By Mark David Blum, Esq.

Again, we see another Syracuse Common Councilor wants to ignore the real issues plaguing the City and instead assert himself in the role of super-parent over the rest of us. Curfew laws are again under consideration in Syracuse. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

One does not have to look far into the past to see the results of the City’s last great experiment to “clean the streets” of children. The Common Council passed into law an ordinance banning “loitering”. What that did was give police the right to approach any gathering of people and start questioning, searching, and arresting. The ordinance was used by police to harass, intimidate, and ruin the lives of a statistically disproportionate number of young black males in the community. Now, the City wants to give police yet another reason to approach, question, and ‘be in the face of’ children.

We live in a free country. As a citizen, a voter, a taxpayer, a parent, and a resident of the community, it is my choice and my discretion until what time my children may be outside and be in public. If, in my mind, my child has established responsibility and trustworthiness to my satisfaction, then I have no problem with granting her greater freedoms. I am not raising a child; I am training an adult. The last thing I want is for a police officer to interpose themselves in my relationship with my child as though the police officer is capable of judging the maturity of my child.

I fear that the proposed Curfew Ordinance will have a disproportionate impact upon the poor community. Unlike the affluent who have homes, yards, basements, garages and other places children can gather and huddle away from view in the streets, the poor do not enjoy these luxuries. Generally, they are in small apartments, overcrowded, lack gameboys and computers, and have no place to gather and ‘hang’. In public housing, the situation is even worse, where the residents live in concrete blocks stacked on top of each other. The children have nowhere to be themselves and be with their friends but outside. With a curfew in place, especially on weekends, holidays, and summer vacation, it will be the poor who will endure this new ‘clean streets’ offensive. Affluent children have where to hide. Poor children are in the cross hairs.

Hiding in their affluent enclaves as they do, I doubt any of the Common Council has a clue about life in the streets. To be sure, they have lost all understanding about the relations between the poor people in the community and the police.

Instead of spending money to open facilities and provide safe places for children to be off the streets, the preference now is to spend the money on police and the criminal justice system. Though no details have been released, it is safe to assume there is a punitive aspect to the proposal. One has to assume that for violators, there will be a citation, court appearances, judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. Since children are not likely to be able to afford counsel, taxpayers are going to suffer the cost. What will be the possible outcomes of these criminal charges? Are we going to have our children cleaning streets? Are we going to imprison our children at home with mandatory court-ordered curfews? Shall we fine them or imprison them? This is not a legacy that we should leave for future generations.

Every child you see today is going to be an adult tomorrow. They are going to be voters and employers and parents. I believe the important lesson they need to learn is compassion by and for the community, individuality and responsibility, and trust and respect for police and the system. Putting children in conflict with police will do nothing to advance these goals and could result in another generation of citizens who distrust the system and lack a connection to their community.

The proposed ordinance is a bad idea. It is born in arrogance and snobbery of the affluent that do not want to see the faces of tomorrow on the streets today. The proposal may be race neutral on its face, but the outcome will be a discriminatory impact against the weakest elements of society. The proof is in our history.