By Mark David Blum, Esq.

"The poorest man may in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." (William Pitt).

Despite more than ten days of public discussion of the miseries and experiences of homelessness and hunger in Onondaga County and specifically in Syracuse, it appears the Common Council and police department just don’t get it. From a read of this morning’s newspaper, it appears there was an actual conspiracy to disenfranchise city residents from their residences and steal from them their worldly belongings. Syracuse Police spokesperson Joe Cecil lied outright in the newspaper, and in doing so, revealed the silent conspiracy at City Hall. Common Councilors displayed great ignorance and arrogance and should be ashamed.

Recall the scenario: On January 4th of this year, City police and work crews went out and drove the homeless and hungry people out from their Pearl Street overpass self-built shelter. People there were given fifteen minutes to gather what they could and to get out. Everything remaining was thrown in the garbage. Among those items described as being thrown away were furniture, art work, dishes and cookware, sleeping beds, and other common ‘household’ furnishings. At that time, Lt. Cecile declared that they acted because, “a vehicle that rolled over the guardrail in a crash would mean almost certain death for a person sleeping below.” We were reminded of the City’s benevolence in not destroying the shelter until after the holidays. The public was outraged and for a week, letters and stories and complaints poured from all local media outlets.

Today, we learn the rest of the story. At least we hear of the new justifications for police action against our homeless. Lt. Cecile says today that, “that several women had complained of lewd gestures and comments coming from the homeless people living in the camp, and that prompted the demolition.” He also, “cited several vehicle break-ins as a reason for tearing down the camp, but he acknowledged that officers have no way to know if homeless people were responsible.” Cecile concludes by admitting, "whether it was people in the shanty, we don't know," Cecile said. "There's no way to pinpoint the larcenies." Apparently to Syracuse Police, it doesn’t matter if you did the crime, your abode is destroyed and your belongings stolen for no legal reason.

There are no records of criminal complaints. No 911 or other documentation exists regarding alleged lewdness or other criminal behavior (and yes, every call by every unit for every action is recorded and given a DR number so even one radio from one unit about investigating homeless lewdness would be on record). Every business owner, citizen, and resident in the area of the Pearl Street camp said the homeless were fine and got along great with their neighbors. Police keep changing their stories and lying to the public.

Where this story takes its ugliest turn is the alleged meeting between the ‘Chiefs’ of the Syracuse Police Department and Mayor Driscoll. First of all, we can assume that it was not just the Chiefs and the Mayor who were at this meeting, but likely too the Corporation Counsel and other City advisors. Second, we learn that the Pearl Street encampment is on State Property – not City land. Finally and most laughable, Lt. Cecile says of the meeting, “The chiefs discussed the problem with Driscoll, Cecile said. Driscoll would not say if he gave the go-ahead to raze the campsite, but Colleen Deacon, a city spokeswoman, said "he stands by the decision."

Some facts not spoken of by police, the Mayor’s office, nor the newspapers. First, absent a specific request from the State, Syracuse has no jurisdiction over state land or the use thereof. City police have no legal right to trespass on State land and take action against persons thereon unless a criminal complaint is made. Absent exigent circumstances, a warrant would be required to even enter the land.

Also not mentioned and perhaps why the Mayor’s response is kept submerged, is because there is no “process” in place by which the City or any government can summarily break into your residence, throw you out, and take all your stuff and throw it away. The “process” that is “due” every citizen of the United States and of the several States is there MUST be an opportunity to be heard.

Ask any landlord. You cannot throw people off property summarily. Indeed there is a legal process that all landowners must follow. That process costs time and money. For the Mayor, that would also cost him political capital as well. At the same time Corporation Council is begging for the incarceration of non compliant landlords, it would be ironic that the City itself would be defending its intentions to throw homeless people out of the only shelters they have. But then again, because there is no State complainant, the City would never have standing to bring the legal action in the first place.

I can imagine the discussion. After being told of the legal complexities required of due process demands, City leaders and police opted for what has always worked for them in the past. Take the action and then dig in and defend. After all, who is going to do anything? What homeless person knows his rights under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution or how to proceed if there is a violation? What will a civil jury award; assuming the homeless person can find a lawyer and survive three years of legal abuse by Corporation Counsel? Any harm would be financial and paid for by taxpayers; not individual bad actors. Clearly, the City’s solution was to just burn the encampment and the residents thereof and handle the fallout. The Mayor, by keeping mum but “standing behind police” proves the point. Can’t you almost hear the Mayor or Corporation Council saying to the Chiefs, “hey do what you have to, we have your backs.” There is a criminal section of the Federal Civil Rights laws but I sincerely doubt any prosecutor would take action in defense of the homeless and against police. To the best of my knowledge, no Grand Jury has ever been convened against the City police department or its officials.

To cap off this tale of horrifying abuse of police power, reporters interviewed members of the City of Syracuse Common Council. They claim to have not been consulted but knew of the discussion. Without exception, all those quoted felt too that the ends justify any means. Forcing human beings from their chosen residence hopefully would send them into dangerous shelters or religiously offensive ones. There are already insufficient beds and the Rescue Mission suffers from daily overflow. Councilor Callahan felt it was safer to throw out the homeless so as to “prevent further harm to themselves or to buildings.” Her opponent should make that a campaign slogan. The rest of the interviewed Councilors lined up behind the police and the Mayor. Standing alone was the sole Republican on the Council whose first concern was the situation and plight of the victims.

When I first wrote my Eulogy for George Ruggaber and then followed the community standing up and trying to bring out solutions to the problem, I felt as though I finally had contributed back to my community and got a fire lit. From today’s newspaper, it is obvious that the fire is out and it is back to business as usual in the City of Syracuse. Namely, that the weakest and poorest citizens of Syracuse will continue to suffer and nobody really gives a damn.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." (Samuel Adams)