PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS EVICTED ON 'ONE-STRIKE' RULE CRY FOUL

Flipping through family photo albums is difficult for Sherrie Parsons.

Her heart breaks every time her eyes fall on pictures of the Jasper Parrish
apartment that was home for her and her four children for 10 years.

The single mother was evicted from the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority
complex in December 2000.

The reason: Her 16-year-old son was arrested in another Jasper Parrish
apartment for possessing 10 bags of crack cocaine and a bag of marijuana.

Parsons said she was an innocent victim of a controversial zero-tolerance
policy on drugs in public housing - a policy that covers tenants, their
families and even guests.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the "one strike, you're out" policy.
If a tenant, a member of the tenant's family, or a guest is arrested - not
necessarily convicted - on or off public housing property, the family can
be evicted. The ruling was cheered by public housing authorities in Buffalo
and across the nation.

But it upset civil rights advocates, who continue to see it as ruthless and
racist, since most public housing residents are minorities.

Last year, Housing Authority officials evicted 12 families under the
federal policy, which was established in 1988. There are about 10,000
families in Buffalo public housing facilities, and officials said the
policy targets the 5 percent of the population that is involved with the
drug trade.

Sharon West, Housing Authority executive director, sees the policy as a
vital tool for fighting drugs in the authority's facilities and protecting
the law-abiding residents.

"All public housing (officials) in the country are unanimously excited
about it," West said of the high court's ruling. "Our residents, just like
everybody else, have a right to live in a safe environment."

She added that for too long public housing has been viewed as "the housing
of last resort," but living in publicly subsidized apartments a "privilege."

"This will help change the misconception that we accept any kind of
behavior," West said.

But Parsons, 45, now living in a run-down house on the Lower West Side, is
still mystified by her eviction for something her son did outside the
family's apartment.

"It was my house for 10 years," she said. "I practically raised my kids in
there, and I paid my rent on time."

Adding to her sense of outrage is the fact that the case against her son
later was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal - provided he stays out
of trouble - because it was his first arrest.

Although the zero-tolerance policy is spelled out in the Housing
Authority's leases, Parsons, who had lived in Housing Authority facilities
since 1985, said she didn't know of the authority's tough stance on
criminal activities.

"I think it's unfair for the innocent people," she said. "You can't be
responsible for what other people do. Parents can't be with their children
all the time to know what they are doing. I can't walk around with my son
on a leash."

Policy Toughened in 1996

"One strike, you're out" is a strictly enforced federal Housing and Urban
Development policy that was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 in
an attempt to loosen the grip that drug dealers and gangs had over public
housing during that time.

Public housing officials across the country say it has made a difference.

"It's been effective for getting people with their problems out of our
development," West said.

The Supreme Court decision came in a case involving senior citizens and a
disabled man who were fighting evictions from Oakland Housing Authority
facilities because their caregiver and adult children were arrested on
narcotics charges.

While public housing officials were pleased by the ruling, advocates for
tenants and civil libertarians feel differently, viewing the policy as
ruthless, racist, gravely unfair and as one that targets the poor.

"I think it's very bad news," said Jeanne-Noel Mahoney, western regional
director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "This is punishing people
who have done absolutely nothing wrong. It certainly winds up being a
racist decision because public housing has an 83 percent minority
population, so this is certainly going to have a disproportionate effect on
minorities."

Housing Authority officials said minorities make up 75 percent of the
tenants in Buffalo developments.

The policy has been amended over the years and, during the process, critics
say it has gone from bad to worse, leaving tenants totally defenseless.

"If a guest comes to visit and has drugs in their pocket, you are going to
lose your tenancy," said Grace Andriette, supervising attorney of
Neighborhood Legal Services' housing unit in Buffalo. "How do you prevent
that from happening to you?"

Andriette has represented Parsons and other low-income tenants fighting
evictions.

The 1988 policy initially required that all public housing leases prohibit
criminal activity on or near the premises by a tenant, guest or other
person under the tenant's control.

The policy's language was toughened in 1996 when the phrase "on or near"
was replaced with the highly controversial "on or off" the premises.

Still, Gillian Brown, the Housing Authority's general legal counsel, said
residents have supported the tough policy in survey after survey.

In fact, said West, tenant organizations and block clubs have signed
petitions for the swift eviction of neighbors they knew were involved with
drugs and threatening their safety.

Eviction does not depend on a criminal conviction, West said.

"If they are arrested for drugs, we can evict them," she said.

James Lagona, Housing Authority assistant legal counsel, said the policy is
not so cut and dry when tenants fight evictions in court.

The Housing Authority has been on the losing end of some cases because of
City Court judges' varying interpretations of the policy, insufficient
evidence and tenants' reluctance and fear of testifying, West said. She
believes the Supreme Court's ruling will result in the Housing Authority's
getting more favorable legal outcomes.

Van Minggie, a tenant council leader at the Alfred D. Price complex on
Jefferson Avenue, is hoping for the same thing. Minggie, who is president
of the Resident Advisory Board to the Housing Authority, said past City
Court rulings have allowed drug dealers and abusers back into developments,
instilling fear in other tenants and making them prisoners in their own homes.

"It's too bad that the innocent are swept up in this," Minggie said. "But
I'm in favor of it."

West said the Housing Authority offers substance abuse programs and has a
treatment center for women and children in the Kenfield development. It
urges residents to take advantage of the services before their problems
escalate into an arrest. "We tell them, "If you have somebody who has a
problem, there is help available,' before they end up getting arrested,"
West said.

Tenants Often Don't Know

Rudolphus Boans Jr., a community activist and Frederick Douglass Towers
tenant, said he has helped a number of evicted neighbors who were moved out
of Housing Authority facilities because of the policy.

"It's so very, very unfair because there are a number of unique and
different situations," he said. "A lot of times, they were some place else
when an arrest was made."

And to make matters worse, said Aqiel Qadir, a Housing Authority tenant
board member, the vast majority of tenants are not familiar with the
policy. Qadir said many are simply engrossed in their day-to-day struggles,
such as feeding their families and paying bills.

"It's something that residents need to really take a serious look at," he
said. "They should be encouraged by the Housing Authority, and the Housing
Authority has a responsibility to inform them."

Parsons said the policy took her by surprise and turned her world upside down.

"When my son got arrested, I didn't think this would happen," she said.
"I'm very upset. I hurt every day."

On a fixed income that includes Social Security benefits and public
assistance, Parsons said she scrambled to find a new place. She ended up
with a three-bedroom house on Busti Avenue.

"I had to come into this dump," Parsons said. "I'm living in hell. This
area is infested with drugs. I really want to find another place."

Andriette, of Neighborhood Legal Services, says that's where the policy's
aim really misses the target.

"It's very misleading," she said. "When people are evicted for drugs, they
move to another poor section of the city, and it does nothing to lessen the
drug problem."

She said a zero-tolerance policy is needed, but one that includes a
tenant's knowledge of the drug activity. As it is now, many people are
being booted out of their permanent homes, she said. And more and more of
those people are senior citizens, who have lived in public housing for
decades and are raising their grandchildren.

"Public housing is not transitional housing, it's home for many people,"
she said.