PUBLIC-SAFETY RULING: RESIDENTS WIN PEACE OF MIND

Earlier this month, violent crime claimed its fifth victim of the year in
the Gilpin Court public housing complex in Richmond ("Man Shot Dead in
Gilpin Court," Times-Dispatch, June 13). Twenty-year-old Henry "Buck"
Dudley, the father of a 1-year-old girl, was shot dead in the street. The
reporter covering the story spoke to several residents who were gathered
near the murder scene and found that they wished their housing project could
enforce the no-trespassing law that was at the center of a recent United
States Supreme Court decision.

"We've got to live with it," the Times-Dispatch quotes one resident.

Thanks to a 9-0 ruling by the United States Supreme Court last week, public
housing residents do not have to "live with it" any longer. The Justices
held that a no-trespassing rule implemented by the Richmond Redevelopment
and Housing Authority (RRHA) should not be struck down as overbroad and a
violation of the First Amendment.

This welcome news means that residents of public housing do indeed have the
same rights to safety in their homes and neighborhoods as people who are
able to afford to live in more upscale apartment complexes and
neighborhoods.

WHITCOMB COURT was suffering from drug and crime problems, caused most often
by people who did not live in the housing complex. Richmond's answer to the
epidemic was to deed the streets of Whitcomb Court to the RRHA in 1997 so
that officials there could control who had access to the apartments. The
practical effect of that action was to place limits on people who were in
the area for no legitimate reason. Simply put, the fact that the government
owns the apartments, rather than a private company, should not mean that
residents must tolerate criminals running rampant on the streets around
their homes.

The case before the Court involved Richmond resident Kevin Lamont Hicks, who
had been convicted twice before of trespassing in a public housing complex -
Whitcomb Court - and given written notice not to return. Upon his third
arrest and conviction, Hicks decided to challenge the policy, claiming that
his First Amendment rights had been violated, despite no evidence whatsoever
that he was engaged in any expressive activity.

Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with public housing residents
and affirmed the ability of public housing complexes to implement such
rules, so long as they do not infringe on expressive conduct. The High Court
has remanded some issues to the state supreme court, but these issues will
not defeat the positive result of the ruling. The result is a complete
victory for public safety.

The ruling guarantees that people who need the most help in fighting crime
in their neighborhoods will be able to benefit from policies that help them
achieve that goal. First Amendment rights, frankly, are not at issue with
this policy. Anyone going door to door with pamphlets, visiting friends, or
conducting business will not face interference. It will be those who have no
legitimate purpose - such as Kevin Hicks - who will run afoul of the law.

WHEN WE SEE headlines and read stories about murder victims in public
housing complexes, how many of us take the time to wonder what dangers the
residents face every day? To read the Times-Dispatch's account of Dudley's
murder is chilling.

"It's the same story," one woman said. "You could Xerox it."

"You have that every day," another resident said about the frequent sound of
gunfire in the neighborhood.

These are law-abiding citizens who deserve the same rights to safety as
anyone else. While the RRHA has yet to reinstate the no-trespassing rule, it
is now free to do so - and I am hopeful that it soon will.

A resident of the most expensive apartment complex in suburban Richmond has
every expectation that dangerous criminals will be kept out of the
neighborhood. There is no reason in the world why a resident of public
housing should not have that same peace of mind.