COURT RULING AFFIRMS GHA ANTI-DRUG POLICY

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court this week affirms an anti-drug policy
the Greenville Housing Authority has followed for several years, the acting
director said.

The court upheld public housing agencies' authority to evict entire
families from federally subsidized homes when a family member is caught
with illegal drugs.

A law passed by Congress in 1988 allows authorities to evict tenants, even
if they were unaware another member of their household, or a guest, was
using or selling drugs.

Michael Best, acting executive director of the GHA, calls that a
"one-strike" policy.

"It puts the responsibility back on the head of household that resides with
that family," Best said. "Bottom line, it's holding them accountable."

In 2000, eight tenants were evicted under the "one-strike" policy. Eight
more were kicked out last year, and one is scheduled for eviction next month.

The inconvenience suffered by displaced individuals is secondary to the
goal of maintaining a safe, stable housing environment for residents, Best
said.

"We have an obligation to the neighborhood," he said.

According to New York Times News Service, Chief Justice William Rehnquist
wrote that the 1988 law gives local public housing authorities the power to
tear up a tenant's lease, "regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should
have known, of the drug-related activity."

He wrote that Congress had an "obvious reason" to allow evictions of
unwitting residents: Tenants who cannot control the drug use in their
household pose a threat to the entire housing project.

More than 400 people are on a waiting list to move into some of the 714
units owned by the GHA. The housing authority also oversees about 700
federally subsidized apartments that are privately owned and managed.
Tenants are fully informed of their responsibilities and obligations when
they sign the rental contract, Best said.

Housing authorities are given some latitude in dealing with violators. Two
months ago, the mother of a 17-year-old caught with drugs sent him to live
with family outside the city in order to keep her apartment, Best said.

Though children sometimes are to blame for the evictions, "primarily what
has happened is the head of household is involved in illegal activity,"
Best said.

The court's ruling Tuesday involved four elderly tenants of an Oakland,
Calif., housing project who were served with eviction notices in 1997 and 1998.

One of the tenants, 63-year-old Pearlie Rucker, was told she was being
evicted after her daughter was caught with cocaine three blocks from
Rucker's apartment.

The 1988 law, a response to fears that federal housing projects were
becoming overrun with drug use, mandated that a "one-strike" provision be
included in housing project leases, allowing for evictions after the first
incident involving drugs.

Opinions among GHA tenants were mixed regarding the policy.

One Kearney Park resident, who declined to give her name, took issue with
evictions when a resident is nabbed outside the housing unit.

"I don't think that's fair, especially if they're out the door," she said.
"If they're in the house, I can understand that, because you know what's
going on."

A friend visiting from the Moyewood housing project agreed with what she
said, but wanted to remain anonymous. In Newtown, a tenant said people who
use illegal drugs or deal in them waive their right to subsidized shelter.

"They ain't got no business messing with it if they want a house to stay,"
said the woman, who asked not to be identified. "I don't want anybody
around my house I even think they're messing with it."