Joel Sjerven’s article on police residency was interesting but contradictory. Joel posits that St. Louis should maintain its police residency requirement. He cites circumstances and data to support his contention and suggests that imposed residency enhances diversity. If that’s righteous, St. Louis should have a racially diverse police force as a result of imposing city residency in May 1973. But he inexplicably argues that it doesn’t!
I don’t often agree with Mayor Krewson, but she is right on the residency issue; it should be removed. Imposed residency is a proven hindrance to recruiting (cf. Kerner Commission Report of 1968, et al).
St. Louis’ residency requirement is rooted in a bygone era when few if any cops had personal cars or telephones and patrol of the city was on foot. So, it made sense to require that officers be close-at-hand in case of emergency. The city also had a good transportation network which contributed to timely response, and affordable housing was plentiful.
But that’s in the past. Today’s instant communication on a variety of platforms, automobile ownership and residential proximity to the metro highway system render the residency argument moot.
Joel’s contention that only resident cops care for the safety and wellbeing of city residents is not true. It’s also a slap in the face to non-resident officers who relentlessly do the job, despite police management idiocy and political interference. Residency is not a panacea.
Michael K. Broughton
Green Park
