Pubdate: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 Source: Sacramento Bee (CA) Copyright: 2002 The Sacramento Bee Contact: http://www.sacbee.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376 Section: Page A3 Author: Herbert A. Sample, Bee San Francisco Bureau POOR ELDERLY FIGHT FEDERAL EVICTIONS The Supreme Court Will Review A Law That Aims To Keep Drugs Out Of Projects. OAKLAND -- Herman Walker is a thin, frail man, a former warehouseman who has lived here nearly all of his 79 years. Sitting beneath the photos of his children and late wife that paper his living room wall, Walker seems an unlikely candidate for a dispute over illegal drugs and public housing. But 4 1/2 years ago, Walker was served an eviction notice after police determined that guests of his had used cocaine in and near his Oakland Housing Authority apartment. That thrust Walker and three other elderly housing authority tenants facing similar expulsions into a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's "one-strike" law, which permits evictions from public housing when residents or their guests are found to be involved in illegal drug activity. "It's crazy. It's sick," Walker said, describing his view of the one-strike rule. "It's just pushing down on the poor people. That's what that's for." Walker and his co-plaintiffs, all of whom deny any knowledge of drug use in their apartments, make for sympathetic figures. Evictions would force them into the private housing market that is at best unfriendly to seniors of little means. But lawyers for Oakland housing officials say they are looking out for tenants of all ages who want to be free of drug users and traffickers. The one-strike rule, they insist, is the strong tool they need to accomplish that. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case Tuesday. Legal experts say the debate will center primarily on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's interpretation of the law, which even allows for the eviction of innocent tenants -- those unaware of their guests' or relatives' actions. The court's ruling could be life-changing for residents and managers of the 44,000 public housing units in California, including the 4,800 located between Sacramento County in the north and Kings County in the south. Tenants of those homes -- among the 1.2 million public housing units nationwide -- are ruled by a housing provision first written by Congress as part of a sweeping anti-drug law in 1988. "Any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy," the law states. To strengthen the law, the Clinton administration in the 1990s pegged federal funding to a public housing authority's handling of one-strike evictions. In theory, authorities retain discretion not to evict innocent tenants on one-strike grounds, but critics argue that the financial incentives propel evictions. In Merced County, there have been about three dozen evictions under the one-strike policy, though relatively few have been for those considered to be innocent tenants. "We've been watching this very closely," Nick Benjamin, director of Merced County Housing Services, said of the case. "We've found one-strike to be extremely effective; when there's a waiting list of 1,200 people for public housing, it makes sense." For Walker, the legal journey began in August 1997, when the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) police arrested a woman for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia in a senior citizens complex that rises above OHA's headquarters. The woman told the officers that she had been in Walker's top-floor apartment. Police searched Walker's unit, finding small amounts of rock cocaine and pipes, as well as a minor girl and two other women who were not tenants. During two subsequent searches, police again found paraphernalia. Housing officials then moved to evict Walker. Similarly, Pearlie Rucker, 66, was served eviction papers in 1997 after her son and daughter were arrested separately on suspicion of possessing cocaine a few blocks from her East Oakland apartment. Later that year, police found the grandsons of Barbara Hill, 66, and Willie Lee, 74, smoking marijuana in the parking lot of a North Oakland housing complex. All four tenants denied using or possessing illegal drugs themselves, and all said they were unaware that their guests or relatives had used or sold drugs. That's beside the point, contends Gary Lafayette, who represents OHA. He recalled the days when the now-dead drug kingpin Felix Mitchell ruled from an OHA complex near the Oakland Coliseum. He also cited a lawsuit filed against OHA in early 1997 by almost five dozen tenants who, in part, complained that the authority allowed drug dealers to roam common areas of their complexes. "These types of situations," Lafayette said, "put the (housing) agencies in a no-win position. If they don't do anything, residents complain ... . And when they do respond, they get charged with responding too harshly." Rucker's eviction was rescinded after she removed her daughter's name from the lease. She remains a plaintiff, though, for technical legal reasons. Neither she, Hill nor Lee consented to interviews. That left Walker to be the quartet's unofficial spokesman. A volunteer preacher at a local Baptist church, Walker can still talk up a storm when the feeling strikes him. Walker disputes OHA's version of events that led to the eviction notice in 1997. He implied that the drugs and paraphernalia were planted by one officer after three other officers searched his home and came up with nothing. He also said he is the target of retaliation for efforts he made to improve the building's operations when he moved in 10 years ago. "When I came here, I straightened things out too much for them," Walker said. "They tried to get rid of me." The Supreme Court is not his last stand, though. Even if the court upholds the law, Walker and his co-plaintiffs can still fight their evictions in state court. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom