'NO FAULT' EVICTION

The Supreme Court's decision this week to uphold a provision of public
housing leases which evicts without fault is a shocking display of social
inequity.

The provision in question is apparently fairly common. It was and may still
be in use in Meriden. The case the court looked at, however, involved four
tenants in Oakland, California. Two of these tenants had grandchildren
residing with them who were caught in possession of marijuana in a housing
authority parking lot. One had a daughter found with cocaine three blocks
from the apartment. The fourth was a 75-year-old disabled man whose
caretaker was found with cocaine in the apartment.

There was nothing to suggest in any case that the tenants knew of nor
controlled, much less condoned or supported, the use of drugs by the
persons mentioned.

Nevertheless, under provisions of the leases in Oakland, the authority may
evict for drug use by any member or guest of the household, on or off
premises, with or without knowledge or consent of the tenant. The rule was
referred to as a "no fault" eviction, which is a rather cruel joke.

Now in a private context, a landlord needs no reason to decide to evict a
tenant. The owner may decide to use the premises for something else or to
rent it to someone who has offered more rent or to tear the building down.

But a public housing relationship between landlord and tenant is - or
should be - something a little less soulless, a little more community.
Public housing, is, in some cases, housing of last resort - indeed the only
housing available or affordable to the tenant. There are any number of
rules and regulations surrounding the relationship based on the role
government plays.

Furthermore, a typical public housing tenant does not sit down and bargain
on terms of equality with the housing authority.

The authority says "we've got the unit you've applied for; fill out the
forms and sign the lease on the dotted line." A tenant who wants to discuss
particular lease provisions is apt to be passed over for one ready to sign.

Consequently, a provision of this sort, though it may be in the lease, is
not and should not be considered an enforceable part of the lease.

The Supreme Court's failure even to discuss the possibility of
constitutional issues in the case from Oakland is unconscionable.