|
|
| Grandmother Clause |
|
Posted by FoM on March 31, 2002 at 21:30:05 PT By William Raspberry Source: Washington Post 
The Supreme Court has upheld a controversial federal policy that allows public housing officials to evict entire families when a family member -- even a teenage child -- is caught with illegal drugs in or near the housing complex. And you know what? I'm glad.No, I'm not glad that Pearlie Rucker, a 63-year-old great-grandmother, was threatened with eviction by the Oakland Housing Authority because her adult son and her mentally disabled daughter were caught with cocaine in separate incidents several blocks from their home. That was too rough a decision, and I've been told that, following last Tuesday's ruling, the housing authority is reconsidering. But I'm glad the housing authorities still have that weapon in its arsenal. You might be, too, if you can get past the awfulness of having poor, helpless grandmothers tossed out of their homes and remember why the rule was introduced in the first place. It was at a time when drug dealers and gangbangers were turning public housing complexes into crime bazaars. The noncriminal majority of residents found their lives turned upside down by neighbors -- and neighbors' children -- who were using and selling drugs, either from individual apartments or on the grounds. What to do about it? As the law then stood, unless the person in whose name the apartment was leased was caught red-handed, he or she had only to plead ignorance of the illegal activity. But soon leaders in the public housing tenant-management movement got sick of it, and people, such as the late Kimi Gray of Washington and Bertha Gilkey of St. Louis, started pressing federal officials to give them the leeway to pressure tenants to shape up or face eviction. One result was sterner screening standards for new tenants; another was the right to reward (with choicer units) residents who kept their places up and their children under control. A third was the so-called One Strike policy that Pearlie Rucker and others fought all the way to the Supreme Court, where they lost last week. Under One Strike, tenants have to sign a lease that includes an agreement to keep their public housing premises free of drug-related and other criminal activity. The implication is that they know, or should know, what is going on in their homes -- and if they don't, the threat of being suddenly homeless should be enough to pique their curiosity. Nor would it be enough under the policy simply to move the criminal activity outside the apartment -- or even just outside the grounds. Drug dealing by a member of a resident's household near the complex could still result in eviction. Could. The eviction is permitted but not required, which is why the handling of the Pearlie Rucker case seemed ham-handed. A rule requiring proof of knowledge would do nothing to stop the descent into chaos that marks so many public housing complexes. A rule requiring eviction under any and every circumstance of family-member involvement with criminality would be just another example of "zero tolerance" gone mad. The inflexibility of crack cocaine enforcement has prisons bursting at the seams, with little positive to show for it. People have to be free to make judgments based on a totality of circumstances -- even with a presumption of knowledge. Based on what I've read of the Rucker case, a stern warning would have made a lot more sense than summary eviction. But I understand, too, the fragility of poor communities and their vulnerability to the predations of a relative handful of miscreants. There are public housing and other low-income communities where ordinary residents dare not enjoy the spring breeze or allow their children to play outside because the criminal element has taken over. It comes down to a choice between a liberal interpretation of the civil liberties of those affected by One Strike and enforcing at least the possibility of a safe community for those willing to live by the rules. Having seen both the devastation wreaked by the gangbangers and the hopeful patience of poor families on the long waiting lists for public housing, I choose One Strike. Sensibly enforced, of course. Grandma Pearlie doesn't need to be on the street. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles: High Court Rules It's OK to Evict Granny Justices Rule Drug-Eviction Law Is Fair Supreme Court Backs Public Housing Drug Ban Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on April 01, 2002 at 07:15:04 PT |
| The original violence-prone terrorist group. Al Capone et al. Grandma is evicted. Drug deals still take place, legal and illegal. in the Roaring Twentie's, had grandma been evicted, Al Capone would have been able to find refuge for her. I'd wager all of the booze trucked in from Canada during prohibition. Al Capone had more scruples than the DEA.
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on April 01, 2002 at 05:44:05 PT:
|
| I make no bones about it; I am no fan of Mr. Raspberry. Not because all too often his lines are so predictablly wrong he could get a very confortable job as a weatherman. Nope, because like so many African-American 'journalists', he keeps making the same mistake. When I was a child, I heard until I was sick of it that if someone hands you a lemon, make lemonade. All well and good...supposing the fruit you've been handed was healthy to begin with. But if not? Mr. Raspberry, like most of his ilk, refuses to ask why they have been handed the equivalent of rotten fruit to make their tonic with. The DrugWar is racist in origin. We all know that. We have Anslinger's own words, given in sworn testimony to Congress, as to what he thought of those who he believed were the prime consumers of the 'Devil's Weed'. The term he used that stuck in my mind the most was 'the degenerate races'. (Of course, it begs the question as to who made the determination of racial 'vigor'.) As the saying goes, the fruit does not fall far from the tree. And if that fruit is poisoned? Everything that depends from the DrugWar is as contaminated with that racism as our currency is contaminated with cocaine residue. Cocaine powder vs. crack sentencing laws, the number of minorities represented in the prison population, 'profiling', you name it. Including public housing regulations. Mr. Raspberry, like nearly all his ilk, is afraid to ask the main question of why should his people bear the brunt of laws...meant to oppress them? With this article, he once again only does what so many do; takes the rotten lemon he's been handed and proceeeds to make exceedingly foul lemonade from it...instead of demanding better fruit. And asking why he was handed such dreck for so long... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on April 01, 2002 at 05:35:56 PT |
| Mr. Raspberry: This policy still solves nothing. There may be less "drug crime" but there's still plenty of regular crime. It's all about poverty. Evicting people perpetuates poverty. It is just a thin veil for vicious racism. And Cannabis prohibition is still wrong. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on April 01, 2002 at 05:05:21 PT:
|
| the fragility of poor communities and their vulnerability to the predations of a relative handful of miscreants. And if safe, legal marijuana were available; neighbors could recognize that users are more peaceful than, say, alcoholics... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 31, 2002 at 22:02:48 PT |
| Sensibly enforced, of course. Grandma Pearlie doesn't need to be on the street. These one strike laws are not negotiable, that's why we see Grandma being evicted. The only way to protect us from morality destroying innocent lives is to get rid of these harsh laws. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |