NY Times, March 28, 2002
By EVELYN NIEVES
OAKLAND, Calif., March 27 - Herman
Walker is getting too
old for all this worry. His feet
ache from 79 years of wear
and tear; lingering complications
from a stroke five years
ago have him in and out of his
doctor's office; and he is
bone-tired. The last thing he
needs to fret about is
getting kicked out of his
apartment and ending up on the
street.
"I didn't
do anything wrong," Mr. Walker said in a wavering
voice after he was reached by
phone at the one-bedroom
apartment he has called home for
more than 10 years.
Mr. Walker has done anything but
behave like an upstanding
citizen. But minding his own
business, keeping his
apartment in order and doing right
by the neighbors may not
be enough to keep him in public
housing.
States Supreme Court upheld a
federal law that permits the
eviction of public housing tenants
if a family member who
lived in their unit, or a guest,
was arrested on drug
charges, the justices, in effect,
said Oakland could evict
Mr. Walker and three other elderly
residents for drug use
they did not know about.
United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit that
innocent tenants could not be
evicted. Justice Stephen G.
Breyer did not take part in the
decision because of a
conflict of interest.
and throughout the country say the
decision is a harsh
punishment for poor and elderly
residents.
leave and walk across the street
and commit a crime, you
can be evicted," said Anne
Omura, executive director of the
Oakland Eviction Defense Center,
which had sued the
authority on behalf of the four
elderly tenants.
Authority officials found that his
full-time caretaker had
hidden crack pipes in his
apartment, has other options
before he can be evicted from his
apartment in a building
in downtown Oakland. He is partly
paralyzed, and the
Eviction Defense Center has filed
a lawsuit on his behalf
under the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act, as well
as a state lawsuit that also
challenges the Housing
Authority's decision to evict him.
and was fielding requests for
comment from reporters most
of the day, is not resting easy.
because the elderly residents
affected by the ruling are stark
examples of how the rules adopted
by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in
1991 can have the
unintended consequence of
punishing the innocent. Pearlie
Rucker, 63, who challenged the
Housing Authority in 1996,
faced eviction because her
mentally disabled daughter was
arrested on charges of possessing
cocaine three blocks from
their home. Her case was dropped
when her daughter moved
away and completed drug
rehabilitation.
67, had teenage grandsons who
lived in their apartments and
were arrested on charges of
smoking marijuana in the
parking lot of the public housing.
Both say they did not
know about the drug use outside
their quiet public housing
in a middle-class neighborhood.
Eviction Defense Center prepare
its challenge, said that
while the four elderly residents
in the lawsuit were not
facing imminent eviction, public
housing residents across
the country have reason to worry.
As written and as upheld
by the Supreme Court, Mr.
Somvichian said, the
zero-tolerance law could punish a
public housing tenant for
something a relative does far from
the tenant's residence.
literally, you can evict a
grandmother who lives in Oakland
if their granddaughter is smoking
pot in New York," he
said.
that the ruling would benefit more
people than it would
punish, though she conceded that
it penalized people for
something they did not do.
"While it may not be fair, it's
what we have to do," Ms. Tony
said, adding that the Housing
Authority would announce its
decision on the four residents
in a day or two.
Congress would change the law to
correct its obvious flaws.
Oakland, today issued a statement
expressing concern about
the law's broad reach and said it
was especially troubling
given President Bush's elimination
of a policing program
for public housing that provided
programs for substance
abusers. But she stopped short of
proposing to change the
law.