Kick That Drug Using Family Out of Publicly Subsidized Housing!

Great Debates
1

I don’t have an actual News release cite, just passing this along for your perusal. Makes perfect sense to me.

News Release

by corinne carey
NEWS RELEASE
Late Tuesday, following the arrest of Noelle Bush, daughter of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, for possession of crack cocaine, the Orlando District Attorney’s Narcotics Evictions office forwarded information about her arrest to The People of the State of Florida, demanding that The People serve the Bush family with an eviction notice to vacate their residence in government-subsidized housing.
A spokesperson for the Orlando DA stated that under federal public housing regulations that were upheld by the Supreme Court this past Spring in Rucker v. Davis, eviction of Bush and his entire family is the appropriate sanction.
The People served the Bush family with a Notice to Vacate their residence because a member of the household committed a drug offense.
A spokesperson for The People stated that while the loss of the Bush’s family home is a drastic remedy, “we need drastic remedies to address the scourge of drugs that is ruining the lives of our children throughout the State of Florida.”
Jeb Bush has maintained that while he knew his daughter struggled with drug use in the past, she is currently facing her problem by participating in drug treatment. Speaking to the Associated Press, he said: “This is a private issue as it relates to my daughter and myself and my wife,” he said. “The road to recovery is a rocky one for a lot of people that have this kind of problem. I don’t have any details about what happened. I just found out.”
The People’s spokesperson responded: "We need to remind the Governor that it wasn’t he that took steps to address his daughter’s drug problem but rather the court system that mandated her into treatment.”
An advocate for housing rights in Florida pointed out that Jeb Bush could not possibly have known that his daughter was still using, and that to evict the entire family would be unfair. But The People’s spokesperson stated that according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucker, Bush’s ignorance of his daughter’s continued drug use was no excuse.
This is, of course, a fictional account of the events that would have followed Noelle Bush’s arrest if the Bush family were poor people living in a different kind of government subsidized housing in Florida.
This past Spring, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld federal regulations which call for eviction of entire families from public housing when one member of the household commits a drug offense-whether or not the offense took place in the public housing apartment or not, and whether or not the family members were aware of any drug activity at all.
Jeb Bush is completely right when he maintains that his daughter’s struggle with her drug use and with the criminal justice system are private matters for he and his family to deal with, and that “the road to recovery is a rocky one.” Recognition of problem drug use as a private matter to be addressed with compassion, not punishment, and an understanding of the high likelihood of relapse is a common sense approach favored by most professionals who are successful in their work with drug users. Unfortunately, policymakers like Bush himself and his brother George W. Bush’s administration, have not chosen to deal with the problems caused by drug addiction this way.
Instead, state and federal lawmakers continue to adopt punitive policies which deny people struggling with addiction financial aid for school, welfare, public housing, licenses, and employment. This country’s current drug policies punish drug users who relapse during treatment instead of calling for an examination of why treatment programs fail nearly two-thirds of their patients.
It is clear that Noelle Bush is having a difficult time remaining drug-free, even in a rehabilitation facility where she knows that if she uses drugs she could be incarcerated. Shouldn’t we be asking why efforts to “treat” her addiction aren’t working, instead of putting her in jail?
If the State of Florida actually did enforce federal regulations to evict the Bush’s, the only difference between the Governor’s family and a family living in a housing project would be that the eviction of the Bush family would not result in their homelessness, as it does all across the country for hundreds of families who grapple both with poverty and addiction.
Corinne A. Carey, Esq.,Director, Harm Reduction Law Project, Urban Justice Center, 666 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10012,

2

Because chemical dependency is a relapsing disease. This is not unexpected. It demonstrates an individual’s powerlessness over their drug. Even when they know that using is the worst thing they can do, an addict with an active addiction will still use. This is the natural history of the disease. Just like the natural history of diabetes is to have higher and higher blood sugars, which destroy organs like kidneys, hearts and eyes. And like diabetes, even when treated aggressively, there are still complications.

The natural history of recovery from chemical dependency is often marked by relapses, which generally tend to decrease and vanish with time if the addict continues to work towards recovery.

Otherwise, I love your essay.

QtM, MD

3

I like the subtle attack on the Supreme Court. Not all bad laws are unconstitutional. If you need someone to blame, blame Congress and the administrative agencies, not the court. If any one cares to read the decision it can be found here. Note that the court explicitly states that eviction, under the statute, is not mandatory.

4

The OP would have presented a telling point… if Noelle Bush actually lived in the Governor’s residence.

The point of evicting families whose members are convicted of drug use is to remove the drug influence from the public housing. There is no jurisdiction that permits such eviction when a non-resident uses drugs outside the home.

This is no to suggest that there’s not a legitimate public policy question regarding the wisdom of evictions in these cases. But the OP’s fictional press release is a badly flawed analogy.

  • Rick
5

Actually, this is just not true, the law applies much more broadly than that. From the HUD website:

You might think that “under the tenants control” would indicate that the person must be a minor, but the law has been used to apply to non-minors frequently.

As Rhum noted, eviction is not mandatory, but a case can be made that the law may apply to this situation.

6

Y’all are forgetting one important thing: The Governor isn’t a tenant. The housing provided him isn’t leased to him; it’s considered part of his compensation package.

7

Perhaps we could have a cite where an otherwise law-abiding family was kicked out of subsidized housing, because one of their adult children, who did not live with the family, relapsed while in chemical dependency treatment.

Then we could be sure that Jeb Bush is not being singled out for treatment because he has political enemies. And we could ask for another cite where you called for the impeachment of Jimmy Carter when Billy got drunk. Or Ted Kennedy. Or George McGovern. Or Michael Dukakis, when Kitty drank hair spray.

And so on.

Regards,
Shodan

8

as much as I hope personally that Noelle’s struggle w/chemical dependancy will have a certain effect on her family, I have to agree that as far as I have known, seen in effect, heard of/read of, there is no case where a family was evicted from public housing because an adult who may visit said residence from time to time was an addict.

they have evicted people who’s family members living with them at the housing unity, were drug users.

And, yes, I think that’s a poor stance. (I understand the concern, and agree that in many cases, the family may know of the drug use/abuse, but that doesn’t mean that it’s use is condoned or facilitated in any appreciable way, or that eviction of the entire family is in the public good, or morally justified)>

I will note, also, that I am pleased to note that Mr. J. Bush is actually speaking pretty close to the same words I’d hoped to hear from him the first time out.

The further clarification of

would, I think, apply in situations where a party was going on and drug activity happened on the premises or just outside the door (so, the party host couldn’t just say ‘go outside to smoke it up’ and allow them back in).

the clarification seems to hold that household members actions, both on and off the premises are fair game, and that guests of the household, their actions on the premises and ** near** the premises are also fair game.

So, you’d be expected to control all actions of your household members even when off the premises, and to control your guests while on the premises, and nearby.

the nearby guest activities can give concern - depending on how it flows. Are they saying if I let a guest in who’s under the influence of drugs, will that count? (what if I let them in to wait while I called for help for them?); I can see holding the tenent responsible in the party example I gave earlier, but I’ve not been able to come up with another example. I can easily come up with examples that would cause me concern (for example, if I allow some one to visit, how am I supposed to know /control their actions immediately prior to or subsequent from that visit?)

Again, while I understand the goals of the legislation cited, I agree w/the esteemed Dr., that the disease of substance abuse involves relapses, and believe the family should not be punished because one member has a disease w/a predictable (but erratic) pattern.

9

This salon article gives several examples of people who were/are threatened with eviction because of the drug abuse of others.

(I’m doubtful that the cases which have reached the media–and are therefore “citable”–represent all of the cases. I’m sure there are plenty of people who have been evicted and their cases didn’t garner any attention for whatever reason).

But why do you need a cite? The policy–as described in the provided link–makes eviction excusable for anyone associated with the premises. Doesn’t matter if the druggie isn’t a family member. Doesn’t matter if the drug abuser doesn’t live there. They don’t even have to be doing the drugs on the property. We don’t need a cite to show that the policy–while good-intentioned–is potentially very unfair. Especially when it is not executed consistently, which is the basis of the OP.

I think the OP is illustrating the idiocy of the One Strick Law more than singling out Jeb Bush. If it’s alright to evict poor grandmothers from their hole in the wall, why isn’t it alright to evict someone who occupies a big ole mansion? Shouldn’t the same rules apply to both?

The article ends with this:

Is the OP really about Jeb Bush? Or is it about the inconsistencies in the way our laws are executed and the way we view drug addicts?

10

Have any of you ACTUALLY LIVED in public housing? Do you know what drug-using/dealing tenants inflict on their fellow tenants? I once lived in a neighborhood which was infested with drug users-they make the streets unsafe for children, attract all kinds of crime, and geberally destroy neighborhoods. If you could see the stress these poor people are under-having to worry that their kids will get a bullet in the head, for witnessing something that they should’nt have seen. I agree, the policy of evicting drug users and their unfortunate families is harsh-but is it fair to the other tenants to allow these addicts to poison the whole area?
I personally don’t want to use drugs, or be around people that use drugs…and I really don’t care that some junkie needs a fix-let him shoot up in some other place. If I sound cynical, its because I am. One addict is a human tragedy-put a few hundred together, and you can destroy a community.

11

Evicting innocent tenants isn’t the answer, though. Beefing up security and establishing more drug rehabilation facilities would be a good way of taking care of the drug problem without making life harder on good people.

Is it fair if you’re a grandmother, raising your grandchildren, to be punished with homelessness just because your daughter gets caught with a pipe while on visitation? That’s more than harsh, IMHO. It serves no good purpose.

12

I don’t agree. The Salon article says (bolding mine):

It says nothing about people being liable for eviction when persons not associated with them, or under their control, commit crimes.

This is argumentum ad ignorantiam - because it can’t be shown to be false, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy. You are the one asserting it must be so; to you, then, falls the burden of providing evidence. “I’m sure that…” does not constitute evidence.

Kenison’s letter in tourbot’s link reads somewhat more reasonably:

The opinion is not, of course, case law. But I defy you to present any citation that shows the policy in question being applied unfairly. As far as I am concerned, applying the stricutures of the no-drug-use rule to “…public streets, alleys, or other public right of ways…” immediately adjoining the residence is quite reasonable.

Because, for what is hopefully the last time, under the HUD policy, if Jeb Bush lived in public housing, the actions of Noelle would not rise to the level of supporting an eviction proceeding against him.

  • Rick
13

Those are both very good questions. I think the OP’s mention of the Bushes detracts from what is an excellent question of public policy.

monstro’s point is well-taken here: how fair is it to remove someone from their home based on the criminal action of another, over whom he had no real control? How is an innocent apartment dweller going to know if their guest has drugs secreted on his person? Does it serve a valid public policy end to evict such an innocent?

On the other hand, when public housing is occupied by a tenant who gives shut-eye connivance to the drug-dealing and use of his roommate, doesn’t it make sense to evict?

How do we meaningfully distinguish between the two?

I would argue that one way is what we’re doing now: impose a regulation that permits eviction for even the slightest transgression, and then exercise reasonable discretion in applying it.

Of course, that leaves you open to abuses, when “reasonable discretion” becomes unreasonable letter-of-the-law application.

Is there a better way?

  • Rick
14

Why do I need a cite?

Because the OP stated or implied that it is unfair to evict poor people from subsidized housing under circumstances similar to those of Jeb and Noelle Bush.

I would agree. Now you need to prove that this really happens.

None of the examples cited in your Salon article match the relevant circumstances. Noelle Bush is a legal adult, does not live with the governor, the governor’s mansion is not subsidized housing, and the drug use did not occur on or near the premises.

So I need proof that some significant number of people were evicted because their adult daughters were smoking crack while in rehab in a different part of town.

The purpose of the drug eviction law was to motivate people to eliminate drug use in areas, and for people, under their control. If it is being applied unfairly, by all means point that out. If not, then I for one support the law, in light of the positive benefits in the reduction of drug abuse and other crimes which even the Salon article admitted had been brought about.

If it is no more than a matter of the matriarch of some welfare dynasty whining that HUD won’t let her crack whore grand-daughter run a drugs-for-sex business out of the bedroom for which my tax dollars pay, well boo hoo hoo.

Regards,
Shodan

15

Um, but isn’t the whole debate here whether or not it’s fair/right/effective/whatever to evict someone for the actions of others, even if all the criteria of the law are met?

How much control do you have over someone when they may be just hanging out in front of your place?

For instance, you invite a friend over to watch TV. Your friend decides to order a pizza and while he waits for it to come, he decides to light one up in the parking lot. If your friend were caught, YOU would be liable for eviction since it meets every one of the criterion described in the law.

So I’m guessing you think this is OK since your friend is associated with you and was technically under your control?

Um, I thought it was clear by the parentheses that I was giving my own opinion, not an argument or assertion. And I provided the cites that Shodan requested. So I don’t see the meaningfulness of your comment.

I would defy you to read the article I linked to.

I believe the law itself is unfair.

But I believe if the law is to be implemented, it should be used uniformly. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance, right?

The governer’s house is not a project, but it’s public housing since it was purchased and is maintained through the tax base of Florida. If this governer’s house isn’t public housing, I wish someone would explain how it is different and why the One Strike Law shouldn’t apply.

But I don’t that’s how “we” are doing it now. Did you not read the article I linked to?

Well, if the law is on the books and is deemed by permissable by the Supreme Court, it seems like we needn’t even have to show that poor people are being evicted to justify the eviction of Jeb Bush. If the case fits, you can evict, no?

First point, it doesn’t matter that she’s an adult. If she were visiting her dad as she was the last time she was arrested (stoned, carrying drugs), her being a legal adult wouldn’t save her father from being evicted if he lived in a project

Second point, it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t live in the mansion. She could be visiting for five minutes and he could still be evicted.

Third point, it is public housing. It belongs to the state. It’s state property. How does that make it any different than a housing project?

Fourth point, so if she had been caught with crack in her shoes while visiting the governor’s mansion, you would agree that Bush should be evicted?

I don’t think Bush should be evicted. But I wish people would see the double standard here.

16

Monstro, The governors mansion is not subsidized housing. He is not receiving a welfare benefit by living there.

Your analogy is wrong.

HUD can kick a person out of the projects for any reason, because the tenants do not own their housing/apartments. In fact, they are receiving a gift from the taxpayers.

Staying in the Governors Mansion, on the other hand, is part of the compensation package of the Governor. While some may say that he doesn’t need such a large place to live, nonetheless it is one of the perks of the job.

17

You still haven’t explained the fundamental difference between receiving a project unit from the taxpayers and receiving a mansion from the taxpayers, though. In my eyes, both are “gifts”. One could even argue that the mansion is the nicer of the two “gifts” and therefore higher standards–rather than lower–should be set for its occupants.

18

OK, but the OP has nothing to do with this. Is it fair to blame Jeb Bush because his daughter is an addict? No, if the crimes her addiction leads her to commit happened elsewhere and Noelle is not in any sense under his control . Would it be fair to blame some welfare recipient under the same circumstances? No. When has this ever happened?

I read the article. None of the cases cited match the relevant circumstances.

None of the people were actually evicted when the article was published, and all the drug users involved were either minor children living on the premises, or the drug use occurred on the premises, or in some other way the tenant should have prevented the drug use, but did not.

Or am I the only one who gets the feeling that there might be more to the story than Salon is willing to admit?

I’m guessing that Salon is trying to make it seem that the general rule of thumb is “Your son and his best friend sparked up a doobie on the corner, so the hardworking single mom struggling to better herself has to go and sleep at the bus station”. Call me suspicious, but I need a little better evidence than the partial descriptions as published in a left-wing magazine with an agenda. Methinks if they could have come up with some more outrageous examples, they would have. But this is the best they could do.

And it isn’t very outrageous, at least to this hard-hearted conservative who is more likely to growl “why don’t these people control their children” than to coo “oh, the poor thing - just because her son is dealing crack in the projects”.

[Obligatory conservative rant, admittedly off-topic] If you live in public housing, where the hell do you get money for pizza and drugs?
[/Obligatory conservative rant, admittedly off-topic]

Don’t know the law. Morally, no, you should not be evicted. Do you have any instances in which people were evicted under the same circumstances as you posit?

First counter-point - if he knew she was holding, and did nothing about it, yes. If he didn’t, no.

Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse. IF he knew or should have known about it, AND it happened on or near the premises, and he did nothing, yes. If not, no.

Third counter-point, also previously made. Subsidized housing is a charitable benefit, for which society receives nothing in return. Use of the governor’s mansion is part of the compensation Jeb receives for his job as governor.

By your logic, the salary paid to some employee of the Florida DMV is a charitable donation.

It’s the difference between a wage and a gift. Wages are part of a contract - I do the work, you hand over the money (or the housing allowance, or the use of the company car, or whatever). Gifts are charity. I have to pay you the wage; I don’t have to give you the gift.

Same as counterpoints one and two. If we had some reasonable expectation that Bush had some kind of control over drug use in the mansion, and did nothing about it, he should be impeached. We don’t, and he shouldn’t.

Don’t see any. If drugs are being dealt and used, and you turn a blind eye, out you go. It is unfair to the other, law-abiding tenants to keep people around who will turn what ought to be decent housing into a drug sewer.

I would certainly agree that drugs and alcohol are a primary cause of homelessness. But in this case, better a few should be homeless than that many should not be safe in their apartments.

Regards,
Shodan