SUPREME COURT: PUBLIC HOUSING EVICTIONS TRAMPLE ON RIGHTS OF POOR

Being poor shouldn't mean you don't have the same rights as rich
folk, but try telling that to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, the justices unanimously upheld a rule allowing public
housing authorities to evict tenants if a relative or guest living
with them is engaged in illegal drug activity. It doesn't matter if
the tenant is unaware of the alleged activity, or if the offense
occurs miles from where the tenant resides, or even if the drug
charges are later proven to be untrue. It's one strike and you're out.

For several public housing families in Oakland, Calif., the high
court's decision means they'll soon be looking for another place to
live. Back in 1997, four of the city's public housing tenants sued
the authority over its zero-tolerance eviction policy on
constitutional grounds.

In the most egregious case, Oakland public housing officials moved
against 63-year-old Pearlie Rucker, whose mentally disabled daughter
was arrested with crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia three blocks
from her mother's apartment.

The get-tough policies were adopted in the mid-'90s by all public
housing agencies, including Atlanta's, as a way for local authorities
to clean up crime-infested projects.

In some places, the policies have helped. Since 1999, the Atlanta
Housing Authority has evicted 166 tenants under the one-strike rule,
and administrators say it has been a useful tool in reclaiming some
of the city's worst projects. But the Oakland cases illustrate how
even the most well-meaning initiative can go overboard.

Granted, public housing tenants sign leases obligating them to
"control" household members who are engaging in criminal drug
activity. But by holding tenants to the one-strike standard, the
leases ignore constitutional protections guaranteeing them due
process before they can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property."
The simple act of signing a lease shouldn't render a tenant guilty
(and homeless) until they're proven innocent.

The one-strike rule also represents a pernicious form of economic
discrimination that punishes the poor. No private sector landlord
would dare evict a tenant based on the illegal behavior of a family
member or guest under the same circumstances as Rucker's.

Worst of all, HUD's draconian one-strike rule doesn't require local
housing authorities to offer treatment or counseling to troubled
families plagued by drug abuse.

In Atlanta and Fulton County, Georgia's largest public housing
agencies, administrators have adopted "informal" review procedures
giving tenants accused of drug activity a chance to defend themselves
and stave off eviction while getting the help they need.

These more humane alternatives aren't required by law, nor are they
uniformly applied in every case --- but they should be. By focusing
solely on punitive measures, the one-strike policy misses an
opportunity to assist families who are struggling with the wide-
ranging effects of poverty. It's just plain wrong to compound their
problems by kicking them into the streets.