IS A ONE-STRIKE POLICY FAIR?

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a zero-tolerance
policy...

The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a zero-tolerance policy
that permits a family to be evicted from public housing for illegal
drug use by one family member. The policy holds even if the tenant had
no way of knowing whether anyone in his or her household was using
drugs. Also, an off-premises drug violation could trigger an eviction.

Housing officials say lease agreements clearly spell out the eviction
policy, which gives them strong leverage to deal with drug problems.
They say drugs can trigger other criminal behavior and violence that
can quickly engulf a public housing project.

Others, however, view the ``one-strike'' approach as far too severe.
They point to the case considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which
a 63-year-old great-grandmother from Oakland, Calif., was threatened
with eviction because her mentally disabled daughter was caught with
cocaine blocks from their home.

Is a ``one-strike'' policy fair? Should public housing officials have
the right to write such lease provisions and enforce them against
entire families? Should the policy be modified to require a higher
standard such as a rule requiring proof of knowledge on the part of
the tenant?

All responses must be signed and include a daytime telephone
number and home address for verification.

By Mail:
Akron Beacon Journal
P.O. Box 640
Akron, Ohio 44309

By Fax:
330-996-3520

By E-mail:
vop@thebeaconjournal.com