Pubdate: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
Source: Meriden Record-Journal, The (CT)
Copyright: 2002, The Record-Journal Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.record-journal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/555

'NO FAULT' EVICTION

The Supreme Court's decision this week to uphold a provision of public 
housing leases which evicts without fault is a shocking display of social 
inequity.

The provision in question is apparently fairly common. It was and may still 
be in use in Meriden. The case the court looked at, however, involved four 
tenants in Oakland, California. Two of these tenants had grandchildren 
residing with them who were caught in possession of marijuana in a housing 
authority parking lot. One had a daughter found with cocaine three blocks 
from the apartment. The fourth was a 75-year-old disabled man whose 
caretaker was found with cocaine in the apartment.

There was nothing to suggest in any case that the tenants knew of nor 
controlled, much less condoned or supported, the use of drugs by the 
persons mentioned.

Nevertheless, under provisions of the leases in Oakland, the authority may 
evict for drug use by any member or guest of the household, on or off 
premises, with or without knowledge or consent of the tenant. The rule was 
referred to as a "no fault" eviction, which is a rather cruel joke.

Now in a private context, a landlord needs no reason to decide to evict a 
tenant. The owner may decide to use the premises for something else or to 
rent it to someone who has offered more rent or to tear the building down.

But a public housing relationship between landlord and tenant is - or 
should be - something a little less soulless, a little more community. 
Public housing, is, in some cases, housing of last resort - indeed the only 
housing available or affordable to the tenant. There are any number of 
rules and regulations surrounding the relationship based on the role 
government plays.

Furthermore, a typical public housing tenant does not sit down and bargain 
on terms of equality with the housing authority.

The authority says "we've got the unit you've applied for; fill out the 
forms and sign the lease on the dotted line." A tenant who wants to discuss 
particular lease provisions is apt to be passed over for one ready to sign.

Consequently, a provision of this sort, though it may be in the lease, is 
not and should not be considered an enforceable part of the lease.

The Supreme Court's failure even to discuss the possibility of 
constitutional issues in the case from Oakland is unconscionable.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager