ZERO TOLERANCE NEEDED FOR PUBLIC HOUSING SAFETY

Generally speaking, we are not in favor of the so-called "zero tolerance"
rules being adopted around the country.

The best examples of the stupidity of such regulations are routinely
offered by public school officials nationwide, where students are reported
to be expelled or suspended for such egregious crimes as pointing a hot dog
at someone and saying "Bang."

This is apparently justified in administrators' minds by their "zero
tolerance" for "weapons" on school property.

Such regulations are simply evasions by those in authority, freeing them of
the obligation to use their extensive education and experience to make
judgments based on the specifics of an incident.

However, despite our feeling that most zero tolerance rules are at base
both stupid and cowardly, we must agree with the Supreme Court's ruling
this week upholding the right of public housing administrators to evict
tenants of apartments when drug or other criminal activity is involved.

The decision let stand the eviction from public housing in Oakland, Calif.,
of a 63-year-old woman whose daughter was caught with cocaine.

Congress passed a law in 1988 that told administrators of public housing
projects to require tenants to control drug use in their apartments or face
eviction, without appeal.

The law may seem harsh, in that the primary tenant may be unaware of drug
use or dealing, or be unable to control it, but faces eviction anyway.

But the high court's judgment acknowledges that there are more victims than
just the person evicted.

Public housing projects throughout the nation have been not just the source
of drug violence, but the victims of it as well. In many areas, law-abiding
residents and neighbors of such projects live in constant fear of drug
thugs. Frequently gunfire breaks out in and around the projects as drug
dealers compete for territory.

Though the power to order such evictions has long existed in the private
housing sector.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the eight members of the
court (Justice Stephen Breyer didn't participate), made the court's
feelings clear:

Local public housing authorities, Rehnquist wrote, have "the discretion to
evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and guests
whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity.
Thus, any drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is
grounds for termination, not just drug-related activity that the tenant
knew, or should have known, about."

On a strictly practical level, the court also cited the fact that public
housing tenants sign leases that explicitly provide for their eviction if
any occupant of the apartment uses drugs, with no exceptions provided.

Considering the fact that public housing tenants routinely face what
Rehnquist called a "reign of terror" at the hands of drug dealers and
users, the law, and the court's action upholding it, are an example of
"zero tolerance" we gladly endorse.