Is it just me, or does this wording seem suspicious? There’s a whole lot of room between “mere accusation” and “criminal conviction”, and I can’t help but wonder if this just means that there’s a lower standard of proof in a eviction case than in a criminal case.
Ok, Binarydrone, how about a truce? I got annoyed because I felt like you were claiming to be more of an expert than you were. I didn’t think you were interested in screwing the poor, only that you were denying the extent of the problem of unfair evictions. It would be nice to have some stats instead of anecdotes, but in any case, if you’re the person being thrown out on the street without good cause it’s one unfair eviction too many.
There’s definitely a lower standard of proof. Let’s see if I can explain this in a nutshell without screwing it up… The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process before the government takes away your life, liberty, or property. Life and liberty are considered more fundamental rights than property, so the government has a higher burden to prove before taking those away. Generally, you don’t have any Constitutional right to live in a certain place, but public housing is considered almost as an entitlement, i.e. something that belongs to you that the government can’t take away with giving you some sort of hearing.
'Kay, Truce.
There are a couple of things, however, that I would like to see my fellow dopers address.
I am more than willing to concede that the government is unfair and capricious. In my experience, this is not a shocking revelation. What I do not understand, in the context of HUD, is why.
Let us assume that tenants are being unfairly evicted from HUD subsidized properties (some pretty compelling evidence on that front). Who stands to gain anything by this?
My line of reasoning is as follows: The property owners/managers have nothing to gain. Save for in the most rare cases, it is not permissible for them to switch a subsidized unit over to a market rate unit. For one thing, these properties are under contract and must remain subsidized. For another (and this would be for the so-called 80/20 buildings) even if one is allowed to rent a particular unit at market rate, they are notoriously difficult to fill. Generally, the demographic that can pay market rates will not choose to live in a HUD building.
From the HUD point of view, I do not see a motive either. It is not as if, by encouraging vacancies (even long term vacancies) HUD is saving any money. One of the interesting things about HUD subsidy is the vacancy loss claim, where a landlord may continue to collect for an empty unit.
That leave race/class issue, which I am not sure that I can see applies here as the whole point of a HUD project is to serve the disadvantaged.
Any thoughts?
chula
My question may not have been clear. I believe that the author’s choice of words was misleading at best. The author claimed people were being evicted on “mere accusations”. There’s a difference between a “mere accusation”, and an accusation for which there is too little proof for a criminal conviction,but enough to meet the burden of proof in an eviction case.
Binarydrone
I don’t know much about HUD or Section 8 housing, but the New YorK City Housing Authority has similar , possibly less extensive provisions. (I think it only applies to drug-related crimes committed in a housing project. People who have actually been convicted of committing any crime in a housing project are not permitted to live in a project ,and I believe the tenant can be evicted for allowing such a person to live with them.) I can tell you who benefits from that. The tenants who aren’t criminals, don’t allow criminals to live with them and don’t particularly want them living in the apartment next door or hanging out in the lobby. Regarding the vacancies, will there be any long -term vacancies? I don’t know about other places,but in NYC, there’s a 200,000 name waiting list for Section 8
As far as the evictions being unfair, I don’t really see much evidence one way or the other in the three articles on the web site. Pearlie Rucker’s granddaughter had drugs three blocks away,but the article doesn’t say if Rucker was aware of her drug use before that arrest, so it’s hard to say if the eviction was fair or not. Another tenant had been warned twice about illegal activity, so it seems that tenant was aware of it.There aren’t any details about the other two cases.
Doreen
The first people who favor the laws the most would be the other people living in the projects. For years there was a no tolerance policy among the other tenants, and its finally spilled over to the new laws, as well as it should be.
I think that it’s interesting that in the original link provided by ImInvisible, there was a parallel drawn between the situations of the Bush family and the Rucker family. Both are living in taxpayer-funded housing, and both have encountered drug problems with children. While nobody is suggesting that Sen. or Pres. Bush should be evicted from their housing, the question is, why not?
And why are people who recieve tax-exemptions/rebates on the purchase of a house (yet another form of ‘welfare’) not subject to the same restrictions upon their lives that Pearlie Rucker has experienced?
THESE are, IMHO, the REAL issues to be discussed here, not whether Pearlie knew or didn’t know about her granddaughters drug use. As far as the ‘one strike’ law stands, it appears that she has violated it. But why is there appparently one law for the rich and one for the poor?
I have a friend who gets a check from the IRS every year for around $3000 because of tax exemptions - earned income credit due to his having lots of kids. Now, this isn’t $3000 he paid in income tax that they are giving back to him - he’s an alcoholic that can’t hold a job, I’d be surprised if he made much more than $3000 in a year.
It’s quite possible for someone to have more tax exemptions than they paid in taxes, and in those cases they get money which effectively came out of the pockets of other taxpayers.
This debate has parrallels to the fact that you cannot recieve federal finacial aid for college if you have a drug conviction.
Is it right for the government to demand fairly unrelated requirements in order to recieve it’s services? Is it fair that these requirements are usually tied to government services that are used largely by the poor?
I would say no. A lease is a lease. A drug conviction is a drug conviction. I know of no private landlords that will evict you on suspicion of drug use, or other "fuzzy area’ deals. Landlords are concerned with you paying your rent and not trashing the place up…and as long as drug use isn’t causeing you to not pay your rent and to trash the place up, I don’t think it really has too much to do with the landlord. When the government acts as a landlord, they should act somewhat similerly to private landlords.
There are pefectly good penalties for drug use that apply to everyone, not just the poor. I don’t think we need to add more arbitrary penalties, that only affect a certain portion of the population, just for the heck of it.
Beyond that, what good is it going to do to have homeless druggies, except making it harder for those druggies to get a job, raise their families and begin leading productive lives?
Re: Pearlie’s daughter who had an intellectual disability…I was talking to a shrink about this particular issue and he noted that it is VERY, VERY common for people with an intellectual or mental illness to use drugs to self-medicate. As a sizeable proportion of clients of housing programs would come into this category, it is a wonder that MORE have not had eviction notices served upon them.
Perhaps more funding for the treatment of mental illness instead of inhumane punishments for those least able to defend themselves could be in order.
And we call ourselves a civilized society?
A pox on your “One Strike” policy and all who administer it!
Gee, I’m glad I don’t live there.
It’s also not uncommon for senior citizens to deal drugs. Just because someone is 70 and claims that the drugs found in their apartment belonged to their kids doesn’t mean they are innocent.
Certainly Badtz Maru, ANYBODY can use or deal drugs. Age, social-class, race or ethnicity don’t make any real difference. However, it seems that the “One Strike” ruling inflicts punishment (loss of housing) even when the leasee has not been convicted of a crime.
That just seems grossly unfair.
And even if Pearlie (or any of the others affected) HAD used or dealt the drugs themselves, shouldn’t those same punishments be meted out to ANYBODY who recieves any sort of govt. assistance…whether it be traditionally ‘welfare’ based, or one of the more hidden welfare measures like housing loan tax exemptions?
This case is a bloody CLASSIC example of the way the community and the govt. itself scapegoats and blames the poor for ‘creating’ social problems.
The way some of the posters here have responded, you would think that being poor and/or an addict was a barrel of laughs, and something that everybody aspires to! It’s not really a lifestyle of ‘choice’ y’know.
The problem with this argument is that Ms. Rucker tried to follow the rules, and is being evicted anyway.
What was she supposed to do?
YEAH! I know compassion can’t be regulated but geez…I wonder how many of these people who are so angry at the mentally ill and poor go to church every Sunday and praise God for His compassion.
Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful responses to my original thread.
In case you haven’t heard, our Supreme Court unanimously decided this morning that the “one strike” policy is indeed constitutional and legal. If you’d like to read it, the opinion can be found here:
I still think it is grossly unfair on the facts of the lead case, but what do I know?
The law is consistent with a zero drug tolerance policy. In fact I think that the Bushes shoule get out of the White House if their daughters were caught using illegal drugs. As you can tell, I have a less than zero tolerance policy.
But capacitor, there are laws to deal with the issue of drug use/distribution in the US. Why, in this particular instance, has the govt. seen fit to institute more punitive measures (loss of housing etc)? And why targetted at the already disadvantaged?
So you would kick out the Bushes too…what about if EVERYONE who recieved ANY sort of financial advantage from the govt were to be subject to the same treatment? I think you would find that a) There would be more homeless people than people with a roof over their head, and
b) The law would soon be changed because the very vocal and powerful (and now on the streets) middle-classes would see this ruling for the ass it is! :rolleyes:
Pshaw! The Prez’s daughters do not reside with him in said “public housing.”
One reason is that, unlike the tax deductions I presume you’re referring to, public housing is limited. You taking a mortgage deduction affects me not at all. I still get to take mine. On the other hand, at least in some cities, there are waiting lists for public housing.If one person gets an apartment, someone else stays on the waiting list. I don’t have a terrible problem saying “if you can’t either keep your household members away from drug involvement or keep drug-involved people out of your household, we’ll give your apartment to someone who might do a better job.” I don’t like this particular rule, but just because I don’t think a truly innocent tenant, (one whose household member was arrested for a drug crime elsewhere and who had no reason to know of it) shouldn’t be evicted doesn’t mean that I think another tenant who let household members sell drugs out of the apartment should keep the apartment just because it wasn’t the tenant selling the drugs.
About the disadvantaged- I have to wonder, have any of the people who are totally against these evictions ever been in a housing project where drugs are rampant? The other tenants are disadvantaged, too. Don’t they have any rights?
I don’t think anyone aspires to the life of an addict, but that also doesn’t mean there’s no choice involved. In my professional life I’ve seen too many people blow off three or four intake appointments for drug programs,or last only a couple of weeks in an inpatient program and too many others keep the first appointment or finish an eighteen month inpatient program to think that there is no choice involved at all.You may not choose whether you end up addicted, but you chose to pick up and you choose how hard ( or if) you work at recovery.
Doreen
From the article linked in the OP (underlining mine):
**
So if one of the Bush daughters–visiting on spring break perhaps–had been caught lighting up in the White House, the Bushes would have been kicked out? I don’t think so.
If anything, Prez Bush should be evicted quicker than Pearlie Rucker, because she at least pays a subsidized rent on her property, whereas I can’t imagine George W. rolling up with his rent-book in hand every month to the landlords! His ‘residence’ is even more ‘welfare’ based than hers!
If you want an excellent analysis of the ‘Welfare State’ and how the hidden welfare expenditure sucks more out of the economy than the more obvious kinds, then read:
‘The Hidden Welfare State’ by Christopher Howard. He covers many areas including employer pensions, home mortgage interest rate deductions, tax credits and others as just other varieties of ‘welfare’ provision.
Except the targetted welfare recipient, the one who is subject to the most indecent effects of scapegoating and discrimination, is invariably the poor, the disadvantaged or the disabled person.
How about calling a spade a spade, or at least acknowledging that EVERYONE benefits from some sort of welfare provision in SOME way.