Pubdate: Mon, 01 Apr 2002
Source: Tribune Review (PA)
Copyright: 2002 Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://triblive.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/460

FOR THE MAJORITY

Rarely do the justices of the ideologically divided U.S. Supreme 
Court agree on high-profile cases.

An 8-0 ruling allows, but does not require, eviction of tenants from 
public housing if members of the household or guests violate drug 
laws (and commit violent crimes), even off the premises; the tenant 
need have no knowledge of or participate in the illegal act.

Too harsh? Congress didn't think so when it passed the no-fault law. 
Attorneys for the Allegheny County and Pittsburgh housing authorities 
contend that law-abiding residents have the right to be protected 
from living in an environment populated by people prone to drug 
crimes and violence.

Therefore, it is more important to take the bad apples out of the 
bushel basket (even the so-called "innocent" tenants) rather than 
expose the "innocent" majority to lawlessness or the threat thereof.

Living in public housing is not a right, and as the Supreme Court 
pointed out in the Oakland, Calif., case, the power to evict for drug 
offenses was clearly spelled out in the lease. The court also pointed 
out that the local authority does not have to evict and may consider 
the totality of the circumstances in its decision, as often happens.

"What we are saying ... is people must take responsibility. If you're 
not willing to take responsibility for a child or grandchild, don't 
put them on the lease," said Michael Syme, legal counsel for the 
Pittsburgh Housing Authority.

Right on.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh