In politics, as in life, timing is everything.

So it is with Fort Worth’s election to re-up the Crime Control and Prevention District, the half-cent sales tax that’s on the July 14 ballot for a 10-year extension. City Council members initially set the vote for May, when it probably would have passed with a huge majority, as it has several times before.

But the coronavirus pandemic delayed the election, and suddenly, Fort Worth is voting on money to fight crime amid a national debate in which “defund the police” is a slogan.

Our view on the situation has changed, and police and our city must change, too. Voters should reject the 10-year extension. It’s just too long to lock up hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue.

We’re not against the tax. We don’t want to defund the police. But the council should come up with a better five-year plan that reflects the policing, crime prevention and community needs of the coming years.

In doing so, members should make clear exactly how the revenue would shift to priorities such as mental health intervention, promising programs that Mayor Betsy Price and Police Chief Ed Kraus have already identified.

It may make sense for the full amount to go to crime prevention, but the city deserves a robust debate over whether to divert part of the half-cent to a different need, such as transportation.

All of this would be complicated, particularly as the city also must craft a budget to deal with the ongoing uncertainty of the economy and the pandemic. Cuts are inevitable, including to police; indeed, the crime tax may generate about $15 million less than projected this year because of the economic downturn, according to City Manager David Cooke.

But Price, the council and Cooke can use the situation to position Fort Worth for a more prosperous, safer, fairer future.

The crime district was first created in 1995, after years of vicious gang violence in Fort Worth. And it’s been effective: The city has nowhere near the same level of violent crime or property crime, even as its population has boomed. Other factors are at work — crime is down nationwide, too — but no one can seriously argue that the hundreds of millions raised by the CCPD hasn’t had a significant effect.

As any government program should, though, it must change with the times. The challenges and solutions of the 1990s and 2000s aren’t the same as the 2020s.

Price and the council make a good case for the crime district. They argue that taking away tens of millions of dollars a year will make it harder to invest in new programs on mental health or ensure better training of officers. They point to the purchase of cameras that have revealed injustices committed against Black citizens and other minorities — and, in many cases, exonerated officers by demonstrating threats that justified action taken against a suspect.

But the money has also contributed to the militarization of police. And it has seeped into basic budgeting in a way that shields the city from setting priorities. Police cars and neighborhood patrols shouldn’t be subject to the revenue of a specific tax.

Price and Kraus point to ideas that could persuade voters to back a shorter extension. Each attempts to address a problem that Kraus and other police leaders have described: We ask officers to do too much, particularly on mental health issues.

Kraus described an approach at use in Harris County, a drop-in center where police can take people who have committed a nonviolent theft and need treatment, not punishment. It’s vastly preferable to taking that person to jail or the county hospital.

Another that’s already in use here is the Crisis Intervention Team. Officers are paired with mental health workers and try to help people seek treatment, including medication in some cases.

And the council is talking seriously about changes to police policy and other areas that protesters have identified after the killing of Texan George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. Members have pledged to take up a major discussion of racism when they return in August.

As for other possible uses of the tax money, it’s time for a citywide debate. Business and civic leaders note that Fort Worth spends much less on public transit than similar cities, and access to reliable transportation could be a key step to solving the inequities that make life so much harder in many Black and Hispanic parts of the city.

Privately, many of those leaders say that the crime district blocks the city from spending more robustly on transit. The hurdles to changing it are high -- the city would need yet another election, next year, to move more money to transit, and Blue Mound residents would need to vote, too. But if we’re committed to really examining the disparities that hold Fort Worth back, this is a conversation we must have.

Doing so need not distract from the Police Department’s needs. Good officers, of which the department has many, deserve the best training, the most reliable equipment and support that allows them to focus on the essence of law enforcement.

The election, mostly sleepy party runoffs, is likely to draw few voters. The district will probably again win approval, perhaps overwhelmingly.

But there’s another way. In the coming months, as tough as it would be, Fort Worth can shape a future that’s more inclusive, prosperous and equitable. The first step is to vote no on Proposition A and send the City Council back to the drawing board on policing, transit and other issues.

Early voting begins Monday and runs through July 10.

This story was originally published June 26, 2020 at 12:09 PM.