The Supreme Court decision (and Herald support of it) concerning eviction
of public housing residents is absurd ("A win for public housing," March
27). An elderly man should be evicted because his caretaker possessed
drugs? Guilt by association seems un-American.

You say "those who must live in public housing have every right to live in
a safe environment too". Is this only a good policy for low-income housing
residents? In order to provide middle-income neighborhoods with a "safe
environment", shouldn't homeowners with government loans be evicted if a
guest brings drugs in their house without their knowledge?

Phin MacDonald Medford