PROTECTING TENANTS

Drug Evictions Must Balance Safety, Fairness

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week that Congress meant it
when it said that any illegal drug activity by a public housing tenant or
tenant's guest could be grounds for eviction. Less noticed in much of the
commentary about the decision is that the court also emphasized that "the
statute does not require the eviction of any tenant who violated the \
lease provision."

In other words, government landlords have the legal right to evict tenants
whose guests or household members use illegal drugs without their
knowledge, but they don't have to. The opinion, like the law it interprets,
seeks to balance the rights of innocent public-housing tenants against the
rights of their neighbors to live in safety.

Under the plain language of the harsh Clinton-era anti-drug law, a tenant
could be evicted, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, even when "the
tenant did not know, could not foresee or could not control behavior by
other (drug-using) occupants of the unit."

At least two of the cases before the justices included those very elements.
The Oakland Housing Authority sought to evict a 65-year-old grandmother
after her mentally disabled daughter, who lived with her, was caught with
crack cocaine three blocks from her public housing unit. It also sought
eviction of an elderly disabled man whose caregiver was found with crack
cocaine and a cocaine pipe in his apartment.

As unfair as its application appears to have been in these specific cases,
the reason for the law is understandable. It was approved by Congress in
1994 at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic, when public housing
across the country had been overrun with violent drug-dealing gangs.
Innocent tenants were being gunned down by drive-by shooters; used needles
littered playgrounds and children were bedded down in bathtubs to protect
against stray bullets.

Whether or not the tenant who signed the lease knew that her guest was
smoking pot in the bathroom or a teenage grandson was selling cocaine in
the parking lot, even if she had no real ability to control the grandson,
the danger posed to other residents was the same. That is what Congress
concluded when it enacted the law and the court concurred in its
interpretation.

"It was not unreasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions,"
Justice Rehnquist wrote, "in order to provide public ... housing that is
decent, safe and free from illegal drugs."

The court also made clear that the law allows ample room for common sense
and fairness, qualities not exercised by authorities in Oakland in the
cases cited above.

Before evicting tenants, particularly where some or even all of the tenants
are innocent, Rehnquist noted that government landlords "are in the best
position to take account of ... the degree to which the housing project
suffers from rampant drug-related or violent crime, ... the seriousness of
the offending action ... the extent to which the leaseholder has taken all
reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the offending action." The real
problem is not with the law but how it was applied.

And while the Oakland case is frequently cited as an example of drug war
overkill, the law upheld by the Supreme Court last week has helped public
housing authorities across the country, Sacramento included, restore peace
and security in formerly drug- and crime-plagued housing. Used judiciously,
the law can do much good.