|
|
| Yes to a Law That Gets Rid of Dangerous Tenants |
|
Posted by FoM on April 13, 2002 at 21:24:46 PT By Jill G. Matthews Source: Washington Post 
As the property manager of 500 federally subsidized apartments in Southeast Washington for 14 years, I agree with the recent Supreme Court ruling that residents of public and assisted housing can face eviction if a family member or guest conducts illegal drug activity within the residence or if a household member is arrested on drug charges away from the housing unit. Some residents of assisted housing and their advocates maintain that this ruling is unfair because residents aren't always aware of drug activity. Elderly residents, for example, can be subject to eviction if their visiting grandchildren are arrested for smoking marijuana on the playground of the housing complex, and whole families can face eviction if one member is arrested on drug charges miles away from the family's residence. From my management experience, I've found that residents of subsidized housing aren't as ignorant about the activities of their family members and guests as they and their advocates suggest. I manage a 27-unit Section 8 apartment building located on a notoriously dangerous Anacostia corner, where drug activity is rampant. Every weekday morning, my maintenance staff removes the remnants of the previous evening's activities from the halls and stairs: dozens of tiny, plastic crack bags; syringes; burned matches; and tobacco from "blunts," shells of cigars used for marijuana. Because drug users are averse to the security that bright lighting provides, they regularly shoot out the lights in the halls and on the building exterior, and they break into vacant apartments to conduct their illegal activity. Even police armed with guns are leery of the building I manage. One recent morning, while I was conducting a building inspection, a man who appeared to be intoxicated was walking through the building hallway, brandishing an ax. When I called 911 for police assistance, six uniformed officers answered the call, and a police helicopter hovered above. The man with the ax, it turned out, was a well-known visitor of not one but several residents. March was a typically chaotic month at my building. A visitor stabbed one resident, and the guest of another jumped out of her third-floor window when police knocked at the door. A rash of robberies occurred in the hall. Further, law enforcement officials raided four apartments, netting drugs, drug paraphernalia and ammunition. They arrested several wanted people. Regarding the raids, a D.C. police officer said, "No major investigation was necessary. We executed four search warrants and in no case came up empty-handed." When I asked him if residents were aware of the drug activity, he said, "Everybody is aware, and many are acting as lookouts." This statement is supported by the fact that police receive few calls for assistance from building residents. Residents who are not involved in illegal activity so fear repercussions from their neighbors and their neighbors' visitors and guests that they refuse to call police for help. In my experience, even elderly and disabled residents usually are aware of the illegal activity conducted by their family and guests, although some seem helpless to do anything about it. In these isolated cases, subsidized assisted-living facilities should be made available. The Supreme Court ruling is on target. With thousands of deserving families waiting for subsidized housing, why spend tax dollars paying rent for people whose presence is a danger to everybody? Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles: Supreme Court Backs Public Housing Drug Ban Supreme Court Approves Public Housing Drug Ban One Strike and Out, in Public Housing Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #7 posted by SWAMPIE on April 14, 2002 at 20:53:14 PT |
| First off,everybody has to have a place to live! Now with that said,my 60 year old brother manages a 250 apartment complex in Massilon,Ohio,and he used to be cannabis-friendly before he got into this job.I tried to talk to him about what has been going on and he said that ANYONE that even LOOKS like they have ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRUGS will not get into the apartment complex,no matter if they are good people.He can attest to alot of what is in this article.The complex is mostly section 8,and most of the occupants are other than white.Now,if you eliminate any/all drugs from being illegal,which we all know provides alot of these people with a small income,how will these people sustain themselves?Many"other-than-white"people that I have talked to about legalization have told me that they couldn't survive.Are they too lazy to get a job?Most I have brought this up to have jobs.How do they/we get more money to live on if the corporate-scum continues to reap all of the profit?Where does it go from here? I personally am sick from all of our corporate-government taking our ability to live free away from us,and now wondering when the suicide-bombers will start wreaking havoc in the US as well.Maybe they are smarter than us?????ONWARDTHROUGH THE FOG!!!!!
SWAMPIE [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by MDG on April 14, 2002 at 17:16:47 PT |
| Regarding the letter by Jill G. Matthews entitled "Yes
to a Law That Gets Rid of Dangerous Tenants", I find
myself wondering a few things: 1) Does the maintanence staff remove any cigarette butts or liquor bottles from the property, along with "the remnants of the previous evening's activities from the halls and stairs: dozens of tiny, plastic crack bags; syringes; burned matches; and tobacco from 'blunts', shells of cigars used for marijuana", or are alcohol and tobacco non-issues in the housing project? If they aren't issues, why not? 2) Was the "man who appeared to be intoxicated...walking through the building hallway, brandishing an ax" intoxicated by illegal drugs or legal drugs? Are we to infer that just because he was carrying an ax he must be intoxicated by illegal drugs? Have you ever seen a person intoxicated by alcohol become violent, as in "drunken brawler"? I've seen many of these. 3) During the "chaotic" month of March, when "law enforcement officials raided four apartments, netting drugs, drug paraphernalia and ammunition [and] arrested several wanted people", did the police arrest any under-age drinkers or find any liquor ("drugs") or liquor bottles/shot glasses ("paraphernalia")? Were any liquor items associated directly with the ammunition? Why not? Does anyone in the complex use a gun to protect his Jack Daniel's territory or maybe his Marlboro Country? Al Capone wasn't bootlegging legal Twinkies, was he? 4) When you mention that "drug users are averse to the security that bright lighting provides, they regularly shoot out the lights in the halls and on the building exterior, and they break into vacant apartments to conduct their illegal activity", do you mean that one might otherwise "keep the lights on" when raping someone, stabbing/shooting/otherwise assaulting them, and breaking into vacant apartments? Is it only "drug users" who prefer to lurk in the shadows? I suppose, were Alcohol Prohibition to be reinstated, the barbecuer drinking a Budweiser might deem it necessary to "shoot out the lights" as well. The fact is, that all of these violent drug dealers would disappear were the government to admit the fact that Prohibition does not work and give legal control to the Medical Community. What Prohibition does is not eliminate drugs, and in no way "controls" them, but intentionally gives control to light-shooting, window-jumping, apartment-robbing, tenant-stabbing, axe-wielding people you mentioned who have little regard for human life, whether it's yours, mine or that of any of your tenants. When one drug dealer is arrested or killed, his place is taken immediately by another. More importantly, if we didn't burden our police with chasing/arresting, and then have our legal system jamb-pack our prisons with non-violent drug offenders, the rapists and other violent people lurking in the shadows might be caught and have room to stay in prison. The streets would be safer and our police would be safer. America would be safer. Completely ridding ourselves of violent drug-cartels, associated police corruption and eliminating illegal opiate-funded terrorist groups would be a simple, yet welcomed, side-effect. Incidentally, when was the last time you heard of someone smuggling a tanker full of British Ale into America? Was the tunnel found burrowed from Mexico to California bringing in Corona beer or illegal drugs? If there's no profit, there's no business. If there's no black market territory, there's no violence associated with illegal drug trade. It's time we admit the Drug War is making our country less safe than any terrorist group in the world could ever do. The housing project you manage is a perfect example. Like Motel 6, we could "keep the light on" in prison for violent people, because there would be room, and you'd save a bundle on light bulbs and brooms. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by Dan B on April 14, 2002 at 16:11:44 PT:
|
| The author of this article pointed out several infractions that would make more sense to prosecute than the use of drugs: littering, attempted assault with a deadly weapon (an axe), destruction of private property and illegal use of a handgun (shooting out the lights), breaking and entering, actual assault with a deadly weapon (stabbing), and robbery. These are legitimate crimes, and they should be dealt with accordingly. But the fact is that these crimes would not be committed were it not for the insane drug laws that provide the black market environment in which these crimes take place. Remove the black market, and you remove the violent crime associated with it as well. And if these crimes are being committed in this building, it is the responsibility of the property manager to make sure that these legitimate crimes cease. I noticed that the searches of these apartment complexes yielded, among other things, ammunition. Why would someone keep ammunition in such a building? Hmmmmm . . . Let me think . . . could it be personal protection?!! And why would these folks feel a need to protect themselves in this way? Perhaps the property manager's inability to properly manage his property is the reason. Why not hire a security guard? Why not provide an alarm system for these folks who obviously need the protection? No, this property manager finds that it is much easier to put the blame for his poor managing skills on his tenants, only a fraction of whom are engaged in any illegal activity. This is yet another case of the rich making money off the poor. The reason why he doesn't provide more security measures is that he is too cheap to look out for the welfare of his tenants. He's a slumlord, and his desire is to make as much money as possible off his tenants while spending as little as possible to make them safe and confortable. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Patrick on April 14, 2002 at 08:09:26 PT |
| sounds more like a scumbag landord profiting off the poor. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by MikeEEEEE on April 14, 2002 at 08:04:38 PT |
| I think this property manager is looking for any excuses to kick out these low income people.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by goneposthole on April 14, 2002 at 08:02:46 PT |
| "The lack of money is the root of all evil." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on April 14, 2002 at 07:59:56 PT |
| If you are Noelle Bush and your dad is the governor of a state, you're ok. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |