Pubdate: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) Copyright: 2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Contact: http://www.seattle-pi.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/408 COURT DEALING WITH A CONTRACT MATTER The plaintiffs were as sympathetic as any who take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Don't kick us out of public housing because our relatives and caretakers have been caught with drugs, they pleaded. We didn't know, they said. We have no control over them, they said. All these things may well be true of the former Oakland Housing Authority tenants whose grandchildren smoked pot in a project parking lot, whose daughter was found with cocaine three blocks away and whose caretaker had cocaine inside an apartment. Heart-rending as they are, they are immaterial -- legally -- to the issue at hand. What the high court had before it was essentially a contract matter. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist stressed in the unanimous decision, the tenants had signed leases that required them to ensure that no "drug-related criminal activity" would take place "on or near the premises." Further, the chief justice said, they knew and they agreed they could be evicted if the lease was violated. It's no wonder they were evicted. If they hadn't been, the housing authority itself could be in violation of the law that Congress passed to try to stem prolific drug use and selling in publicly funded housing. The next logical step for the plaintiffs is to petition Congress to change the law. They could argue that such a law leads to increased homelessness, and they would be right -- they themselves are testimony of that. What they've neglected to mention is the thousands upon thousands of inner-city residents around the country who are desperate for the chance to live in subsidized housing. It's a good bet that when these people sign such a contract, they'll abide by it, and the projects will indeed be safer places to live and raise families. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk