DRUG EVICTIONS

IN AN 8-0 decision this week, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the Oakland
Housing Authority's "zero tolerance" policy for illegal drugs, and some
advocates for the poor are outraged.

Such policies victimize innocents, they say, because tenants may be evicted
even if they have no knowledge of illegal goings-on or cannot control the
actions of their guests or relatives.

The idea of elderly or disabled poor people being tossed out their homes
certainly is unappealing.

But what about their neighbors? They're also poor, elderly and disabled.
Aren't they as entitled as anyone to come and go, and live in peace,
without being molested by a criminal element?

In fact, in the Oakland case, public housing residents supported the
housing authority's move to evict four families.

In writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was clear about
the crucial element: "The statute doesn't require the eviction of any
tenant who violated the lease agreement."

The Court concluded, quite reasonably, that such decisions are best left to
the discretion of housing authorities, who not only know their tenants'
histories and circumstances, but also "the degree to which the housing
project suffers from 'rampant drug-related or violent crime.' "

Plus, there's evidence that, even with zero tolerance policies, housing
authorities usually are willing to cut all but the worst offenders a little
slack.

A New York City tenant leader, for example, said families often are spared
eviction so long as they start excluding offending relatives and guests
from their premises.

Locally, the Louisville authority, landlord for more than 8,000 people,
said it made 18 drug-related evictions last year and four so far this year.
Jefferson County's authority said it has made a few evictions and none has
been challenged.

That doesn't seem to be an excessive use of the policies.

More often than not, this page champions the tireless efforts of housing
activists on behalf of the poor. But this case placed them in the odd
position of appearing to be sympathetic to one set of poor people,
disruptive tenants faced with eviction, and unsympathetic to another, the
ones whose lives are made even more miserable by neighbors who can't or
won't follow the rules.