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.