OLDER TENANTS DECRY DRUG LAWS

Wrongdoing by others could lead to evictions

OAKLAND -- From his cramped living room 13 floors up, 75-year-old Herman
Walker wonders what he'll do if he's thrown out of his downtown public
housing apartment.

He didn't do anything wrong. He's facing eviction because his former
caretaker was arrested on drug charges.

Under tough federal "one-strike" anti-drug laws, tenants can be evicted for
the wrongdoing of visitors or relatives.

Walker and three other older residents of Oakland public housing are suing
the city and federal housing officials for a court order to stop the
evictions and claim the evictions violate their civil rights.

Walker, Willie Lee, 71, Barbara Hill and Pearlie Rucker, both 63, claim
it's not fair to punish them for alleged drug activity they knew nothing
about and couldn't have prevented.

Their lawsuit was filed in federal district court.

"They're standing up," said Donna Teshima, one of the attorneys
representing the four. "They're standing up for all of the seniors and all
the disabled and all the elderly people that are just getting thrown out
and . . . treated like garbage."

Walker's apartment is barely big enough to hold his collection of family
photos and Mahalia Jackson album covers. But for $175 a month -- with a
view of Oakland's charming Lake Merritt -- it's a bargain.

And it's a lot better than the street, which is where Walker predicts he
could end up if he is forced out.

"I hate to be moving," he said. "It's a job to be moving."

Oakland Housing Authority officials deny they've picked the wrong targets
in the war on drugs.

"The authority believes . . . we have probable cause to move to evict the
people notwithstanding the fact of their age," said Randolph Hall, the
assistant city attorney defending the housing authority.

The "one strike and you're out," policy under which tenants can be evicted
if they or their guests are arrested -- no conviction required -- was
announced by President Clinton in 1996.

Oakland evictions were based on a previous local policy, Hall said.

"The one-strike policy basically to us is a 5 o'clock political sound
bite," he said. "The real issue is whether or not there is sufficient legal
basis to uphold the eviction."

Tenant Rucker supports efforts to sweep drugs out of public housing. But
she doesn't think throwing her out along with them is going to help: "No,
not that way."

Rucker received an eviction notice after police cited her mentally disabled
daughter for possession of cocaine about three blocks away from their home.
Housing officials later dropped the eviction threat, but Rucker is pursuing
her suit.

Rucker, who also takes care of two grandchildren and one great-grandchild,
said she searches the apartment regularly and hasn't found drugs. But she
can't control what may happen when her 42-year-old daughter is outside.

She and Walker also are seeking protection under the Americans with
Disabilities Act -- Rucker because of her daughter's condition and Walker
because he's partially paralyzed from a stroke.

Walker, an ex-serviceman and retired warehouse worker, got an eviction
notice after his caretaker and a friend were caught with crack and a crack
pipe in his apartment, according to the lawsuit.

Officials say they found crack or crack pipes on three visits to the apartment.

Walker has since fired his caretaker, but he said it's unreasonable to
expect him to quiz guests about drug use.

"If a man's sick . . . you'll be glad to see help," he said.

In the other two cases, Lee's grandson was cited for possession of a
marijuana cigarette in the parking lot. Hill also is in trouble because of
a grandson getting caught smoking marijuana in the parking lot of her
complex.

Nationwide, 3,847 public housing tenants were ousted in the first six
months of the new policy, an 84 percent increase over the number evicted
for drugs and other crimes in the previous six months, according to a 1997
survey of about 50 percent of the nation's housing authorities.

Oakland, which owns about 3,300 units, evicted 18 tenants under the policy
last year.

"Anybody who says that throwing out an 85-year-old grandmother is going to
do anything meaningful about the drug problem is fooling themselves," said
Ira Jacobowitz, one of the attorneys representing the Oakland tenants.

But assistant city attorney Hall said the tougher drug policies are crucial
for residents who don't have the means to move away from drug problems.

"If you look at the total impact on a captive, noncriminal population --
that's the driving impetus to trying to get this type of activity out of
these people's lives," he said.

Copyright 1998 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.