Recent editorials from South Carolina newspapers:
___
April 11
The Post and Courier of Charleston on publicizing police data:
In settling a lawsuit brought by The Post and Courier, the Charleston Police Department has agreed to grant public access to information it collects on thousands of people via “field contacts” and, in limited cases, to provide the officer’s narrative about the interaction when requests are made via the Freedom of Information Act. That’s the right move.
Police have long collected tidbits of information on citizens they come into contact with as part of their job, even when the person isn’t doing anything wrong. But because that data is often used tangentially to identify suspects or witnesses in later crimes, the department’s move toward transparency is an important one that helps affirm an individual’s Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects.”
The information, formerly jotted down on index cards, is now typically entered into computer databases, kept indefinitely and sometimes shared with other law enforcement agencies. That has raised the hackles of civil libertarians and with good reason, especially in an era when law enforcement is becoming increasingly reliant on data-driven methods of policing.
For instance, a homeless man known to hang out near a particular liquor store might be picked up for questioning in a robbery or an assault that occurred at or near the store. Or someone with a record might be picked up in an attack on a known rival, even if there’s no probable cause to believe he was personally involved.
In some big cities, the data gleaned from field contacts also has been used in “predictive policing” algorithms, which attempt to forecast where and when a crime might occur, even who might be a victim or suspect.
Though names and other identifying data won’t be made public, the data published quarterly on policedatainitiative.org will give the public a broad idea of the volume and type of information being gathered.
In the newspaper’s 2016 series “Watched,” reporters Andrew Knapp and Glenn Smith noted that Charleston police had compiled information on about 35,000 people through field contacts since 2009. But what that information was and how it was used was not publicly available. Even though the information was covered by the state’s public records law, the police department wanted about $200,000 to cover the costs of having someone compile, redact and release the data.
In the “Watched” series, several Charlestonians with extensive police contacts told the reporters they felt like they were being targeted by officers or continually under a cloud of suspicion.
“It’s almost like a kid in school who is written up and suddenly looked at as a bad kid,” Susan Dunn, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said at the time. “It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
In a free, democratic society, people should be allowed to know what information government agencies are gathering about them - especially if it is being used to connect them to criminal activity. Police officers also should be forthright with people about why they’re being questioned and how that information might be used.
The settlement with the city of Charleston should spur other cities, such as North Charleston and Columbia, both of which also demanded prohibitive fees to review their databases, to open their departments to greater public scrutiny. Making this information public also can help determine the efficacy of such a program.
The “Watched” series, which examined practices in 50 big-city departments, looked at how police data was being used and, in some cases, misused. Making more information public should help prevent abuses and protect the innocent. It also will provide citizens with another tool to improve oversight of the people watching over them.
Online: https://www.postandcourier.com/
___
April 6
The Sun News on tourism sales taxes:
As a practical matter, continuing the 1-cent sales tax for revenue to promote tourism is all but a done deal in the City of Myrtle Beach. The City Council is set to reimpose the penny tax effective Aug. 1, 2019, for another 10 years - and at least $273 million. What should be taking place is a referendum in which registered voters decide if the TDF will be continued.
Without a doubt, the TDF, started in 2009, has helped grow area tourism and the region’s economy. Myrtle Beach Mayor Brenda Bethune said the TDF helps market the area’s No. 1 industry, tourism. “. it creates jobs for this area and it also helps to expand our seasonality. When we can advertise to people who come here different times of the year, it helps us expand our season. That is economic growth.”
The state of South Carolina created the TDF as an option for local governments, to pay for tourism marketing. City or town councils may impose the 1 percent sales tax by a vote of the council, or it may be put to voters in a referendum. City of North Myrtle Beach voters in March overwhelmingly rejected a TDF.
Myrtle Beach first imposed the TDF by a council vote and is one such vote away (second reading, in legislative terms) from continuing the TDF. Bethune makes the point that during her successful mayoral election campaign “. I talked with voters about it and not one person asked me to do away with it. So, I look at that as a referendum because people did vote and if they were against it, I would think they would have voted against the people who were in favor of it.”
Many folks did vote against the former mayor, John Rhodes, who supported the TDF. It’s doubtful the TDF was a deciding factor in votes for Bethune or Rhodes, and it’s a big stretch to claim campaign conversations make a referendum. Sorry, Madam Mayor, Myrtle Beach has had nothing close to a referendum on the TDF.
Here’s how the TDF works. After the first year, 80 percent of the revenue must go to out-of-state tourism promotion, handled by the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. In fiscal year 2016, the Myrtle Beach TDF produced $27,247,624, which says a great deal about the importance of retail sales in the area economy; that total meant $21.8 million for tourism marketing, $4,468,610 for property tax relief for homeowners and $980,914 for tourism-related capital improvements. The law allows flexibility in how a municipality or county uses its 20 percent; a minimum of 4 percent must be for property tax rebates.
The city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report estimates a tax credit of $860 for owners of homes with a $350,000 market value. Based on household expenditures of $1,000 a month, Myrtle Beach residents pay about $120 in additional retail sales tax. That net gain of $740 for Myrtle Beach homeowners was a selling point for the TDF 10 years ago, and it surely would be a factor today, if city voters had a referendum.
The more than $27 million annual revenue comes from many non-residents of the city, including area residents who spend money in Myrtle Beach as well as millions of visitors. Sales taxes are regressive in that all (well-off and low income) pay the same rate. Some like the idea of tourists helping pay for services while with others it’s a sore point that any tax may be imposed to pay for advertising.
The case here is not against continuing the TDF in Myrtle Beach, but in how it’s being done. Residents deserve a vote on their taxes, and the mayor and council members should have set a referendum.
Online: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/
___
April 10
The Times & Democrat on mercury warnings:
The warmer days of spring have people thinking about all kinds of outdoor activities. Fishing is a top choice for many.
So again this spring there is need for a note of caution to enthusiasts in the form of an annual warning from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control that has been with us since 1994: Limit the amount of fish being eaten from many bodies of water in South Carolina. The risk is mercury poisoning.
There is no one explanation for the elevated mercury levels in certain fish. Some mercury occurs naturally, but coal-burning industries, chlorine manufacturers and waste incinerators also contribute to high mercury levels in the air and water.
The fact that mercury has been found should be enough to prompt public compliance. Consumed in large enough amounts, methylmercury can cause nervous system damage, particularly in infants. The consumption advisories suggest safe amounts of fish meals, with a meal being a half-pound (or 8-ounce) serving.
The types of fish affected include primarily bowfin (mudfish) and largemouth bass, but species such as catfish, bluegill sunfish and redear sunfish have elevated mercury levels in some rivers.
In The T&D Region, the following advisories are in effect:
Little Salkehatchie River - Do not eat any mudfish or largemouth bass. One meal a month of chain pickerel and warmouth. One meal a week of all other fish.
Edisto River to Willtown Bluff - No eating mudfish, largemouth bass, chain pickerel, channel catfish or flathead catfish. One meal a month of blue catfish. One meal a week of black crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish and redbreast.
South Fork Edisto River - No eating mudfish, chain pickerel, flathead catfish or largemouth bass. One meal weekly of redear sunfish and redbreast.
North Fork Edisto River - Do not eat mudfish. One meal per month of chain pickerel, warmouth and largemouth bass. One meal per week of redbreast, redear sunfish and striped bass.
Four Hole Swamp - No eating mudfish, largemouth bass or chain pickerel. One meal weekly of bluegill, redbreast, redear sunfish and warmouth.
Congaree River from Columbia to the Santee River - One meal a week of mudfish and largemouth bass. No other restrictions.
Lake Marion - One meal a week of mudfish and largemouth bass. No other restrictions.
The mercury issue is not unique to freshwater. Advisories for the Atlantic Coast off South Carolina include eating no King Mackerel over 39 inches or any shark.
DHEC warns that pregnant women, women planning to become pregnant, infants and children should not eat any fish containing mercury. The agency also advises that just because these fish may contain mercury, other fish from the same water are not affected. And using the water for recreational purposes is no hazard.
It is even arguable that many more fish affected by the advisories could be eaten without adverse health effects. The standards may amount to excessive caution.
Considering the potential health impact on the down side, however, individuals are wise to follow the advice. It’s far better to be safe than sorry.
Online: http://thetandd.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.