Pubdate: Sun, 03 Mar 2002
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
Copyright: 2002 Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Contact:  http://www.telegram.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/509
Note: Newspaper only publishes letters from MA residents.
Author: Chris Echegaray
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/racial.htm (Racial Issues)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/women.htm (Women)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

WHA DEFENDS FEDERAL POLICY ON EVICTIONS

WORCESTER -- Tenants of a public housing project watched as police arrested 
their neighbor's teen-age son for selling drugs.

More troubling to the tenants, however, was the sight of their neighbor -- 
the mother of four -- being evicted from the federally subsidized housing 
complex. It was the woman's son who had violated the Worcester Housing 
Authority's policy that clearly prohibits tenants from selling or using 
drugs, but it was the mother and her other children who were paying a 
severe penalty.

The woman's family and three other households at complexes managed by the 
WHA have been evicted from their apartments since the beginning of the year 
because of drug violations. Last year, the housing authority evicted 45 
households because of drug charges, according to Ruth E. Carlson, executive 
director of the WHA.

The policy applies to those arrested and charged with a crime. Conviction 
isn't a prerequisite for being evicted.

The situation is not confined to Worcester. Similar cases involving 
families being forced to leave public housing units because of the 
transgressions of one family member have occurred throughout the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the "one-strike-and-you're-out" drug 
policy. Last week, the court heard arguments from the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development lawyers and lawyers representing public 
housing residents.

The high court is expected to determine whether residents of public housing 
units can be evicted even though they aren't aware of drug activities by 
one or more people living in the household. The ruling should be issued 
this summer.

Ms. Carlson believes that altering the policy would be a detriment to 
housing authorities and their tenants.

"If you allow people who are involved in drug activities to stay, this 
would affect the quality of life of the residents," she said. "We need the 
tools to rid public housing of the bad element."

Iraida Salas and Shirley Toledo, who live in a public housing project in 
the Belmont Hill area, said their neighbor was an ideal tenant who worked 
and went to church.

"It was really sad to see her go," Ms. Salas said. "It wasn't her fault. 
She's homeless now."

They said the woman, who could not be located for an interview, and her 
children were punished for one son's wrongdoing. The two women say they are 
sure the mother was not aware that her son may have been selling drugs.

"You have housing with elderly who are affected by this," Ms. Toledo said. 
"Nobody wins with drug dealing or drug use."

The matter before the U.S. Supreme Court combines several cases involving 
tenants who were evicted because of drug activities by someone else in the 
household. The cases include one involving the evictions of a grandmother 
and mother in Oakland, Calif.

The grandmother, Barbara Hill, was evicted because her grandson smoked 
marijuana in the parking lot of the apartment building in which they lived.

In 1988, Congress passed a law authorizing the eviction of a tenant from 
public housing units if the tenant, any member of the tenant's household or 
any guest engages in drug-related criminal activity on or off the property.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted those 
conditions as formal policy in 1996 and expanded the measure to include 
arrests for other crimes, including assault charges and prostitution.

Tenants who are evicted are taken to housing court, where a final 
determination is made on whether or not they stay or leave.

"To get evicted, there has to be a pretty good, solid case," Ms. Carlson 
said. "We are not in the business of evicting people. It's more work.

"The truth of the matter," she added, is that the eviction penalty is 
necessary "to have safety and for the well-being of neighbors."

Another of the cases combined in the matter being heard by the Supreme 
Court involves a 63-year-old woman whose disabled daughter was caught with 
drugs not too far from an Oakland housing project where they lived. She was 
evicted under the one-strike policy.

A ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the policy, 
maintaining that the regulation was harsh.

Ms. Carlson views the one-strike rule as a valid weapon in the fight to 
keep public housing complexes safe. The WHA, she said, handles evictions 
case by case. She said eviction isn't automatic after one person in a 
household is arrested on a drug charge.

There have been instances, Ms. Carlson said, in which the circumstances 
were weighed, eviction wasn't ordered and there "were no additional problems."

Still, she said, "we certainly do hope that this regulation stays in 
effect. If it doesn't, it will certainly impact the quality of life in 
public housing."

Ms. Salas said she believes the WHA should evict only the person accused of 
drug activity, not an entire family.

"Just get that person out," she said. "They have to do something about that 
and get that person off the lease."

Ms. Carlson said the housing authority has made aggressive attempts to 
remove people involved in crimes. She said most of last year's 45 evictions 
stemmed from efforts to eradicate drug activity in the Great Brook Valley 
public housing complex.

"We know that our mission is to house low-income people," she said. "We 
have no desire to evict people unless they give us reasonable cause. These 
people prey on the low-income population."

A HUD spokesman in Washington, D.C., declined to talk about the case before 
the Supreme Court. He said individual housing authorities are responsible 
for enforcing the one-strike eviction policy. The spokesman also said that 
the number of evictions resulting from drug arrests was not available.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl