WHA DEFENDS FEDERAL POLICY ON EVICTIONS

WORCESTER -- Tenants of a public housing project watched as police arrested
their neighbor's teen-age son for selling drugs.

More troubling to the tenants, however, was the sight of their neighbor --
the mother of four -- being evicted from the federally subsidized housing
complex. It was the woman's son who had violated the Worcester Housing
Authority's policy that clearly prohibits tenants from selling or using
drugs, but it was the mother and her other children who were paying a
severe penalty.

The woman's family and three other households at complexes managed by the
WHA have been evicted from their apartments since the beginning of the year
because of drug violations. Last year, the housing authority evicted 45
households because of drug charges, according to Ruth E. Carlson, executive
director of the WHA.

The policy applies to those arrested and charged with a crime. Conviction
isn't a prerequisite for being evicted.

The situation is not confined to Worcester. Similar cases involving
families being forced to leave public housing units because of the
transgressions of one family member have occurred throughout the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the "one-strike-and-you're-out" drug
policy. Last week, the court heard arguments from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development lawyers and lawyers representing public
housing residents.

The high court is expected to determine whether residents of public housing
units can be evicted even though they aren't aware of drug activities by
one or more people living in the household. The ruling should be issued
this summer.

Ms. Carlson believes that altering the policy would be a detriment to
housing authorities and their tenants.

"If you allow people who are involved in drug activities to stay, this
would affect the quality of life of the residents," she said. "We need the
tools to rid public housing of the bad element."

Iraida Salas and Shirley Toledo, who live in a public housing project in
the Belmont Hill area, said their neighbor was an ideal tenant who worked
and went to church.

"It was really sad to see her go," Ms. Salas said. "It wasn't her fault.
She's homeless now."

They said the woman, who could not be located for an interview, and her
children were punished for one son's wrongdoing. The two women say they are
sure the mother was not aware that her son may have been selling drugs.

"You have housing with elderly who are affected by this," Ms. Toledo said.
"Nobody wins with drug dealing or drug use."

The matter before the U.S. Supreme Court combines several cases involving
tenants who were evicted because of drug activities by someone else in the
household. The cases include one involving the evictions of a grandmother
and mother in Oakland, Calif.

The grandmother, Barbara Hill, was evicted because her grandson smoked
marijuana in the parking lot of the apartment building in which they lived.

In 1988, Congress passed a law authorizing the eviction of a tenant from
public housing units if the tenant, any member of the tenant's household or
any guest engages in drug-related criminal activity on or off the property.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted those
conditions as formal policy in 1996 and expanded the measure to include
arrests for other crimes, including assault charges and prostitution.

Tenants who are evicted are taken to housing court, where a final
determination is made on whether or not they stay or leave.

"To get evicted, there has to be a pretty good, solid case," Ms. Carlson
said. "We are not in the business of evicting people. It's more work.

"The truth of the matter," she added, is that the eviction penalty is
necessary "to have safety and for the well-being of neighbors."

Another of the cases combined in the matter being heard by the Supreme
Court involves a 63-year-old woman whose disabled daughter was caught with
drugs not too far from an Oakland housing project where they lived. She was
evicted under the one-strike policy.

A ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the policy,
maintaining that the regulation was harsh.

Ms. Carlson views the one-strike rule as a valid weapon in the fight to
keep public housing complexes safe. The WHA, she said, handles evictions
case by case. She said eviction isn't automatic after one person in a
household is arrested on a drug charge.

There have been instances, Ms. Carlson said, in which the circumstances
were weighed, eviction wasn't ordered and there "were no additional problems."

Still, she said, "we certainly do hope that this regulation stays in
effect. If it doesn't, it will certainly impact the quality of life in
public housing."

Ms. Salas said she believes the WHA should evict only the person accused of
drug activity, not an entire family.

"Just get that person out," she said. "They have to do something about that
and get that person off the lease."

Ms. Carlson said the housing authority has made aggressive attempts to
remove people involved in crimes. She said most of last year's 45 evictions
stemmed from efforts to eradicate drug activity in the Great Brook Valley
public housing complex.

"We know that our mission is to house low-income people," she said. "We
have no desire to evict people unless they give us reasonable cause. These
people prey on the low-income population."

A HUD spokesman in Washington, D.C., declined to talk about the case before
the Supreme Court. He said individual housing authorities are responsible
for enforcing the one-strike eviction policy. The spokesman also said that
the number of evictions resulting from drug arrests was not available.