Pubdate: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Copyright: 2002 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Contact:  http://home.post-dispatch.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/418

KICKING OUT GRANDMA

Public Housing

ZERO TOLERANCE was the quick fix for a range of drug problems during 
the '80s and '90s. Lawmakers embraced these constitutionally 
questionable policies on the assumption that a get-tough approach 
would cure America's drug habit. It didn't, but that hasn't prompted 
Congress to replace oppressive laws with common-sense measures that 
address the drug problem while respecting individual rights.

One faulty law is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which imposed a 
zero-tolerance policy for drug abuse in public housing. Congress' 
intent was well-meaning. It wanted to protect public housing tenants 
from the "reign of terror" they faced from addicts.

But the law had a draconian impact on people such as 63-year-old 
Pearlie Rucker. She was unfairly evicted from a public housing 
apartment in Oakland, Calif., that she shared with a disabled 
daughter, two grandchildren and a great-grandchild. The daughter was 
arrested for possession of cocaine three blocks from the apartment. 
The housing authority never proved that Mrs. Rucker knew about the 
cocaine. Yet, the family was ordered to move based on the federal 
act's provision that allows housing authorities to evict entire 
families for drug use by a single member.

In a mind-boggling indifference to due process, the U.S. Supreme 
Court, without dissent, upheld this one-strike-you're-out policy. It 
didn't matter to the court that Mrs. Rucker and other family members 
had committed no crime or that the drug incident didn't occur in the 
apartment.

In one incredible line, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said this: 
"It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict 
a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity."

This guilt-by-association policy throws the Constitution out the door 
with tenants. The guarantee of due process generally requires the 
government to provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard 
before a public housing tenant is punished. But the chief justice 
said due process applies only when the government is trying to 
"criminally punish or civilly regulate" people -- not when it acts as 
a landlord enforcing a lease. It's a technical legal distinction that 
leaves fairness out in the cold.

The real culprit here is Congress. It knew what it was doing when it 
decided to trample on the rights of public housing tenants to give 
the appearance of being tough on drugs. Congress should revisit the 
law and add an "innocent-owner" defense. That would prevent housing 
authorities from imposing unfair hardships on poor and elderly people 
who have done nothing wrong.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh