Pubdate: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ) Copyright: 2002 Pulitzer Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/23 MOCKING JUSTICE The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday made a mockery of justice. The high court voted 8-0 that it is legal to evict a tenant in a public housing project if any member of the tenant's family, a guest or any other associate is involved in criminal drug use, whether or not the tenant knows of that drug use. By its action, the Supreme Court trampled the concepts of fairness and reasonableness, at least as they apply to families too poor to live anywhere but in federally-subsidized housing projects. The case involved the Oakland, Calif. housing authority and four long- time tenants, who challenged their eviction notices on grounds that they either did not know of a family member's drug use or had no way to control it. According to the New York Times report, "The four plaintiffs included two whose grandchildren, who lived with them, were caught smoking marijuana in a housing project parking lot; one whose daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from the apartment; and a disabled 75-year-old man whose caretaker was found with cocaine in his apartment.a" The housing project evicted the tenants on grounds that they had violated their lease agreements. The lease agreements include the punitive provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. That law was an attempt to address the fact that housing projects had deteriorated into dangerous ghettos where criminal drug activity was rampant. No one disputes the fact that drug addicts, dealers and their associated thugs are a menace to everyone else living in a housing project. Does anyone truly believe the remedy to that problem is the eviction of the elderly and disabled? Does anyone believe that the elderly, the disabled, and anyone else forced by their circumstances to living in public housing would not like the same feeling of peace and security that those in private housing enjoy? Back in 1988 Congress undoubtedly thought so, but since hardly anyone in Congress, then or now, has any direct experience with living in subsidized housing surrounded by crack addicts, the remedy Congress adopted was both harsh and absurd. The law it adopted in effect said that if you live in public housing, you must be clairvoyant, know what you cannot know, see what you cannot see and suffer eviction if you do not. If an elderly person is in his or her apartment watching TV and a grandchild is a block away smoking marijuana, grandma had better start packing even though she has no idea what is going on beyond her door. While the law doesn't require eviction, Justice William H. Rehnquist said, it delegates that decision to local housing authorities "who are in the best position to take account of, among other things, the degree to which the housing project suffers from rampant drug-related or violent crime."a This is a Draconian law and the Supreme Court ought to have acknowledged as much. In its ideal state, justice embodies the concepts of personal responsibility and fairness. In this case both are denied a class of people primarily because of their economic situation. The court does not address this hypocrisy but the contrast is easy enough to see. If your neighbor has adolescent kids who are involved with drug use and who may be placing other neighbors at risk, your neighbor will not lose his or her home. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act does not target him. Not so for poor people living in public housing. Despite all the lofty speeches to the contrary, the Supreme Court decision says in effect that people of slender means also have slender rights. The Supreme Court ruling is offensive, but only Congress can rewrite the law. It should not hesitate to do so. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh