Gregory Freeman: Residency Rule Has Benefits Within Bounds. P-D 9/30/1994

Headline: RESIDENCY RULE HAS BENEFITS WITHIN BOUNDS
Reporter: By Gregory Freeman

Publication: ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Last Printed: Fri., Sept. 30, 1994
Section: WAR PAGE, Page: 11D, Edition: FIVE STAR

AMID THE HUBBUB about whether St. Louis police officers should be required to live in the city, I guess I still don't get it.
Much is being made of the request by some officers that the city's Police Board rescind its residency requirement. The rule, set up in May 1973, says that all police officers must live within the city's boundaries. The exceptions to that rule were officers who already lived outside the city limits at that time.
The requirement then is hardly new and presumably any officer who joined the St. Louis police force after that time was aware of it. Why, then, do we continue to hear griping by officers who want nothing more than to leave the city?

I have friends who are city police officers, and I've listened to some of their reasons.
The main ones that I've heard are that it is difficult to find housing and that the "school system's so bad."
The arguments leave me scratching my head.

Granted, there are fewer homes to choose from in St. Louis than in St. Louis County. More people live in the county, so it follows that more homes would be there.
But it's plain wrong to suggest that the city has no desirable homes or neighborhoods. Throughout the city, north, south and central, solid neighborhoods and housing exist.
As for education, schools in St. Louis are not nearly as bad as some think they are. But for those who are uncertain of or uncomfortable with the city's public schools, St. Louis has no shortage of parochial and private schools.

One serious problem the officers face, of course, is that salaries for St. Louis police officers aren't nearly as high as they are for many county departments or even Kansas City, our across-the-state counterpart. Good officers are leaving the city for various reasons, including the pay.
   City officials could relieve some of the tension by increasing those salaries. At a time like now, when the city has more money than it has had in some time, city officials could afford to be more generous when it comes to paying police officers.
   As one form of compensation, Mayor Freeman Bosley Jr. and state Treasurer Bob Holden this year developed a housing incentives program for police officers. That program uses state funds to help underwrite the down payment an officer would need to buy a home in selected neighborhoods in the city.
   Perhaps the city could help entice officers to remain in the city by offering other incentives, such as help on school tuition or providing day-care opportunities.

But the arguments against rescinding the residency requirement are as solid as the Gateway Arch.
   Police officers might argue that no matter where they live, they still would be required to pay the city's employment tax. While that's true, that tax is still no match for the other income the city now receives from those who live in the city, such as personal property tax and sales taxes. Local economies would certainly suffer, as officers who once stopped into local bars, barber shops and corner stores took their money closer to their new homes.
   Like ripples of water, the effect of dropping the requirement would prompt efforts to change the requirements for firefighters and all city employees.
   And, of course, the fewer the residents the less the money the city has in its coffers for services and maintenance. For St. Louis, such a move could create a nightmare.
   In addition, what sort of disturbing message do officers send residents when they say they don't want to live in St. Louis, when they say that they want to earn their living from the city but don't see the city as fit to live in?

There can also be no question as to the effectiveness of having police officers as homeowners as a deterrent to crime in many neighborhoods.
While some St. Louis police officers may feel put upon by the residency rule, it is there for a reason. It's a fact of life of being a police officer in the city. Those who are on the force should accept that fact; those hoping to become city officers should be aware of it.

Police Board members chose to delay a decision on the requirement when they met earlier this week. Police Board President Anne-Marie Clarke said the board wanted to examine several ways of improving morale and retaining officers.
Let's hope that it is able to come up with some solutions to help the city's officers. But let's hope that one of them is not dropping the residency requirement.

Daniel Schesch - Webweaver

back