Pubdate: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Author: Stacy Finz,  Chronicle Staff Writer

EVICTIONS OF SENIORS ASSAILED IN COURT

`One Strike' Policy Called Racist, Classist

OAKLAND -- Oakland officials are trying to evict Herman Walker, a
77-year-old disabled man who requires around-the-clock care, from his modest
apartment in one of the city's housing projects.

Walker's care provider was caught two years ago with a crack pipe in her
possession. He says he did not know she used drugs and fired her when he
found out. But under strict anti-drug laws enacted by Congress, the city
says it has a right to kick Walker out of his subsidized apartment.

During an unusual session yesterday, an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments on whether Congress has gone too
far.

They listened to attorneys representing the U.S. Department of Justice and
the Oakland Housing Authority and from lawyers representing Walker and three
grandmothers, who also were served two years ago with eviction notices when
their relatives were charged with drug offenses.

Housing authorities say they are following President Clinton's ``one strike
and you're out'' policy regarding public housing, which was added in 1996 to
the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.

Under the law, any criminal activity by a public-housing tenant, any member
of the tenant's household or any guest or other person under the tenant's
control who threatens the health or safety of other residents is cause for
eviction -- even if the tenant had no knowledge of the crime.

``The war on drugs has become the war on grandparents,'' tenant activist
James Tracy said before yesterday's hearing. ``This is a racist and classist
rule.''

But Howard Scher, a lawyer with the Department of Justice, told the judges
that Congress enacted the law to rid the country of a scourge of drug
activity.

``While it does appear severe,'' he said, ``Congress recognizes the
deterrent effect it would have.'' Besides, he said, there is a huge waiting
list of people who want to live in public housing.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt seemed unmoved by the argument.

``Is that a reason to evict elderly people because there is a large waiting
list?'' he asked. ``I saw that in your papers and thought it must be a
joke.''

Walker, Barbara Hill, Willie Lee and Pearlie Rucker agree. They believe the
eviction actions are absurd.

``They're evicting me for something that's not my fault,'' Walker said. ``I
just want justice.

The Oakland Housing Authority is trying to oust Hill and Lee from their
housing project on Shafter Avenue after the women's grandchildren were found
in the parking lot smoking a marijuana joint. Rucker was threatened with
eviction when her 40-year-old disabled daughter was arrested for drug
possession five blocks away from her home on East 21st Street.

The four seniors filed a lawsuit against Oakland two years ago. The case has
been widely watched by housing authorities across the country. U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction stopping the evictions,
saying the law appeared ``irrational'' because the tenants had no idea of
the drug use.

But in February, the appellate court overturned Breyer's decision, allowing
the evictions to go through, saying that it was the will of Congress.

Last month, however, the court said it would give the case a second look --
this time by 11 judges in a rare procedure known as an en banc hearing. It
could be months before they rule.

Bill Simpich, one of the lawyers representing the four tenants, said a
ruling in favor of the tenants would strike a blow against the government's
war on drugs, which he said seems to single out minorities and the poor.

``It's nothing less than the new Jim Crow,'' Simpich said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk