TOUGH LANDLORD

At first blush, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding a draconian
drug-eviction law for tenants of public housing seems mean and hard-nosed,
simply another illustration of how acceptable "collateral damage" is when
it comes to the never-ending war on drugs.

However, the court's decision can as easily be interpreted as an example of
a sort of tough love -- one that upholds a law that protects the sizable
investment of taxpayers in public housing for the poor. Illicit drug use,
when it has been ignored for whatever reason, has played a big role in
crime and the deterioration of housing projects.

The 8-0 ruling (one justice, Stephen Breyer, recused himself because his
federal judge brother, Charles, had rendered a ruling earlier in the case)
upheld a federal drug law that allows for eviction of public housing
tenants for drug use by any household member or guest, regardless of
whether the tenant knew of it or if it took place outside the apartment.

The case involved four plaintiffs evicted from the Oakland Housing
Authority in 1998 who were not illegally using drugs themselves, but who
had relatives or, in one of the cases a caretaker, who were fooling with drugs.

There is some truth to the contention that the plaintiffs in this case
represent "collateral damage" of the drug war. They were not drug users or
sellers, and they likely did not know their kinfolk were using or carrying
illicit drugs in or near their subsidized domiciles.

Nevertheless, the government has a duty to the citizens whose taxes finance
public housing to prevent or at least discourage criminal activity in or
near these facilities. Without a blanket prohibition on drug use that
extends to visiting relatives and guests, it is impossible to keep illicit
drugs and the criminal activity that accompanies them out of public housing.

Too many public housing projects started out just fine, only to deteriorate
into crime-infested, run-down, slovenly piles in which residents live lives
of greater desperation than in many of the nation's prisons -- all because
authorities chose to ignore or wink at criminal activity.

It is true that the law, and the high court's decision upholding it,
represents a sort of tough love for public housing tenants. Experience,
alas, has shown that this is necessary to protect the public's investment
in both the projects and the lives of their inhabitants.