THE SUPREME COURT PLAYS LANDLORD

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that public housing officials can
evict people if evidence of drug use is found in a public housing
residence, even if others living there say they were not aware of drugs.

Evictions of this kind had been challenged in California after entire
families were evicted from public housing residences because of one
occupant's drug use. Lawyers argued residents should have the right to show
they were not aware of the drug use that jeopardized their residency.

It is easy to imagine scenarios where the policy will hurt poor people, and
possibly the elderly. Imagine the grandmother who faces eviction because a
child or grandchild living with her is caught with illegal drugs.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, that eviction is likely, even if the
grandmother says she didn't know anyone under her roof possessed drugs.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's opinion in the ruling states the
government, acting as a landlord, can control activities of tenants as it
tries to provide safe drug-free housing.

Critics say housing officials and the court can get away with this only
because it affects only the poor - the people most likely to need
subsidized housing. Lower-income or fixed-income people will be the ones
hit hardest by these evictions. But the harsh repercussions against drugs
are designed to ensure that the poor will have access to safe housing, in a
neighborhood that the government is trying to keep drug-free.

In a perfect world, no family members would jeopardize their residency in
public housing by using or possessing drugs. As individuals, providing or
keeping a home for themselves and family members would take priority over
drugs. The nature of addiction and the financial lure of the drug business
undermine that ideal. The zero-tolerance approach to drugs in public
housing is a condition of residency - a condition that all tenants are made
aware of. It is only fair to the people who meet those conditions to evict
those who don't.