Oakland Public Housing Evictions Unfair

One Strike Public Housing Policy Unfair

We can thank the drug war for a number of horrendous developments in law and social policy- the death of the 4th Amendment, the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the tying of drug law violations to access to Federal education loans and welfare assistance. One of the broader shifts has been the appearance of collective punishment. Today if someone in your family or a friend happens to be involved with illegal drugs you could wide up paying for it.

This is the case with the ‘one strike’ public housing policy of the U.S. Office of
Housing and Urban Development. This allows local housing authorities to throw whole
families out of housing projects if one member of the family is ‘caught’ with
drugs. I put the word caught in quotes because an arrest or conviction is not even
necessary under the provision. Security guard reports, tenant rumors and anonymous complains are all fair game.

Given the City of Oakland’s commitment to the failed war on drugs its not surprising that in Oakland the Housing Authority seized upon the opportunity to evict elderly tenants in the name of fighting it. In 1998 the Oakland Housing Authority sent eviction notices to four tenants due to the drug use of a family member or caretaker. After an April 2002 Supreme Court ruling upholding the evictions, the housing authority was gracious enough to allow three of the four tenants to stay. The fourth one, Herman Walker, a 75 year old disabled resident who’s caretaker had been seen with a crack- pipe, was thrown out with no place to go. In that case, as with others around the country, the caretaker wasn’t even related to the tenant. But never mind. Guilt by association is more than enough evidence
to prove that you’re an enemy when you’re fighting a war. In the drug war no one is innocent.

This willingness to make innocents pay for the indiscretions of others has made authoritarians very happy. They know that notions of self autonomy and individual responsibility run so deep in the american psyche that the only way to counter our live and let live attitude is to collectivize the punishment associated with illegal drugs to the point where everyone has something to lose by ignoring or tolerating their use. This not only strikes at the drug user but at the culture that allows the use. People become anti-drug because they have a direct stake in being on the ‘right’ side of the drug war.

The problem with this is that its wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another. The
guiding presumption of collective punishment is that individuals have control over others
and should be held responsible for their actions. A case can perhaps be made for this point of view with regard to parent- child relations. But the HUD one strike policy makes no distinction between minors and adults. Herman Walker’s caretaker was not a minor and wasn’t subject to his commands. Nor does it take into account the fact that many families in public housing are made up of elderly grandparents and teenagers in their most rebellious and difficult years. To expect a 75 year old grandmother to chase after and credibly threaten an irreverent 15 year old teenager is unfair.

A more plausible approach would be to create treatment options for those family members who need it and to end the punitive measures that pull families apart and lands them on the street.