Recent Missouri editorials

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 22

Proposed legislation to put St. Louis city police back under the control of a state board is rooted in short memories and wishful thinking. Yes, there are serious issues that need to be addressed in the police department. But serious issues also existed when it was under state control — in part because a hands-off approach by the state, and the near-powerlessness of city officials, left the department essentially in charge of itself. That was among the reasons the city fought for and finally won the right to take control in 2012.

While the move clearly didn’t prevent some of the disturbing issues seen in the department in subsequent years, there’s no reason to believe that situation would have been better had it remained under state control. And the fact remains that city police should be answerable to the local population they serve and locally elected officials, not to a distant state capital.

St. Louis’ police force was originally put under state control at the start of the Civil War, for the worst of reasons: Confederate sympathizers in state government wanted to ensure that pro-Union forces in St. Louis didn’t control the police arsenal. So the city police were put under a state board, essentially giving control to the governor — even though it was St. Louis taxpayers being policed and footing the bill.

For more than 150 years, that system remained in place, until voters statewide overwhelmingly voted to change it in 2012 with Proposition A.

The measure was pushed by then-Mayor Francis Slay and funded largely by conservative megadonor Rex Sinquefield.

As this editorial board noted at the time, the fact that the city had to rely on voters around the state to grant it control over its own police highlighted the absurdity of the old system.

The Post-Dispatch’s Jack Suntrup reports that state Rep. Chris Carter, D-St. Louis, now wants to return to that system. His legislation, House Bill 1544, emerges from frustration in his north-side district over the perceived lack of accountability of the police. The police department “is out of control,” and Mayor Lyda Krewson and other community leaders “have been unable to control them,” Carter said in a news release.

Ironically, accountability was a key reason for returning the police to city control seven years ago, and there is undoubtedly some merit to Carter’s argument that the change hasn’t fostered the kind of reform that was promised.

But returning control to those who have no direct stake in the city is not the solution.

If St. Louisans believe city officials aren’t doing enough to reform the department, the solution is to replace those officials at election time, not to put Jefferson City back in charge. Taxation without representation is unacceptable — and so is policing without representation.

___

The Kansas City Star, Dec. 23

With state lawmakers throwing up roadblocks, both Kansas City and St. Louis leaders have been forced to get creative in their attempts to reduce the gun violence that has plagued Missouri’s largest metro areas.

In this anything-goes gun-rights state, cities have little wiggle room to enact even the most modest restrictions on firearms.

But Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has managed to pass ordinances that prohibit domestic abusers and minors from possessing guns.

Now, St. Louis has taken action to keep guns out of city parks. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen recently approved an ordinance that classifies the city’s parks as child care facilities, which state law mandates are gun-free zones.

Could Kansas City steal a page from St. Louis’ playbook and do the same?

Lucas said he’ll watch the St. Louis measure closely before deciding whether to pursue a similar proposal.

St. Louis officials are braced for a possible legal challenge, but if the ordinance survives, Kansas City should follow St. Louis’ lead and prohibit firearms in city parks.

Concealed weapons are not allowed in Kansas City recreation centers or buildings maintained by the city’s parks and recreation department. Missouri’s open carry law does allow citizens to bring weapons to public parks, though.

Kansas City Councilwoman Melissa Robinson said she would support making parks gun-free zones.

“Parks should be designated for sacred recreational purposes and free from violence and conflict requiring deadly force,” she said.

Gun-rights advocates argue that the right to carry includes public places such as parks. They contend that bad guys don’t follow laws, and restrictions on firearms leave law-abiding citizens in harm’s way.

But the status quo embraced by the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature hasn’t curtailed gun violence. Kansas City’s homicide total for 2019 stood at an unacceptable 143 as of last week, and a firearm was used in at least 135 of those killings.

What’s more, Kansas City, St. Louis and Springfield are among the nation’s most dangerous cities.

Sadly, city parks have not been a safe haven for families or others seeking to enjoy the great outdoors.

Evette Clint’s life was tragically cut short in 2017 when she was caught in the crossfire of gunshots after an altercation broke out during a gathering at Swope Park.

Clint was an innocent bystander. The 21-year-old single mother of one, who walked at Swope Park for exercise, was shot as she tried to leave the area.

While prohibiting firearms in parks won’t prevent every crime, police need all available tools at their disposal to reduce gun violence.

“Right now, when a parent brings (their) kids to a park and sees someone with a gun and calls the police, the police can do nothing,” said St. Louis Alderman Cara Spencer, who sponsored the gun measure for city parks.

She said the parks system should be designated a child care facility because it offers summer camps and other child care options. Kansas City Parks and Recreation provides a variety of programs for children as well.

“There may be a legal challenge, as with everything gun related in Missouri, but we believe it’s time to open the dialogue,” Spencer told The Star Editorial Board. “We welcome a challenge and the dialogue it will start.”

State lawmakers have left Kansas City and St. Louis with precious few options for reducing gun violence. But St. Louis’ new ordinance could provide a road map for making Kansas City’s parks safer.

___

The St. Joseph News-Press, Dec. 23

President Ronald Reagan signed the National Drinking Age Act into law on July 17, 1984. The measure required states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21 or face a reduction in federal highway funding.

The states complied, meaning teenagers were no longer compelled to cross state lines in a search for more lenient alcohol laws. Today, anyone who visits a college town would notice that compliance isn’t 100 percent, but this law had its desired effect. Drunken-driving accidents dropped 50% in the three decades since 1984. The National Institutes for Health found that the greatest rate of decline was in drivers between the ages of 16 and 20.

In 2019, Congress is moving toward establishing a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of smoking products, including traditional tobacco and electronic cigarettes. The measure, which doesn’t bother with the hammer of federal highway funding, was included in a $1.4 trilling spending package that passed both chambers.

We don’t mean to blow smoke in your eyes, but this new age restriction won’t have the same dramatic effect with tobacco use and vaping. That’s because the 1984 alcohol law was in part meant to counter the immediate and tragic consequences of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated or impaired.

The use of tobacco products — both traditional and vapes — is a bad choice with harmful, long-term effects. We support clean-air measures that free non-smokers from having to endure the unpleasantness and dangerous effects of secondhand smoke. We think more needs to be done to get these newer products out of the hands of young smokers, including taxation on par with traditional cigarettes and a ban on e-cig flavoring that appeals to youth.

But there is little about smoking tobacco or nicotine-based e-cigs that causes cognitive impairment and endangers motorists in the here and now. That means Congress is doing something other than targeting the immediate consequences of bad decisions that young people make. In raising the age for the purchase of cigarettes, Congress is trying to change behaviors that bring negative, long-term health consequences.

Here, the 1984 alcohol law provides a warning on the limits of legislation that promotes good behavior. Even with the drop in drunken driving, some of which can be attributed to increased enforcement as much as the age restriction, the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that 12 percent of youth between the ages of 12 and 20 engaged in binge drinking in the last month.

Problem solved? Not exactly. That was true with one vice in 1984, and it’s still true with another one today.