AT THE ASSEMBLY: TENANTS WITH DRUGS COULD FACE EVICTION

A Senate Bill Lets Landlords More Easily Remove Apartment Residents If
Drugs Are Found -- Even If The Tenants Have No Knowledge Of The Drugs.

PROVIDENCE -- A divided Senate voted yesterday in favor of creating tough
new sanctions against tenants for drug offenses, despite the opposition of
advocates for low-income residents who rallied outside the chamber.

The change would allow landlords to seek to immediately evict all the
occupants of an apartment if drugs were found on or near the premises --
even if the tenant was unaware of the drugs' presence.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Michael McCaffrey, D-Warwick, introduced it to
senators as a bill that would "expand the obligations of tenants to keep
the premises they rent free of drugs and crime."

But Carol Brotman, director of the Rhode Island Public Housing Tenants
Association, saw it differently: "It means innocent tenants will be
evicted, and that's not fair, it's not right."

McCaffrey sponsored his bill at the request of a number of lawyers who
represent landlords. They argued the current law lacks the teeth and
timeliness needed to keep housing complexes free from drugs.

Under current law, tenants cannot use their apartment to manufacture, sell,
deliver, or store drugs -- and can be evicted without notice for such
offenses. In the case of most other lease violations, a landlord must give
tenants a notice of a problem and 20 days to fix the problem, rather than
going straight to court.

Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, posed a scenario where a grandmother ended
up caring for her grandchildren because the children's parent had a drug
problem. If that parent stopped by the property and was caught with drugs,
she said, the grandmother and children could be evicted.

"This is very frightening," she said. "I know it is to advocates for the
homeless. I know it is to the advocates for families and children who have
a tough time trying to find a two-bedroom apartment outside the projects."

Perry attempted to amend the bill to require a tenant to have known of a
problem before facing eviction for it.

Her amendment found support among colleagues such as Sen. June Gibbs,
R-Middletown, who said, "When you start punishing willy-nilly, it takes
away the effect of what you are trying to do."

Sen. Elizabeth Roberts, D-Cranston, said an average middle-class family in
the suburbs would not lose their home if their child was caught with drugs.
"It's something we do for some classes of people but not others," she said.

But others said the proposal was just right.

"This is a message bill," said Sen. Leo Blais, R-Coventry. "The message is
very clear: If you're using drugs or selling drugs, stay out of housing,
whether it's privately owned or publicly owned."

Sen. Joseph Polisena, D-Johnston, said, "We owe it to those law-abiding
citizens who live in housing projects to keep their homes clear of drug
dealers."

Perry's attempt to alter the bill failed in a close vote, 20 to 17. The
full bill then passed by a vote of 23 to 14. McCaffrey, in arguing for the
bill, pointed to a packet of letters submitted by tenants of the Pawtucket
Housing Authority he said supported the change.

But Perry and Brotman noted the letters asked the tenants to sign a broadly
worded form letter, which said the residents were concerned about drug
activity and "fully support any efforts by the Rhode Island House or Senate
to enact any legislation that will make my building a better environment
and a safer place in which to live."

"Would you not sign such a letter?" Perry asked fellow senators.

Brotman said 50 Pawtucket tenants -- and 300 elsewhere -- have since signed
post cards opposing the bill that will be sent to leaders in the House,
where an identical proposal failed to earn a committee hearing earlier in
the year.

Yesterday's Senate debate echoed one heard at the U.S. Supreme Court, which
in March 2002 upheld the right of public housing authorities in Oakland,
Calif., to evict four elderly tenants for the actions of family members or
caretakers. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has since
urged public housing directors to use discretion in enforcing that clause,
contained in HUD-related leases.