Opinion: Some strikes unfair

The nation's public housing authorities hold a heavy club over innocent tenants. Residents suspected of crimes can be thrown onto the street -- convicted or not. Even ones the police brand as a nuisance can lose their homes. Guilt-by-association not only violates due process rights; it's a sloppy way to fight the drug trade. Local housing authorities should offer tenants more protection if the federal government fails to act.

The Clinton-era policy, called "One Strike and You're Out," was designed in concert with a 1996 law that sought to rid criminals from public housing. Drug dealers were the focus, though the rules, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to local housing authorities across the country, were broad enough to cover almost every possible crime. The activities covered included anything that threatened the "health, safety or right to peaceful enjoyment" of others. Because eviction is a civil matter, HUD made it possible to evict tenants regardless of how their criminal case was adjudicated. An arrest is not necessary; tenants can be evicted based on suspicion, and evicted if a relative or visitor is caught dealing drugs in their home.

The government is right to crack down on the drug trade that flourishes in public housing. Residents there should not be forced to live with the crime and violence that would not be tolerated in more affluent neighborhoods. Eviction is appropriate for some with established criminal records. Screening tenants protects other residents and does not, by itself, violate an applicant's rights.

But local housing authorities need to make distinctions. Trespass is a far different crime than drug possession or assault. Local authorities, in considering whether to evict, need to make the punishment commensurate with the crime. Officials also need to change the rule that allows tenants to be evicted on the basis of alleged criminal activity on the part of their relatives and guests. Throwing a family on the street is a severe action that requires careful deliberation on the part of local housing boards. If HUD won't craft new grievance procedures, individual housing authorities should.

The director of Tampa's housing authority may have a reasonable solution. Jerome Ryans wants to keep the tough anti-drug rules, but acknowledges "One Strike" is overly broad. "We want to be fair. Not every situation is the same," he said. Ryans will ask his board in June to examine the procedures "to make sure residents have an opportunity" to appeal their evictions. The board should go a step further and institute a formal procedure that spares residents the cost of fighting evictions in civil court. As it stands, court is their only recourse, and the government doesn't provide tenants with an attorney. The deck is stacked against them. HUD made it that way with a worthy goal that has gone awry. It's time to throw out "One Strike" and start over with new rules that get rid of the criminals without punishing innocent residents.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright