TOUGH ANTI-DRUG LAW IS FAIR FOR PUBLIC HOUSING COMPLEXES

BACK in 1989, drug dealing in a public housing complex for the elderly and
disabled in San Jose forced tenants to cower in their apartments. The
county housing authority didn't have the power to quickly evict the
dealers, so the tenants lived in fear until the cops finally busted the bad
guys.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld tough 1991 rules
giving housing authorities broad powers to evict tenants for drugs.

The law had been challenged by four elderly tenants of the Oakland Housing
Authority who never used drugs but were threatened with eviction because
friends or family members were using drugs without their knowledge. In one
case, a tenant's daughter was caught with drugs three blocks from the
project. In another case, an elderly man's caregiver stashed drug
paraphernalia in the apartment.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the tenants, saying law-
abiding tenants couldn't be sanctioned for activities beyond their
knowledge or control.

But the Supreme Court pointed out that the tenants had signed leases
stating that any drug activity by family members or even guests could
result in eviction. It pointed out that this was not a zero-tolerance
policy. Local housing authorities have plenty of discretion to work with
tenants to solve problems before evicting them -- but in the end, a lease
is a legal contract that must be honored.

This law was aimed primarily at the large, urban housing projects of the
past, so dangerous and drug-infested that even the police were afraid to
venture in. Many of those projects are gone, replaced by smaller, more
manageable complexes. Increasingly, housing subsidies here and throughout
the country are in the form of rent vouchers, which gets government out of
the landlord business.

Yet, as the San Jose case showed, even small complexes can be troubled by
drug dealers. While it may seem harsh to throw poor, elderly people out of
their homes for the actions of others, the Supreme Court was right to
uphold this law.

Subsidized housing is a privilege, not a right. There are hundreds of
thousands of families on waiting lists for public housing. Local
authorities should be able to select and keep tenants who obey the rules
and get rid of troublemakers.