How The Shacks Reflect The State Of Our Litle City. That Reflection Is Not Flattering or Encouraging.

Today, down by the former Furgary shacks, I came across four parked HPD vehicles.  Three of them were idling, with no officers in them nor anywhere to be seen.

Long story short: four officers, including one detective, located a woman in a shack who was wanted for "multiple felonies."  Detective Merante told me the woman had been "stealing from cars all over the city."

There were also two men in the shack, both homeless, who had been told by the officers "to pack up and leave."  Apparently, according to an officer, one of the men was known to be living in the shack for some time, the officers treating him very cordially in front of me as if they were well acquainted.  As the officers were preparing to leave, I asked Detective Merante why they had allowed the men to stay inside the shack instead of forcing them out and citing them with trespassing.  "It's not that easy, Bill.  We can't just tell them to leave and toss their stuff out of the shack. We are going to call DPW and have them board up the door again."

Detective Merante speaking with one of
the men found in the shack.

"But aren't they trespassing?" I asked.

"Maybe," was the response.  "But that's not what we came here for.  We found the person we were looking for and she is going to jail."

Let's face it, anyone can get inside any of the shacks if they really want to, sometimes quite easily. (I have a nice dinner plate I occasionally use that I found inside a shack that is still standing.  The front door was wide open because someone had forced it open.)  As a result of the neglect and laziness by the city, we find four police officers using four vehicles to spend an hour dealing with squatters in a shack which probably took them no more than 5 minutes to gain entrance to and who had likely been "living" in for weeks.

When I voiced my disbelief about the situation to officer Strattman, he said this: "Look at it this way, Bill.  We found the person we were looking for.  She's off the street."

When I mentioned to the officers that there were two other men nearby out of their view who looked a little too comfortable on a concrete pad where a shack once stood, Officer Strattman described the men accurately.  "Yeah, we know who they are.  They just got evicted from the high rise.  I'll go talk to them."

Before we parted ways, both officers agreed with me that there should be a fence across the trail that prevents anyone from getting to the shacks.  "Yeah, but really all the shacks should be razed.  That's the solution."  Detective Merante nodded in agreement.

I didn't say the shacks should be razed (though I think they all should have been razed years ago!).  A Hudson cop said it!  

Garbage and belongings stashed in the bushes outside 
the shack

How much money were those four officers paid to spend an hour dealing with homeless people where no one should be "living"?  If the ugly and dangerous shack area were truly secure and the city had no tolerance for anyone trespassing there (especially children!), what could those four officers have been attending to instead, do you suppose?  Something worthwhile such as pulling over a driver or two speeding through a downtown stop sign or red light?

And thank goodness that our DPW will be spending their time and our money to board up that shack with fresh plywood and screws for the umpteenth time in how many years!?!

I think it's no stretch to make a connection between the situation I came across today at the shacks and the situations depicted in these two pictures: 

Ignored by DPW

Ignored by the mayor.  "What's the problem?"

All three situations just scream WE DON'T CARE AND WE REFUSE TO PAY ATTENTION. That scream is coming straight out of 520 Warren Street, probably form the second floor.  Stupid, regrettable shit always happens when the failure to pay attention rules, doesn't it?
Lastly, we should all be concerned with the efficacy of our city attorney (Andy Howard?) if he or she hasn't demanded to the mayor that access to all of the shacks is immediately made impossible -- WHATEVER IT TAKES!  "I will not represent the city should we get sued because a kid got hurt or killed inside an old, abandoned, useless shack that is falling apart on city property that nobody knows what to do with!  Do something now to prevent a lawsuit we don't need or want and one which we will most certainly have to settle out of court!"   Why?  Because the goddam shacks are decrepit, they are too much of a liability and they are far too easy to access.  Just ask any Hudson police officer, not the city attorney.