family members? There is always a limit to what one can
do to control one’s grown child. The Supreme Court said,
“They should be held responsible for not controlling the
drug use of family members” (Rehnquist). Take a closer
look at this case. Rucker argued that she was one such
innocent tenant since she has no knowledge of or
involvement in her adult daughter’s drug arrest down the
street from their apartment (Stasell). "Someone who had
no knowledge or involvement in a criminal act is being
punished. That's kind of a basic due process notion that
we have had in our legal tradition for a long time." said
Michael Chielens, executive director of Western Michigan
Legal Services. However, even our President Bush cannot
control his daughter from drinking. President Bush’s
underage daughters were caught drinking in a Texas
restaurant last year and his niece, the daughter of
Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, was sent to a drug treatment
center in February after being arrested on a prescription
drug charge (US: Supreme Court Embraces). Should we the
people petition the courts to evict President Bush based
on this new eviction law? If the government enforces this
eviction law without any reconsideration, they should
include the Bush family on the list of evictees for what
their family members have done.
Imagine how many low-income families will be on the
street for having teenagers, who are up to no good,
causing their family to loose their home? If these low-
income families get evicted for one’s drug conviction,
they might end up living on the street. “ ‘It’s not
fair,’ said the 63-year-old Greene, holding the eviction
notices she received on Friday. ‘I don’t have any place
to go. I haven’t done anything wrong’” (Hellegers).
Greene is so shocked by what has happened because she had
no idea what her daughter has done. All she knows now is
that she has no place to live and nowhere to go. The poor
people who have no other housing options should not be
held strictly accountable for the conduct of their
relatives or guests (Public-Housing Eviction Over Drugs
Upheld). Willie Lee, 71, who has lived in public housing
for more than 25 years, and get evicted because her
grandson was caught smoking marijuana in the apartment
complex parking lot. Barbara Hill, 63, who has lived in
public housing for more than 30 years, also gets evicted
because her grandson admitted smoking in the parking lot.
The majorities who are eligible for this program are
senior citizens and low-income families. They are the
population who needs help from other. Is it fair for them
to take the consequences for others? Last year, one of my
cousins who lived under Section 8 housing, got caught
using drugs in front of his school. It was the first time
that he uses drugs and he was only fourteen. For that
reason, the government evicted his whole family out of
the apartment that they lived in. Right now they have to
live in my uncle’s house because they haven’t found any
house to rent yet. I currently live with my parents under
government housing sections 8. If I get caught with
drugs, where will my parents live if they get evicted?
Houses out there in the community are too expensive for
them to rent a house. Would it be fair for them to live
on the street for what I have done? Some people think
that if one person in the family is doing drugs then
probably the whole family is involved. However, that is
not a fact. The government should get the evidence that
proofs that the whole family is involved in the drug
activity before they evict the whole family. It will be
unfair to the innocent tenants. What will happen if these
people end up on the street? Will there be less crime or
more criminal actions once they get kicked out? The crime
rates will probably increase because the people are
irritated once the government evicted them. Therefore,
the one who is involved in the drug activity and get
caught deserves the punishment. Congress should re-
examine the “one-strike” policy to prevent the severity
of its consequences on innocent people, because this is
not a way to stop drug activities.
It is unfair to cut public housing for an action
that is committed outside of the house. Look back at the
63 years old woman case. It is right that her daughter
gets taken away, but the government should not take the
home away from an old woman. However, there are neither
drugs found in the house nor any evidences that proof the
old woman is involved in the drug activities. They should
not evict the tenants for their actions off the premise.
Isn’t it pitiful for a 63 years old woman to get kicked
out of her home because of what her daughter does three
blocks away from her apartment? Same as my cousin, his
family gets evicted because he gets caught using drug at
his school. He does not use drug at home and the
government still evicted his whole family for violated
the law. In another thoughts, if the government evicts
the whole family for one family member convicted using
drug outside the town. Can the government guarantees that
this drug activity will not happen at some other places?
Look back at my cousin’s case. Right now he still uses
drugs even though he lives in private housing. He still
smokes, but his family members have no house of their
own. He should have been the one who took all the
responsibility for what he did, not his family members.
Based on the Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
lease and regulations, the tenants (notice: not the
entire family members) can be evicted only if there is a
serious or repeated violation of material, criminal
activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premise by other tenants and
any drug-related activity on or off the premises, with
other good cause. Other people believe that the drug
eviction law is right because the HUD lease agreement
mentions the drug activity rules. Therefore, the tenants
should know the rules and follow it. The HUD’s lease
agreement may have a provision for holding you
responsible for the criminal acts of any member of your
household, guests, or other persons acting under your
control (Public Housing Evictions). However, in this
author opinion, as of a recent lawsuit, tenants should
not be evicted for the criminal acts of others unless
he/she knows of the criminal activity and fails to take
reasonable precautions to prevent it (Public Housing
Evictions). For example, if the drug user gets evicted
for some kind of drug violation. They can continue with
their drug activities at another cities, towns or
countries. Therefore, who ever are doing the drugs should
be responsible for their actions. The drug activities
will not end if we punish their family members;
therefore, the penalty must hold on them, not their
family members.
The new public housing law states that landlords
have
the legal right to evict tenants whose guest or household
members use illegal drug without the tenant’s knowledge.
However, it is not equitable to evict a family if one’s
convicted a drug activity. The innocent tenants who live
in the public housing don’t deserve this kind of penalty
when they are not the ones who violated the law. Imagine
a whole family of six getting kicked out because of one
child’s act.
The government should come up with some other solution
besides dropping the whole family off the program. This
will
not reduce the number of homeless, poverty, and crime.
Therefore, this eviction law should not be enforced; the
government should punish the members who are causing the
problem instead of the family as a whole.
Work Cited
Hellegers, Adam P. “Reforming Hud’s One –Strike Public
Housing Evictions Through
Tenant Particiapation.” Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology Vol. 90 (1999): 323.
Holland, Gina. “US: Supreme Court Embraces Hard Line On
Drugs In Federal Housing.” Drug Policy Alliance 26
March 2002. 25 November 2002.
http://www.mapinc.org/tlcnews/v02/n607/a06.htm?155
“HUD Housing Evictions.” Northwest Justice Project 2001,
May 24 November 2002.
http://www.nwjustice.org/docs/6103.html
“Justice review public housing eviction law.” USA Today
19
February 2002. 23 November 2002.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/court/2002/02-19-
evict.htm
Lane, Charles. “Supreme Court Upholds Public Housing Drug
Law.” Washington post 27
March 2002. 25 November 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22483-
2002Mar26?language=printer
Nieves, Evelyn. “Drug Ruling Worries Some in Public
Housing.” New York Times Mar. 2002: A.18.
“Public housing.” RHOL 10 January 2002. 24 May 2002.
http://rhol.org/rental/public.htm
“Public-Housing evictions.” Northwest Justice Project
2001,
May. 23 November 2002.
http://www.nwjustice.org/docs/6102.html
“Scalpel, Not Sledgehammer.” The Fresno Bee 7 April 2002.
26
November 2002.
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/2079554p-
2412213c.html
Stasell, Wendy. “Moving In on Crime” Eviction—United
States Caes; Public Housing—United States--Cases
Vol. 87 (2001): 37.
Toms G. Gary. “Selling Drugs? You’d Better Start
Packing!”
Rockawave 2002, April. 23 November 2002.
http://www.rockawave.com/news/2002/0406/Front_Page/B
-Selling_Drugs_Better_Start_Packing0406.html
Warran, Richey. “Public-housing evictions over drugs
upheld.” The Christian Science Monitor 2002, March.
25 November 2002.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0327/p02s01-usju.html
