OAKLAND REACTION TO SC HOUSING DECISION

OAKLAND -- Willie Lee, 74, may soon have to pack up 30 years of
belongings and move out of her home for something she did not do.

Her grandson was caught with drugs near her apartment about two years
ago, and at the time, he was living with her.

Under the U.S. Housing and Urban Development's "zero-tolerance" drug
policy, Lee was served with an eviction notice. All tenants of
low-income housing throughout the nation are responsible for the
actions of everyone in the household -- whether or not they know about
what is going on.

Hesitant to leave home without a fight, Lee and three other Oakland
residents, all in their 60s and 70s, filed a lawsuit challenging the
law.

The suit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Tuesday unanimously
upheld the law -- overturning an earlier court ruling. Lee, a
Louisiana native, pays $162 per month to the Oakland Housing Authority
(OHA) for her cozy apartment, bedecked with years of bowling trophies
and family photos. Upon hearing of the Supreme Court's decision, she
sat wondering where she would go.

She suffers from diabetes, arthritis and back pains, among other
ailments which prevent her from even leaving her home.

"I'm sick," she said. "I can hardly walk. I don't even have a relative
around here that I can live with. After all this, I am going to be out
on the streets."

For Lee and the other three plaintiffs, the "One Strike and You're
Out" crackdown backed by the Clinton administration in 1996 is not
just doesn't seem fair.

Lee said she didn't know about her grandson's arrest until the
eviction papers were served. And, she added, her house was never
searched for any illegal drugs. After she received the eviction
notice, Lee said she asked her grandson to move out -- and he did --
but he still uses her address to receive mail. Before the eviction,
Lee had no prior conflicts with OHA, and she said she has not had any
problems since.

However, OHA spokesperson Lily Toney said her department has no choice
but to act on the rules -- rules tenants were aware of.

"This is a congressional law mandated by HUD and we are funded by
HUD," said Toney. "The law has been in place since 1988."

OHA will review evictions on a case-by-case basis beginning in the
next few days, Toney said. She left a glimmer of hope for residents
like Lee, saying numerous factors are taken into consideration in the
eviction process.

"We don't have fun evicting people, but we have to do this to protect
the community for all people," Toney said. "The best way to stay
housed is to have no one in the house do anything illegal. If the
problem has been taken care of, if the person (involved with drug use)
has moved, there will not be a problem."

All four tenants are over age 62 and reside in three different
buildings. Herman Walker lived in the 1600 block of Harrison. Lee and
Barbara Hill resided in the 5100 block of Shafter Avenue in separate
apartments. Pearline Rucker moved from the 200 block of East 21st
Street that was boarded up Tuesday to the 600 block of East 18th Street.

Critics of the policy say the law crosses the line in taking away much
needed low-income housing from people with no place to go. It punishes
elderly, disabled people, like Lee, for crimes by their grandchildren
or caregivers, critics say.

In federal Judge Charles R. Breyer's 1997 decision, he wrote the
evictions were unreasonable and "evicting the tenant will not reduce
drug-related criminal activity ..."

Because the four plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against OHA, they could
not be evicted while the case was pending, Toney said. Last year 250
people had actions of eviction against them -- about 75 were
drug-related evictions issued by the court, Toney said.

There are mixed reactions about the law.

Patricia Rasheed, property manager of More Oakland Residential Housing
1 (MORH) Apartments, one of Oakland's residential housing units, said
she was "glad the court upheld the law because it will help us have
safe communities."

"If you get busted for drugs outside of the home, you should just get
busted for drugs and that's it," said Fred Isaacs III of Oakland.
"It's a whole different story if you're selling drugs from your home."