Pubdate: Mon, 01 Oct 2001
Source: Hawk Eye, The (IA)
Copyright: 2001 The Hawk Eye
Contact:  http://www.thehawkeye.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/934

PRESUMED GUILTY FEDERAL LAW ON PUBLIC HOUSING PUNISHES DRUG USERS AND THE 
INNOCENT

Though the U.S. Supreme Court is essentially conservative these days, 
members from both camps have at times veered from their presumed political 
corners.

That makes it hard to say how the justices will rule on a law that both 
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush agree on -- public housing's so called 
one-strike-and-you're-out rule, but which has on occasion produced a travesty.

In 1988 Congress passed a one-strike eviction law for residents of public 
housing, but it was not vigorously enforced until the Clinton 
administration cracked down in 1996.

The law says that when anyone in a family uses, sells or possesses drugs 
the entire family will be evicted. Even before a conviction.

Critics say that applying the law without exception is unfair to family 
members who neither knew of nor condoned the drug use.

In a case involving four elderly people evicted from California public 
housing, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development policy needlessly harsh and declared it 
unenforceable in the nine states in its jurisdiction.

The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to throw out that 
decision and uphold the policy.

In all four cases the elderly residents were victimized by family members 
or caregivers who were involved with drugs without their knowledge or approval.

That made no difference under the HUD policy. The same kind of draconian 
law allows states to confiscate the homes of innocent people because their 
children or spouse is accused of drug dealing. Both are wrong. There has to 
be middle ground.

Public housing project leaders say the threat of eviction is a deterrent to 
criminals.

"Without the one-strike, it may become more difficult to address the issues 
of drugs and criminal activity," one lawyer for the housings units said.

That is not the Constitution's problem. Injustice is.

Certainly criminals should not enjoy public housing.

But the question for the high court is whether the innocent must be 
punished along with the guilty.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl