas?

Yes. Roadside electronic signs that display vehicle speeds to warn drivers they are speeding may reduce speeds and crashes at high-risk locations. Institute research found that mobile roadside speedometers can reduce speeds at the sites of the speedometers as well as for short distances down the road.16 When used in conjunction with police enforcement, the effect of speedometers can last longer. Signs warning truck drivers that they are exceeding maximum safe speeds on exit ramps also show promise, as they reduce the numbers of trucks traveling greatly above maximum safe speeds.

Two emerging technologies are being used to enforce speed limits. Intelligent speed adaptation links a position of the traveling vehicle via Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and computerized maps with speed limits to determine if the vehicle is speeding. The system may work as an advisory system for the driver or an intervention system that automatically reduces the vehicle’s speed to comply with the speed limit. Point-to-point speed camera technology records the time it takes a vehicle to travel between two camera locations to compute an average speed and compare it to the posted speed limit. This system uses optical recognition technology to match the two photographed vehicle license plates. Point-to-point speed cameras are being used to enforce the speed limit on the Hume Freeway in Victoria, Australia. In the UK, point-to-point speed camera systems are known as “Distributed Average Speed” camera systems and have received government approval.”

Cities that have tried speed cameras offer a different perspective.  One community in Arizona has removed speed enforcement cameras:

“Pinal County supervisors Wednesday bid goodbye to photo enforcement.

Their vote to terminate their contract with Redflex, the company that operates the cameras, came at the recommendation of the county’s top law-enforcement official, new Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.

“I’m against photo speed enforcement completely,” Babeu said, walking the three-member panel through a detailed PowerPoint presentation. “Here in Pinal, it’s failed miserably.”

Babeu said speed cameras created dangerous road conditions and offered little financial benefit for the county. He plans to boost traffic enforcement through additional manpower.” (Source: Pinal County shelves speed-camera program)

To me these cameras are more about revenue than safety.  Better ways exist to slow traffic and raise awareness of the presence of school children.   Ticketing was to begin on February 1st but the Post-Dispatch reported on the 4th that warnings will continue through at least the end of the month.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: Do you give money to the homeless on the street?

“Do you have any change?” Most of us have been approached by a homeless person asking for money.

The poll this week asks how you respond when asked for money.  Next week when I present the poll results I’ll have some expert views on the subject.  In the meantime please vote and share your thoughts below.

– Steve Patterson

Poll: readers mostly in unison on green living

A majority of readers in the poll last week seem to be well matched with mates who feel as they do about living a green lifestyle. (Poll: Your household divided by a green line?)

Poll: Does a green line divide your household? Between those who choose to live green and those that don’t?

1. No problem, we’re on the same page: 52 [57%]
2. I live alone: 20 [22%]
3. Mildly irritating: 11 [12%]
4. Other answer… 8 [9%]
5. Divisive with resentments and arguments: 1 [1%]
6. I want an eco-divorce, our values aren’t the same anymore 0 [0%]

The first two “other” responses represented a couple of readers who are probably expressing  “green fatigue,” the U.K. term for the eco-backlash to a barrage of green moralism. While other comments divided evenly between support for a diversity of opinion and certain resentments:

• I’m tired of being told to be green.
• Get over it, never been green.
• They are willing to go along as long as I do the work.
• I’ve been green for years.
• Live with lazy parents.
• We respect each other’s opinion and live accordingly.
• We have eco-tension.
• Platonic homeowners here – with a divide. Non-divisive.

There are many things that may have affected the outcome of this poll. City dwellers are probably a little more eco-conscious to begin with since the decisions that lead to an urban lifestyle (walkable neighborhoods, commutes by mass transit, and multi-family housing) are in and of themselves environmental choices.

Age may also play a role as younger couples may have taken eco-values in consideration during their courtships, while older couples may have more conflicts since eco-values weren’t a part of the equation when they originally selected their partner.  At any age, eco-conversions can be painful when one partner adopts a green lifestyle while the other partner clings to the same-old ways of living.

Then there is the bias of geography. Eco-tensions would be dealbreakers in Seattle or Portland; a violation of strong, commonly held social norms. Here in St. Louis, not so much.

Given all the other things that can drive a wedge in a relationship—money, children, unemployment, ill health—eco-concerns pale in comparison. The bottom line is that most people don’t consider a difference of opinion about green living as a serious enough breach to jeopardize their partnerships. At least for now.

– Deborah Moulton