Pubdate: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 Source: Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (MS) Copyright: 2002 Journal Publishing Company Contact: http://www.djournal.com/djournal/site/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/823 Author: William Raspberry Alert: It Is Not OK To Evict Granny http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0237.html TOUGH EVICTION LAW GETS A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has upheld a controversial federal policy that allows public housing officials to evict entire families when a family member - even a teen-age child - is caught with illegal drugs in or near the housing complex. And you know what? I'm glad. No, I'm not glad that Pearlie Rucker, a 63-year-old great grandmother, was threatened with eviction by the Oakland Housing Authority because her adult son and her mentally disabled daughter were caught with cocaine in separate incidents several blocks from their home. That was too rough a decision, and I've been told that, following last Tuesday's ruling, the OHA is reconsidering. But I'm glad the housing authorities still have that weapon in their arsenal. You might be, too, if you can get past the awfulness of having poor helpless grandmothers tossed out of their homes and remember why the rule was introduced in the first place. It was at a time when drug dealers and gangbangers were turning public housing complexes into virtual crime bazaars. The noncriminal majority of residents found their lives turned upside down by neighbors - and neighbors' children - who were using and selling drugs, either from individual apartments or on the grounds. What to do about it? As the law then stood, unless the person in whose name the apartment was leased was caught red-handed, he or she had only to plead ignorance to the illegal activity. I had no idea my son was using drugs, no idea my boyfriend and his cousin were dealing out of the building, no idea ... of anything. But soon, leaders in the public housing tenant-management movement got sick of it, and people like the late Kimi Gray of Washington and Bertha Gilkey of St. Louis started pressing federal officials to give them the leeway to pressure tenants to shape up or face eviction. One result was sterner screening standards for new tenants, another was the right to award (with choicer units) residents who kept their places up and their children under control. A third was the so-called "One Strike" policy that Pearlie Rucker and others fought all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost last week. Under "One Strike," tenants have to sign a lease that includes an agreement to keep their public housing premises free of drug-related and other criminal activity. The implication is that they know, or should know, what is going on in their homes - and if they don't, the threat of being suddenly homeless should be enough to pique their curiosity. Nor would it be enough under the policy simply to move the criminal activity outside the apartment - or even just outside the grounds. Drug dealing by a member of a resident's household near the complex could still result in eviction. Could. The eviction is permitted but not required, which is why the handling of the particular case of Pearlie Rucker seemed unnecessarily ham-handed. A rule requiring proof of knowledge would do nothing to stop the descent into chaos that marks so many public housing complexes. A rule requiring eviction under any and every circumstance of family-member involvement with criminality would be just another example of "zero tolerance" gone mad. It really comes down to a choice between a liberal interpretation of the civil liberties of those affected by "One Strike" and enforcing at least the possibility of a safe community for those willing to live by the rules. Having seen both the devastation wreaked by the gangbangers and the hopeful patience of poor families on the long waiting lists for public housing, I choose "One Strike." William Raspberry is a columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group. He was reared in Okolona. - --- MAP posted-by: Alex