COURT ENDS GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED HOUSING CHAOS

In his April 19 Commentary column, "Culture problems at Justice," Paul
Craig Roberts criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for its "no tolerance"
policy toward residents of public housing, labeling the decision "the
punishment of innocents." But this federal drug law is, by its definition,
protective of the most vulnerable in our communities.

The Supreme Court's affirmation of the "one strike, you're out" law upholds
that a public housing agency may evict a resident if that resident, a
household member or a household guest engages in drug-related criminal
activity.

The "one strike, you're out" policy enables cities to stabilize
neighborhoods that for years were bastions of criminal enterprise. Contrary
to the assumption of many, most of this criminal activity victimized the
elderly, children and law-abiding families living in subsidized housing.
Some residents, certainly, engaged in these excesses, but most did not.

Until the one-strike law was enacted, thugs had free reign over street
corners, front stoops and even playgrounds. As a result, grandmothers and
children slept on the floor or in the bathtub for fear of nightfall, when
the bullets would fly. Families were losing their children to gangs, drugs,
prostitution and sometimes even death. All the while, government-sponsored
chaos flourished out of sight of most of us.

While critics of the Supreme Court's decision argue that "one strike,
you're out" is unjust to evicted residents, what is just for their elderly
neighbors or the children who live on their block. Public housing agencies
have not just the legal right, but indeed the obligation to evict whenever
community rules are not being followed, lease agreements are being ignored
or the law is being broken.

Government-funded housing programs exist because of the largess of
taxpayers. When society provides for the needy, a tacit covenant is
established that says the assistance cannot be wasted or taken for granted.
If individuals cannot abide by the law, community rules and lease
agreements, there are thousands of families in every major city on waiting
lists who would like to be given the chance.

You may choose to break the law, but the public shouldn't then be obligated
to pay your rent. Too many law-abiding families are in real need.

RENEE LEWIS GLOVER

Atlanta