DRUG-INDUCED EVICTIONS

When tough drug enforcement efforts were lacking, many of the nation's
public housing developments devolved into open-air drug markets. Congress
reacted strongly in 1988 with a law that allows local housing authorities
to evict entire households if any member of the family or a guest engages
in drug-related criminal activities on or near the development, with or
without the knowledge of the head of the household. A single offense is
sufficient for eviction.

It is a strict but rational law designed to address extreme assaults on the
nation's stock of affordable housing. Drug dealers have been known to apply
death grips on entire housing projects, leading to widespread chaos and
unwillingness even of homeless families to accept vacant units.

Last week the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the cases of four public
housing tenants in Oakland, Calif., who face evictions related to drug
offenses by family members or guests. In one case, a 65-year- old
grandmother faces eviction because her daughter was found with cocaine
three blocks from the development.

It is likely that the court will uphold the household responsibility
clause, which is clearly explained in the lease agreements of public
housing tenants. Some conservative justices viewed the matter as simply an
enforceable contract that tenants enter into voluntarily. Even relatively
liberal justices like David Souter signaled that the government was acting
rationally in response to dangerous drug problems.

The law, then, will likely stand. But housing authorities should not
overuse it. Often there are ways to achieve the same safe ends without
resorting to Draconian means.

The Boston Housing Authority, for example, largely rejects "one strike"
policies in its 14,000 units of public housing, according to a BHA
spokeswoman, Lydia Agro. The BHA prefers to bring eviction proceedings
under state law, which allows heads of household to cite special
circumstances, such as lack of knowledge of the crime. The BHA's lawyers
take pains to bring eviction cases only when there is evidence of a pattern
of destructive behavior and when heads of households have clear knowledge
of the illegal activities.

Boston housing officials also try to distinguish between crimes that
destabilize their properties directly and those that occur off the grounds.
In the latter cases, housing officials often prefer to seek good behavior
agreements through internal hearings or the Housing Court rather than turn
out entire families.

It is permissible under federal law to bring eviction proceedings against a
grandmother who is caring for two grandchildren, a great- grandchild, and a
daughter with a drug problem, as happened in Oakland. It is not wise. The
best policies save the big weapons for major offenders.