Editor's Note: The nuances of the police tax

One problem with being a progressive in Las Vegas is you find yourself supporting just about every civic improvement proposal that comes along. Las Vegas lags so far behind the growth curve on such things that any effort to expand educational, social and cultural programs is welcome. These projects inevitably cost money, and, as a result, progressives earn their reputation for taxing and spending.

The fact is, I have no masochistic desire to increase my tax burden, or yours. The cost of living here has been rising dramatically of late, and it's getting tougher to swallow each new rate hike. But Las Vegas still lacks a sturdy social safety net, a top-notch school system and sufficient cultural and recreational programs. We have the finest hotel-casinos in the world, but we are a long way from boasting about our public infrastructure: schools, parks, community centers, homeless shelters, job training programs, mental health facilities, etc. Until we get those things--and others--we will need to collectively invest more money.

Interestingly, the latest civic improvement proposal may not garner an automatic or unanimous endorsement from the progressive community. Clark County Sheriff Bill Young wants to raise the sales tax to hire hundreds of new police officers. Young wants Metro to at long last reach its goal of having two officers for every 1,000 of population. The ratio is now 1.69 per 1,000 and headed lower.

The crime rate, naturally, is going up. Crime rates actually were dropping in the 1990s, but the trend apparently has reversed. "The only antidote to a rising crime rate is a police officer on the street stopping crime," Young argues.

The sales tax is inherently regressive, which progressives abhor, but Las Vegas is a special case. As Young points out, about one-third of Clark County's sales taxes are paid by tourists. And the more than 200,000 tourists landing here every weekend--many of them embracing the "What happens here, stays here" marketing maxim--use their share of police services. By contrast, a property tax increase--inherently progressive--would be paid entirely by locals.

But the type of tax hike isn't the real roadblock to gaining a progressive endorsement. The real issue is police tactics and conduct. Most officers do a fine job, serving and protecting citizens within the boundaries of the law. Most officers enforce the laws and resolve disputes with common sense and the best of intentions. But a small minority of officers don't. They allow their personal failings--racism, bigotry, morality run amok, a violent streak--to bubble up while on duty and give a black eye to the entire force.

The police, in short, are not everybody's favorite people. Sometimes, of course, they need to be firm. Their primary objective is to aggressively root out criminals and put them in jail. If a ruthless pimp on East Fremont or a meth cooker in a trailer park doesn't like the police, that may be a good thing. But when innocent people are treated roughly, laws are enforced unfairly, racial and ethnic groups are targeted for harassment or freedom of speech is suppressed, it damages the department's reputation and hurts its cause. Officers who arrogantly believe they operate above the law must be identified and drummed out of the profession.

Even more troubling are those cases that are not the handiwork of rogue officers but of department policy. For example, Metro in recent years has increased its enforcement of very minor offenses, such as jaywalking, in the downtown area. While some shop owners may appreciate this effort, it is clogging up a criminal justice system that is already overloaded. Meanwhile, Metro's sting operations, particularly those aimed at outcall dancers, are fraught with constitutional problems.

To me, it's clear that all the local police departments need more officers. The valley's growth continues unabated, and just as we need more parks, libraries and DMV offices, we need more police to keep the peace. It's also clear to me that a sales tax increase is a good way to fund additional positions, because the tourists should bear their share of the burden.

I also think the Review-Journal's pet issue--that school police, park rangers and city marshals should be merged under Metro's umbrella to increase numbers and efficiency--is a red herring. Young rightly describes this as an apples-and-oranges argument. Those small police forces have very specific duties and are not available to deal with the considerable tasks that Metro takes on, such as combating organized crime, street gangs and even terrorism threats. Even if it is deemed more efficient to bring those agencies under Metro's wing, doing so would not diminish the need to add officers on the street.

The question for Sheriff Young, then, is whether his campaign for the advisory question on November's ballot will include a public discussion of police tactics and conduct and enhancement of procedures and programs to improve his department's record. If Young can earnestly and adequately address these issues, especially for civil libertarians and minorities, he is likely to gain some unlikely allies.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER