KICKING OUT GRANDMA

Public Housing

ZERO TOLERANCE was the quick fix for a range of drug problems during
the '80s and '90s. Lawmakers embraced these constitutionally
questionable policies on the assumption that a get-tough approach
would cure America's drug habit. It didn't, but that hasn't prompted
Congress to replace oppressive laws with common-sense measures that
address the drug problem while respecting individual rights.

One faulty law is the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which imposed a
zero-tolerance policy for drug abuse in public housing. Congress'
intent was well-meaning. It wanted to protect public housing tenants
from the "reign of terror" they faced from addicts.

But the law had a draconian impact on people such as 63-year-old
Pearlie Rucker. She was unfairly evicted from a public housing
apartment in Oakland, Calif., that she shared with a disabled
daughter, two grandchildren and a great-grandchild. The daughter was
arrested for possession of cocaine three blocks from the apartment.
The housing authority never proved that Mrs. Rucker knew about the
cocaine. Yet, the family was ordered to move based on the federal
act's provision that allows housing authorities to evict entire
families for drug use by a single member.

In a mind-boggling indifference to due process, the U.S. Supreme
Court, without dissent, upheld this one-strike-you're-out policy. It
didn't matter to the court that Mrs. Rucker and other family members
had committed no crime or that the drug incident didn't occur in the
apartment.

In one incredible line, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said this:
"It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict
a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity."

This guilt-by-association policy throws the Constitution out the door
with tenants. The guarantee of due process generally requires the
government to provide for notice and an opportunity to be heard
before a public housing tenant is punished. But the chief justice
said due process applies only when the government is trying to
"criminally punish or civilly regulate" people -- not when it acts as
a landlord enforcing a lease. It's a technical legal distinction that
leaves fairness out in the cold.

The real culprit here is Congress. It knew what it was doing when it
decided to trample on the rights of public housing tenants to give
the appearance of being tough on drugs. Congress should revisit the
law and add an "innocent-owner" defense. That would prevent housing
authorities from imposing unfair hardships on poor and elderly people
who have done nothing wrong.