TOUGH EVICTIONS RULE IS THE CORRECT POLICY

IN UPHOLDING THE FEDERAL government's "one strike and you're out"
policy, the U.S. Supreme Court has done a good turn for the nation's
public housing projects. Properly applied, the stringent eviction rule
helps make places like Munsyana Homes and other Muncie housing
projects safer for all residents.

It is no wonder that Muncie Housing Authority (MHA) officials support
the recent Supreme Court decision. It should help them maintain order
and keep housing complexes safer from the criminal element.

The court, in a unanimous opinion, said, "Regardless of knowledge, a
tenant who cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by
a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents,
is a threat to other residents and the [housing] project."

The case originated in 1998 in Oakland, Calif., with a federal lawsuit
by four evicted public housing tenants, including a great-grandmother
whose mentally disabled daughter was arrested for crack cocaine
possession near their apartment complex.

The housing board, in evicting the family, had relied on the "one
strike and you're out" law passed by Congress in 1988.

IN ITS DECISION (which reversed a federal appeals court that had
agreed with the tenants), the Supreme Court noted that Congress had
reacted to a drug-dealer imposed "reign of terror" in public housing.
It also pointed out that such evictions are "common" under normal
landlord-tenant law.

In Muncie, more than 20 people have been evicted for drug-related
crime since the MHA imposed its own zero-tolerance drug policy 4 years
ago. Residents are required to sign a lease stating they understand
the rules of not using drugs. The eviction process includes a hearing
and appeal, both important elements in protecting the rights of
individuals.

While some brand such policies as "zero tolerance gone wild," the
right to evict is tantamount to the ability to maintain order and
safety. This is particularly important in the close quarters of
apartment complexes where bullets can travel through walls when drug
deals go bad.

THERE WILL BE CASES - as in the Oakland example - where housing boards
must act with compassion and flexibility so as not to toss innocent
people into the street. Indications are, in fact, that the Oakland
case is being reviewed with the possibility of allowing some of the
family members to return to an apartment.

The important word, for housing authorities judging such cases, is
"could," as in "could be evicted if evidence warrants it." That
provides the discretion necessary to protect innocent individuals and
their families. But it is crucial that the ability to evict remain in
the arsenal of housing boards.

Gary Lafayette, an attorney who represented the Oakland Housing
Authority, said the Supreme Court's decision recognized that, harsh as
the penalty imposed on evicted residents might seem, other poor people
would pay the price if authorities were denied the power they needed
to keep premises free of drug-related crime.

Sensibly enforced, this zero-tolerance rule can work to the benefit of
everyone who lives in or near a housing project.