POOR PAY HEAVY PRICE FOR JUSTICES' IDEALISM

I envy the U.S. Supreme Court justices. They must be living on a block
where adults are in control and no one screws up, not even once. In their
world, a stern word or two is enough to settle any matter. Teens are always
obedient. And spotted sheep are never born into the family fold.

That would explain how the justices could unanimously uphold a "one-strike"
policy that allows tenants in public housing to be evicted for drug crimes
committed by a family member or visitor.

Without so much as a dissenting voice, the Supreme Court has made the beds
of poor people that much harder. But then, who feels sorry for people who
take a handout from the government.

We reserve real empathy for the woes of fat corporations that are run by
piranhas wearing parachutes.

Poor people, with their unruly children and empty pockets, are fortunate to
be living in public housing, while the rest of us slowly work ourselves to
death to pay for the trappings of a good life.

So what if the Supreme Court ruling means that an elderly grandmother,
already stripped of her golden years by the folly of a grandchild's youth,
can now be stripped of her home, as well, if the child stumbles home with
drugs.

So what if an elderly man, like Herman Walker--the Oakland, Calif., man who
was a plaintiff in the case reviewed by the Supremes--can be tossed out of
a subsidized apartment because a caretaker is caught with cocaine, or a
cousin smokes crack in a building three blocks away.

So what if a single mother, having tried many times unsuccessfully to get
help with an out-of-control son, must pack up her other children and head
for a homeless shelter if the son is caught doing what she has forbidden
him to do.

So what if a father, who has lost his wife to the pipe, must turn around
and lose his children to the streets. Or a wife, who has cried her last
tear over a no-good man, finds more to cry about when the eviction notice
arrives.

Is that really our concern?

Unlike corporate welfare, poor people who sleep under a public roof don't
have a right to privacy. We, the taxpayers, expect them to show their
gratitude by living perfect lives.

But it is OK that our lives are not perfect.

When our son or daughter brings shame on the household, it is a private
matter that is handled behind closed doors. In our world, a parent who
turns his or her back on their own is judged as cruel no matter how
troublesome the child is.

We can't beat them, or lock them away, or throw them into the street. If we
do, we are judged unfit for parenting.

We are expected to get our loved ones help. We are expected to give them a
chance to redeem themselves. We are expected to stick by their side. Our
expectation is that these people can be saved.

There is no such expectation for the poor.

The Chicago Housing Authority's "one-strike" policy requires that officials
treat impoverished people as if they were disposable. Worse yet, tenants
don't even have to know about the drug crime.

CHA chief Terry Peterson supports the "one-strike" policy, but said the
process "must be compassionate." But how compassionate is it to give an
innocent person the boot because of the actions of a bad seed.

At the same time, these low-income parents are being held accountable, they
are also being divested of their ability to discipline their children.
Indeed, it's not unusual to hear about out-of-control teens threatening to
call the DCFS hotline if a parent lays a hand on them.

Unlike many of us, poor parents can't ship their rebellious teens off to a
camp to shape up. Low-income parents have to deal with it.

At one time, such a parent could knock some sense into a teen's head if his
or her behavior jeopardized the roof over their heads. Today, that same
parent would be criminalized as an abuser.

Ironically, the "no-strike" rule is a get-tough law that specifically
targets illegal drug activity in public housing at a time when popular
culture is glamorizing drug use.

Television shows such as HBO's "Sex and the City" and "Six Feet Under"
often include scenes depicting Ecstasy and marijuana use with no
consequences. No one is arrested. No one goes to prison. No one gets kicked
out of their lofts.

The characters in these shows represent the privileged among us who can get
away with breaking the rules. We clean up our acts and move on with our
lives without ever having to pay the terrible price for our behavior.

At least one Supreme Court justice should have understood that people in
public housing are redeemable, too.

Privileged people don't have to be perfect.

The "one strike" ruling upheld by the high court ensures that poor people do.