Letter to the editor: why Kansas City police officers might be eyeing the suburbs

Moving outside

I was a volunteer (reserve) Kansas City Police Department officer and sergeant for 19 years. I found the Thursday editorial, “KC police should have to follow residency rules,” way off base. (10A)

I am a lifetime resident of Kansas City, so the residency requirement never affected me directly. However, I saw several circumstances where my fellow officers’ careers and standing with the department were endangered because of it.

Many years ago, when transportation was difficult and lengthy, the residency requirement made sense. Now that argument holds no relevancy.

Officers living where they serve sounds good, but my training instructed me that unless it was a dire emergency, I was not to get involved in situations that might occur in my neighborhood.

These facts are well known to the command staff and the police board, as very few if any of these individuals live in the neighborhoods where the greatest police presence is concentrated. Yet they persist in recommending that this idiotic requirement stand. Why? What possible difference does it make from a practical, realistic perspective where an officer lives?

I suggest you look at the real reason officers would choose to live outside the city. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons is the schools. Kansas City Public Schools have been in decline for decades, with no end in sight.

The school superintendent and board members are famous for deceiving Kansas Citians about their progress.

- Bruce Clippinger, Kansas City