POOR FAMILIES CAN GAIN WITH ANTI-DRUG POLICY

It would be easy to see an element of picking on the poor in the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding government housing eviction
policies where drugs are involved. But we think that would overlook the
large population of low-income people who don't use drugs and deserve safe
housing.

The decision upholds a federal law that allows people to be evicted from
government housing if even one family member is using drugs. Horror stories
of grandmas booted out of their homes because of the discovery of one
grandchild's drug use on the street corner has prompted many to dismiss the
federal law as unfair. Granted, some applications of the law may be extreme
or misguided, but the law itself does more to protect the poor than harm them.

While it might not be as big an issue here in Snohomish County as, say,
Chicago or New York, consider the people who are afraid to let their
children play outside because a few other bad neighbors have taken over the
complex. Being poor shouldn't mean a life sentence of living among
druggies. Furthermore, a development taken over by a few bad apples can
lead the community to wrongly believe everyone there is involved in drugs.
That can be a tough, if not impossible, reputation to shake.

Bud Alkire, executive director of the Everett Housing Authority said he
doesn't know how often his agency will really need to enforce the law, but
it's an important tool to have.

"It needs to be used with discretion and compassion," Alkire said.

Tenant families must be responsible for the people living in their homes
and for what goes on inside those walls. Family members can't close their
eyes to what's going on, he said. In many situations the drug user
dominates the household. Those are sad situations, but Alkire said his
agency does encourage the tenants to make that person leave. If that
doesn't work, officials will take further action.

Many critics call this the "one-strike" law because tenants can be evicted
for one incident. Yet, this seemingly zero-tolerance policy still offers
legal recourse for disgruntled tenants. Not only are evictions reviewed by
the Housing Authority, but they are subject to a court review where the
tenant can challenge the decision. How many apartment tenants in non-public
housing are afforded such opportunities?

This law is about keeping neighborhoods safe. Imagine if the government
didn't have any recourse for evicting tenants who allow drug users to live
with them. It would be disastrous. Instead, the court's ruling gives public
housing landlords some authority while still providing tenants with rights.