DRUGS MAY LEAD TO EVICTION

HILO - Hawaii public housing officials this week were awaiting direction
from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as to how a federal law and
related polices will be implemented to evict families with even one member
engaged in drug activity.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a "one - strike" provision in 1988
drug law, allowing government agencies to evict entire families in public
housing for the drug activity of just one member - even if the rest of the
family was not aware the drug activity was taking place.

The Oakland, Calif. case that was appealed to the Supreme Court involves a
63 - year - old woman whose disabled daughter was caught with cocaine three
blocks from the apartment and resulted in the family's eviction from public
housing.

Hawaii County Housing Administrator Edwin Taira said Thursday the Supreme
Court ruling affects anyone who lives in public housing or receives Section
8 rental assistance, which is approximately 1,484 people on the Big Island.

Darrell Young, housing information officer for the Housing and Community
Development Corporation of Hawaii, said public housing officials were
awaiting "guidance" from HUD as to how the 14 - year - old law will be applied.

Young said housing officials had been evicting Hawaii families whose
members were involved in drug activity, before the Oakland case went to the
Supreme Court.

He could not provide Thursday an exact number of such evictions have
occurred in the state, and on the Big Island.

He said the high court's ruling has raised questions which include where
the drug activity of the family member would have to occur - on or near the
premises, or anywhere.

"We're trying to find out exactly what the ruling means, as to how we were
operating," Young said. He did not say when the Housing and Community
Development Corporation of Hawaii expects to hear from HUD regarding its
questions.

Nevertheless, the ruling was well received by those involved in public
housing, and the chief of the island's only emergency shelter in Hilo.

East Hawaii Coalition for the Homeless Executive Director Steven Bader said
policies and procedures are in place that forbid drug activity at the
shelter and transitional housing program, which includes eight apartments,
four two - bedroom duplexes and two homes.

He said there is "a fear" that the one - strike provision in the law would
give public housing officials "carte blanche to move people out."

"In our case, we'll look at the individual circumstances, and an example
being if there was a multi - generational family we would be careful not to
penalize the entire household if one family member was in violation of our
drug policy," Bader said.

Puna Councilman Gary Safarik, who leads the council's housing and community
development committee, spoke of the need to look at cases individually and
to be "sensitive" to the fact that the drug activity of one family member
"may not be promoted or approved by the people renting or receiving Section 8."

Section 8 applicants sign a form stating they understand if they engaging
in any criminal activity - including drugs and domestic violence - is
grounds for eviction or termination of the program, Taira said, adding the
county has been following it for years. His office was also not able to
provide Thursday an exact number of related evictions.

In any case, Safarik said the high court ruling provides "a little more
teeth to evict those persons who are participating in that kind of activity."

"The negative impact may be some of these folks are going to be evicted but
I think the larger benefit is we're going to be removing any illegal
activity from these housing areas or anybody who receives Section 8,"
Safarik said. "I think the good outweighs the negative."

He also said the ruling sends a message to those engaged in drug activity,
or who have signed a Section 8 application saying they wouldn't engage in
criminal activity.

"It may make them think a little bit harder about their activity and the
impact it would have on them or their family if they were evicted," Safarik
said.

"The way the federal government is looking at it is you're deriving a
benefit from the taxpayers and there are certain responsibilities that you
have in order to do that," Young said.