Use-tax defeat sends message to city

When it comes to violence and politics, it's sometimes counterproductive to oversimplify.

Last week we had major local news in both areas. And both converged in a roundabout way.

With politics, local voters approved the extension of a vehicle tax, but rejected a local use tax, which would have imposed a sales tax on purchases made out of state and used here. Even though this tax would not have affected the majority of voters (primarily affecting businesses), those who were motivated to go to the ballot box delivered a message, again, that they do not support a use tax. The use tax was being pitched by city leaders as a way to make the city safer by adding seven officers to the Cape Girardeau police force.

Now let's recall some of the local headlines from the last several days:

• Three Southeast Missouri State students accused in Carbondale shooting
• Victim of fatal Cape Girardeau shooting identified (A witness came forward to claim the man who was shot, Airious Darling, was not the intended target, and that the bullet was intended for the witness, the man who lived at the address. Darling was returning a child after baby-sitting, and was holding the baby when he was shot in the face.)
• Man found with gunshot wound to leg in Cape
• Two men accused of exchanging gunfire at local gas station
• Police arrest Cape man after shooting that injured 8-year-old

All of these gun crimes have some connection with Cape Girardeau. There are bad guys in our city with guns and intent to do harm. These are very concerning stories. And they are news, despite some who would rather they be kept off the front page as to not do harm to the city's reputation as a regional hub of commerce.

It should not be oversimplified that Cape Girardeau is comparable to inner city Detroit, either. It is not. The rash of crimes that have happened in the last couple of weeks is more of an outlier. Broader statistics show Cape Girardeau is safer now than it has been, but some of the crimes are higher profile and garner more attention.

However, anyone who is paying attention knows that people are worried. People who live on the city's south side are gathering, frequently, to seek ways to end the violent culture that goes along with the drug culture. The last meeting, held in conjunction with police officers, focused on ways to intervene with children to teach and encourage healthy and wiser choices.

People who comment on social media and on our stories are worried. Some want more patrols in the worst areas of town; some say there is no amount of police that can prevent certain crimes.

In downtown Cape, business and property owners self-imposed a tax so that they could, in part, pay for police officers to do weekend foot patrols around the pubs and bars to prevent property damage and other illegal tomfoolery.

We support the city's police long-term strategy on community policing. It will take some time to see if a more proactive, peaceful approach to building relationships in communities drives down crime in our city.

But we're not yet where we need to be to deter crime, and, again, there are complicated solutions that begin in the homes. Preventing violence begins with the family unit.

Now let's circle back to the local political news.

In the aftermath of the cities of Cape and Jackson both seeing their use-tax issues fail, Cape Girardeau Mayor Rediger accurately stated the voters had spoken and said it's time to move on. Indeed. But we happen to respectfully disagree with Rediger's assessment of what exactly the voters were saying when they rejected the tax. He said Tuesday's outcome demonstrated voters "feel our police department is staffed right."

In our view, this is not at all what voters were saying.

In our view, voters were saying, 1. We can't afford more taxes; 2. City, check your priorities, and 3. We care enough about No. 1 and No. 2 that we are motivated to come out and vote it down.

Again, those viewpoints are perhaps oversimplified to some extent.

We believed the city put forth a good plan. We endorsed the tax initiative, which we believed had a minimal effect on the majority of residents, and we believed the city's plans to put money toward public safety was warranted.

Much of what we heard in opposition to the taxes were complaints of the city's parks. However, to put it bluntly, the voters of this city have mandated that they want parks given a high priority. They have repeatedly voted for parks tax initiatives to increase the spending on parks, which adds to the quality of life in this city. And the park sales tax is just that: a tax for parks. Those funds cannot be spent on items like police officers and police buildings. Moreover, some of the figures and comparisons being put out there about how much the city spends on parks did not include the fact that user fees offset much of the cost. For instance, the admission fees for Cape Splash cover the operations of the facility, even though it took a tax initiative to build the facility in the first place. Parks are not built and maintained to turn a profit. They are built so that people can enjoy taking their children to play; they are built and maintained so residents have a safe means to be active and they are built and maintained so our residents can have clean and beautiful places to gather.

The city should not interpret Tuesday's vote as a referendum that residents are OK with police staffing and believe the environment is good enough on the public safety front.

The voters are telling the city it has enough revenue sources. The voters are telling the city to use those revenue sources wisely and make sure the basics are covered.

This newspaper endorsed the tax, but the voters have spoken and they disagree. But let's not oversimplify and misinterpret what they were saying. The city needs to continue to find ways to support and enhance police efforts to improve public safety.