ONLY STRONG LEADERSHIP CAN RUN DRUGS OUT OF TOWN

A different breed of criminal works the streets of Huntington now.
The small town type of crime has been replaced with a ruthless, urban
type of crime that drifted down from Detroit.

Until police and prosecutors prove differently, everyone in town will
believe the Jan. 7 drive-by shootings were the work of Detroit drug
dealers. The same with the May 22, 2005, killings of four teenagers.

This deserves a top-to-bottom review of law enforcement strategy and
tactics in Huntington. That would include how city police, the state
police and federal authorities cooperate on fighting the
Detroit-to-Huntington drug connection.

It requires new thinking, but some old thinking will play a part,
also. Mayor David Felinton says he hopes to add 10 police officers to
the department this year, and members of his administration said they
hope to explore efforts to seize any real estate involved in the drug
trade. Seizing real estate is an option that probably will have
little opposition other than from landlords. But the mayor and the
City Council will have some questions when they try to add 10 police officers.

For one, how will they pay their salaries? The only way to do that is
by increasing the municipal service fee or the user fee, or both. How
much will that cost? And how can they convince the public that the
extra money generated by these fees really will pay for 10 new
officers? Officers will retire or otherwise leave the force. Will
police department staffing remain at the present budgeted level plus
10, or will the money from the fee increase be used for other things,
leaving the city and police force where they are now? This isn't
saying the fee increase is not justified. If the mayor and the City
Council want people to see it as part of a crime-fighting program
rather than a conveniently timed money grab, they will have to make
commitments and provide accountability.

Then there is the question of having owners of rental property do
background checks on new tenants. This one will need careful study,
in part because of the expense landlords will incur and in part
because of fair housing laws. In the longer run, Huntington needs an
aggressive approach to substandard and vacant housing. Drug dealers
prefer to operate in neighborhoods with lower-quality housing. The
city must intensify its program to eliminate run-down properties.
Structures gutted by fire or derelict by age or neglect must be
removed more quickly than they are now. If the owners cannot remove
them, the city must. Yes, the city does this now, but the process is
slow and is hindered by a lack of funds.

This should include looking at each neighborhood so city officials
can anticipate which areas are likely to suffer from dilapidated
housing five to 10 years out and take preventive action.

If Huntington can find $18 million to move a hill along Interstate 64
and leave it vacant for a few years, it can surely find money to
remove unsafe buildings faster than it does now.

Most important: The drug trade would not exist without customers.
Either people will have to stop their drug use, or they will have to
be scared out of town and find a new place to indulge their vice. If
there's no money to be made here, the Detroit dealers will leave.

Every person who comes to Huntington from Ohio, Kentucky or elsewhere
in West Virginia to buy crack contributes to the problem here. They
have to be dealt with in one way or another.

If things don't change, Huntington will lose a police officer to the
Detroit drug traffickers. Or the drug-related violence will spill
over to the Marshall University campus and a student will die.

Other cities have cleaned up neighborhoods and forced crime
elsewhere. Surely, with the right leadership, Huntington can do the same.