TRIED 'N' TRUE: FOLLOW RULES OF THE HOUSE, EVEN IF PUBLIC

WASHINGTON - The U.S. 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 (Calif.) 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.

Walk A Mile. . .

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 such as 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.

Very Short Innings

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.

The inflexibility of crack cocaine enforcement has America's prisons
bursting at the seams, with very little positive to show for it.

People have to be free to make judgments based on a totality of
circumstances - even with a presumption of knowledge.

Based on what I've read of the Rucker case and some others in the lawsuit,
a stern warning would have made a lot more sense than summary eviction.

Discretion Makes Sense

But I understand, too, the fragility of poor communities, and their special
vulnerability to the predations of a relative handful of miscreants.

There are public housing and other low-income communities where ordinary
residents dare not enjoy the spring breeze or allow their children to play
on the grounds because the criminal element has taken over.

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."

Sensibly enforced, of course. Grandma Pearlie doesn't need to be on the street.