Be specific on uses of taxpayer money

It's hard to read what voters were saying Tuesday with the defeat of a proposed law enforcement sales tax extension for Scott County. Some could argue that voters were simply opposed to any tax that would take more from their pockets. But you could argue the lack of a "sunset" provision was also to blame for the negative vote. And finally, a case could be made that Sikeston voters - who defeated the measure by a 2-1 margin - saw little direct benefit to this community from the tax.

Regardless of the Monday morning quarterbacking, the law enforcement sales tax will not be extended for now. It remains to be seen if the county will devise another proposal prior to the end of the current law enforcement tax.

This much is certain - all levels of government struggle constantly to stretch available resources for the services needed. That is true at the county and the city level. There are two obvious resolutions to this struggle - either raise taxes or reduce spending in some other area.

A word of advice for both county and city leaders. Before approaching a new source of funding for law enforcement, both levels of government need to be very specific on exactly where funds have been spent from the current taxes for law enforcement. Voters want and need adequate law enforcement protection and they are willing to pay for those services. But government must be accountable to the voters and tell us to the penny where funds have been spent. We expect this will be forthcoming.

The vote Tuesday illustrated a clear division between the north and south ends of Scott County. Generally favored in the northern precincts, the tax plan was soundly defeated in Sikeston. We hope this is not a trend that could lead to a widening division. It will take leadership at both levels to assure this does not happen.

Sikeston will face some hard decisions in the months ahead. Though we spend a good amount of money on Public Safety, it's only because we have a concentration of crime.

One argument says put more money into Public Safety to send a clear signal that crime will not be tolerated. Another argument says spend resources to encourage the criminal element to move elsewhere. Regardless of which approach is most appropriate, the decisions Sikeston residents face in the coming months may well set the stage for the future of our community.