Maplewood resident and former mayor Barry Greenberg has commented on a proposed city ordinance that would add a defense attorney position to the city to help those with certain traffic infractions.
Mayor Nikylan Knapper stated previously (see: Maplewood voters to decide city attorney issues: Mayor Knapper explains) that some traffic infractions “can cause someone that is financially struggling to face more financial struggles, which could start or keep someone in a cycle of poverty.”
Greenberg has stated several reasons why he opposes this. His comments follow below:
I would like to address the mayor’s proposal to create a position for a “City Defense Attorney” to advocate for drivers accused of traffic-related criminal offenses such as driving under a suspended or no license, failing to own car insurance and driving an unregistered car. I would like to address these violations individually:
Suspended License – drivers get their licenses suspended, after legal due process, for the following reasons: Points Accumulation, Failure to Appear in Court, Failure to Pay Fines or Traffic Citations, Driving Under the Influence (DUI/DWI), Administrative Alcohol Suspension/Revocation, Alcohol Possession by a Minor, or Driving Without Insurance.
- License suspension is intended to act as a deterrent for violating State and local laws. That’s assuming that there are consequences to driving with a suspended license.
- License suspension is also intended to protect public safety. In the case of infractions involving alcohol, the intention is to keep drivers who have been convicted of an alcohol related offense off the road. The facts are as follows: In 2020, 11,654 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers, accounting for 30% of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. This was a 14.3% increase compared to the number of crash deaths involving alcohol-impaired drivers in 2019. 32 people in the United States are killed every day in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver—this is one death every 45 minutes. The annual estimated cost of crash deaths involving alcohol-impaired drivers totaled about $123.3 billion in 2020. These costs include medical costs and cost estimates for lives lost. These statistics only apply to fatalities, not paralysis or personal injury and the costs incurred, nor does this address property damage.
- License suspension is also intended to keep uninsured drivers from driving. See below.
No License – any driver that operates a vehicle is and should be required to get and maintain a driver’s license. This is a matter of public safety.
- The Missouri State Highway Patrol’s Driver Examination section of the Driver and Vehicle Safety Division provides an effective program of driver testing to ensure Missouri licensed drivers have a level of competency consistent with safe driving habits and practices, as well as demonstrated skills and knowledge of Missouri laws relating to traffic safety.
- Most drivers’ licenses can be renewed for up to a six-year period for less than $10.00 per year. Based on the cost and time required at the license bureau, is reasonable for a driver to find an hour or two every six years to get their license renewed. This should not be considered a deterrent for a driver with economic limitations.
- A driver’s license also serves as identification and is required for air travel and other purposes. It is required by Maplewood ordinance that you must present your driver’s license and evidence of insurance when asked by a police officer.
Failing to Own Car Insurance – When an uninsured driver causes an accident, the victim must cover the costs through their own insurance, assuming they have uninsured motorist coverage. The only way to have the uninsured motorist take responsibility for causing an accident is through legal channels, costing victims time and money and burdening our already overloaded court system.
Driving an Unregistered Car – If a person purchases a vehicle and fails to register it, they have not paid sales tax. This will soon be changing as Missouri state law will require dealers to collect tax at time of sale. This will allow dealers to include the sales tax in the financing package. In my opinion, if you can’t afford the tax on the car either you need to buy a car of lesser value or take public transportation. One of the main reasons that we see so many expired temp tags is that there is little incentive to register the car if there is no enforcement or repercussion.
This goes to the larger argument of enforcement of laws are lack thereof. Many people feel that people commit crimes or violate vehicle regulations because they feel that they can do so with impunity, either due to limited police resources or the reluctance for our court system to prosecute. While not the only reason for the escalating rate of crime, it is logical that it does contribute to the problem of lawlessness by failing to act as a deterrent to unlawful activity.
The mayor’s statement that “some people are forced to drive illegally” is an insult to those of us that pay taxes, obtain and renew our drivers license, pay sales tax and renew the plates on our vehicles, and drive in accordance with traffic laws and regulations. No one is being forced to drive a car at all. There is an assumption here that owning a car is a right and not a privilege. While public transportation has its shortcomings, it is still a viable means of getting to and from a place of employment. An assistance program for obtaining bus and Metrolink passes would be much more palatable than encouraging and defending people who intentionally chose to break the law.
Speaking of defending people who break the law, I don’t understand why we need a public defender to represent violators when we have a judge that determines the punishment, or lack thereof for violations committed. I would think that a clearly stated and public criteria for when to enforce and penalize a lawbreaker based on previous violations, financial status, employment conditions, and other contributing factors would allow the judge to properly advocate for the defendant.
Adding a layer of legal representation on top of our Municipal Judge, City Attorney and Municipal Prosecutor does not solve the problems we are experiencing and costs our citizens tax dollars for those of us that follow the rules and pay our taxes. Those additional costs either require a reduction in municipal spending, which is already stressed, or requires an increase in taxation, which causes the cost of home ownership to increase or will cause the cost of rental housing to increase due to the additional burden on landlords. Both fly in the face of the goal of providing more affordable housing, but that is a topic for another discussion.
We agree with Mr. Greenberg as comments on enforcement laws, for paying taxes, registering vehicles and carrying proper insurance. Driving is a privilege not a right.
On another note, the mayor needs to turn off her cell phone at public meetings and listen to what is being said or asked.
Mary Taylor, I suspect the former mayor agrees that people of color are more likely to be apprehended for infractions, but having a city defense attorney(who is likely to be a crony of the present mayor) does not solve that problem. That is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed by proper training and education. It is not a defense that someone who commits a crime or infraction should be excused because of their race or ethnicity.
I guess since it won’t cost the City any money the Mayor plans to pay this public defender out of her own money.
I agree with Barry. Why should I have to pay for the failure of others to be responsible for their taxes,etc. we need more accountability by
Scuse me but how the hell would this not ADD expenses to the city budget? And in case you didn’t hear, we have $130k to make up for thanks to the parting gift given to the ex-city manager…sigh.
I am being told that this proposed new position won’t cost taxpayers a thing–how is that even possible? Also-why would taxpayers give financial assistance/help with legal fees of people driving UNINSURED? For any of us who have been hit by uninsured motorists, we know that WE pay the costs. I usually support many of the mayor’s efforts at inclusion and equity but this is just nonsensical on its face.
exactly-this isn’t inclusion-ever been hit by an uninsured motorist? I have twice and my rates went up almost immediately. This is nothing more than virtue signaling and pandering to her uber left base. Outrageous!
Agree100%!!
There are so many things wrong with the former mayor’s statements. It tires me to read his arguments, much less address them individually. He does not begin to address the basic issue of inequity. I think the current mayor is attempting to address that basic inequity. I see the inequity, but I do not think Maplewood should hire an additional attorney to counsel those who are too poor to pay those basic essentials, such as insurance and plates, etc. By the way, I have been there, and have not forgotten. Perhaps a better way to help would be for all of us who care, really care for the more/most needy of us to set up an ongoing fund of some sort to be used to help before the “crime” of driving without things being paid is committed. In other words, as my Mother used to say, get off your high horse and help.
Inequity is a very important topic. How does the city balance that with accountability? Agree, the addition of a city defense attorney doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps the funding for that attorney can go to a fund to help those in need and not a friend of the mayor?
Set up a fund that WHO oversees? The Mayor? The Judge that is appointed by the Mayor?
Why wouldn’t a fair municipal judge serve the issue? In no way would I want any one locked up over traffic fines etc. On the other hand we must have accountability and safety.This seems very costly & unnecessary. We also moved several years ago due to work & loved Maplewood. This sort of civil leadership lacks common sense and will not end well financially for the city & citizens.
I agree 100% Barry.
I agree with you. It is offensive to have my tax dollars spent defending someone who chooses to break the law.
Indeed. Thank you stating it so well. Actions (or inactions) have consequences.
Well said indeed. It’s a matter of plain common sense and fairness to those who do play by the rules.
I don’t live in Maplewood anymore, but am still interested in that wonderful community. I agree with most of what you said, Barry. These violations are mostly per se. They don’t involve judgment. The only, and biggest, flaw in your argument is that people of color are much more likely to be pulled over and then these infractions are given. As someone who had to review criminal background checks, our efforts to recruit volunteers of color required us to dig deeper, beyond the surface. What instigated the stop? It’s important.
Very well said, Barry. This makes a lot more sense than her proposal.
Comments are closed.