I think Deb makes cogent points in response to Jan's argument.
I have consistently argued for fifty years there should be a residency
requirement for ALL City employees. Whereas more than 90% of police officers
live outside the City, about 50% of all City employees live outside. That's
half a billion dollars in Minneapolis tax dollars going outside our City to
subsidize property taxes for our suburban neighbors. If you want to work for
the City of Minneapolis, you should love it enough to live in it and contribute
to the property tax base.
But the argument for police living in the City is certainly even more
compelling. Many police officers (not all--but enough alpha males to set the
tone for the rest of the force) regard themselves as mercenaries sent to occupy
a hostile city. Police are not allowed inside the George Floyd Liberated Zone
because they cannot be trusted not to kill us. Policing inside the Zone is
done by people inside the Zone. I support that principle. Enforcing of the
laws should be done by the people who make the laws.
Jan says, "As a starting point, according to a MN Supreme Court decision, a
residency requirement for police officers is not a legal option."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the law which made a residency
requirement illegal was constitutional--that is, it was within the
constitutional prerogative of the Legislature to pass such a law. Yes, it was.
And it would be within the constitutional prerogative of the Minnesota
Legislature to pass a law making residency requirements legal. The bill in the
Legislature was authored by arch-conservative Republican Rich Stanek, a
Minneapolis police officer and legislator just recently defeated for
re-election as Hennepin County Sheriff and signed by Governor Jesse Ventura who
grew up in South Minneapolis where his father worked as a City employee. There
is support among South Minneapolis legislators to pass a bill allowing
municipalities to require residency as a stipulation of employment, but there
is little hope to get such a law through a Republican Senate.
Jan says the police union would not support it. The Minneapolis Police
Federation elected and re-elected Bob Kroll President, an upfront racist. I
would be very suspicious and probably not support any proposal that the Police
Federation supported.
Jan asks, "Do we really want to require officers to live among us when that is
not their choice?"
No, absolutely not. I do not want them living among us if they don't want to.
But I certainly don't want them wearing a MPD badge and carrying a gun if they
donโt like me or my neighbors. Love it or Leave it. If they can't love the
people they are sworn to "Protect and Serve" then why are we paying them to
police us?
Carol Becker has joined in the discussion. She argues: "No data shows that
residency requirements have any impact on policing. CUAPB has an analysis of
this showing this. Anything beyond that is just emotion and conjecture."
I have the greatest respect for Michelle Gross and Communities United Against
Police Brutality. I disagree with their argument that residency wonโt work:
โThe legislature and state supreme court have already determined that residency
requirements for state workers are unconstitutional. Further, not a single
study has shown that a residency requirement improves the quality of policing.โ
There really are no serious scholarly works on whether residency does or
doesnโt work. The works CUAPB cites are papers written by police officers for
Criminal Justice Departments that are essentially opinion polls, which would
have an obvious implied bias.
I donโt think it is just โemotion and conjectureโ to believe that the murders
of Terrance Franklin, Jamar Clark, Thurman Blevins, Travis Jordan and George
Floyd were motivated by racist prejudice against people of color. I think the
best way we can begin to change that culture of racism is to ensure that people
of color, people from our community, are policing our community. That
conjecture seems logical and sensible.
In a new post Jan says: โI don't know if you are aware that police do quite
well in pay and benefits and often, in spite of the stress of the job, work
overtime making very good money.โ Yes, as Tony Bouza notes frequently in
Southside Pride, they may whine and complain, and say morale has never been
lower, but they never quit. They may come down with the Blue Flu. The PTSD
complaints were probably not so much because the City abandoned the Third
Precinct Station, but because the City fired the four cops involved in the
killing of George Floyd and wanted to prosecute Derek Chauvin. Some officers,
like Bob Kroll, retired, probably because they felt there isnโt the same blank
check given to cops. Theyโre under greater scrutiny. They are starting to be
held accountable for their actions.
The Strib this morning talks about the new proposal by the City Council to
re-imagine the police: โThe proposal, sponsored by Fletcher, Council Members
Phillipe Cunningham and Jeremy Schroeder, calls for the city to create a new
Department of Public Safety that โprovides a comprehensive approach designed to
address the connection between public safety and health by integrating various
public safety functions of the city.โ"
I have been an unrelenting critic of this Council and Mayor and their
abdication of responsibility for holding our cops accountable for their
actions, but this workโsupported by eleven of thirteen members of the
Councilโis a brave step forward. It begins to recognize that police are not
the answer to everything. Every problem isnโt a nail that needs a hammer.
It is heartening that the entire Minneapolis community is involved in solving
this problem. We need cops to be part of our community. We need cops to be
part of the solution, because if theyโre not part of the solution, then theyโre
part of the problem.
Rest of post
Ed Felien
Don't miss an issue. Subscribe to Southside Pride
here<https://southsidepride.com/about/subscribe/>.