Oakland Housing Authority Misuses One Strike Policy

LYNDA CARSON / Street Spirit v.8, n.5, May02

The low-income renters of public housing are under attack by extremists who insist that Congress has granted them unlimited power to evict the innocent.

During a blitz of nationwide media scrutiny, the spotlight focused upon the Oakland Housing Authority's attempt to evict four elderly innocent renters from their public housing rental units by using the notorious one strike policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the one strike policy adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and guaranteed absurd results such as the eviction of innocent renters from public housing.

In its zeal to further the cause of the war on drugs, an 8-0 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2002, declared that the Oakland Housing Authority had legal grounds to evict innocent renters for the alleged drug-related crimes of others, even though they had not participated themselves nor had any knowledge of the drug usage.

The Supreme Court decision means that public housing authorities across the United States can enforce this "zero tolerance" crackdown against all three million residents of public housing.

Leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had declared that the one strike policy was illegal, in January 2001. It did not take long for the Solicitor General to decide to petition the Supreme Court to review the case, and on May 24, 2001, the Bush Administration's Justice Department appealed the 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco that struck down the one strike policy in the case Rucker vs. Davis.

The war on drugs is being used to gain further leverage against the poor. The masterminds of the insidious one-strike policy have had their field day in the U.S. Supreme Court, and now have absolute power to intimidate low-income renters with the threat of eviction.

While sipping their champagne, the wealthy land barons of Wall Street plunder the world's resources by. any means necessary. Meanwhile, the low-income renters of public housing are under attack by extremists who insist that Congress has granted them unlimited power to evict the innocent, and make them homeless.

Four such elderly renters under attack who reside in Oakland fought a heated battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their legal support team spent thousands of hours doing research to prepare for the supreme showdown in Washington, D.C., and the skirmishes along the way. A contingent of 32 people set off from the Bay Area on the journey to the Supreme Court to defend the public housing renters from the zealots advocating for the right to evict entire families if a single guest is arrested for drugs. Many of the legal advocates paid their own way, including airfare and hotel bills, and remained for up to six days in Washington D.C., before the dust had settled and they finally made their way back home.

The Oakland-based Eviction Defense Center (EDC) led this valiant group of volunteers to the front lines of the war on drugs being fought in public housing across the nation. EDC Director Anne Omura coolly kept everything on track in this massive undertaking to defend low-income Oakland renters from evictions.

At present. the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) appears to be trying its best to get out from under all of the bad press it has received over its attempt to evict the innocent, and has stated that three of the four renters may remain in their housing, for now. But it also appears that the OHA may continue in its attempt to dump disabled, 78-year-old Herman Walker onto the streets.

The OHA says that it is still reviewing his case, and claims that the occupancy of the 78-year-old, wheelchair-bound Walker in one of their downtown properties continues to pose a threat to the other renters in the building. The tenants' attorneys say that Walker is under surveillance. and that the OHA may fear that they will have to pick up the legal tab if Walker overturns his eviction.

The Eviction Defense Center's Anne Omura states that Walker cannot be evicted because of a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and that the eviction process is frozen in place until the case returns to the federal district court. If the district court's ruling on the disability argument favors Walker, the OHA may be liable for his attorney fees.

One might think that these four elderly renters must be real desperadoes for the Oakland Housing Authority to spend such a fortune in legal bills to push this one strike policy all the way to the Supreme Court. Or, one might consider that there may be more going on than meets the eye. The four evictees are all elderly citizens

who had not been charged with any criminal activities before the eviction proceedings took place. All four are African Americans. They have resided in public housing for many years, and three of them are elderly women caring for extended families of children and grandchildren.

Whatever the hype may be, it does not appear that these four elderly citizens are a threat to anyone, nor do they appear to be desperadoes who should have been dragged kicking and screaming all the way to the Supreme Court because they are a threat to the United States of America.

Willie Lee, 71, and Barbara Hill, 63, faced eviction because their grandchildren allegedly were found to be in possession of marijuana in the parking lot of their housing complex. Herman Walker faces eviction because his caretaker allegedly got caught with a crack pipe. Pearlie Rucker faced eviction proceedings because her daughter allegedly was found to be in possession of cocaine three blocks away from her apartment building.

These four innocent victims faced eviction as the result of the war on drugs. Deprived of their rights to defend themselves from unjust evictions, these innocent tenants, along with millions of others across the nation, may now be evicted because of who they know instead of what they have done. This is the absurd result of the erosion of individual rights and the collateral damage being inflicted upon the population due to the war on drugs. This one strike policy ruling immediately affects three million renters across the nation, and there's no telling what the disastrous results may be in the future for others caught up in the schemes of those wielding absolute power to evict the innocent.

The one strike policy was adopted by HUD in 1991. In implementing the policy, HUD is working with the Department of Justice and the FBI, while actively seeking the full cooperation of local judges and law enforcement officials to

implement or augment the new policy. Sources say that HUD is also working with the FBI to target the 122 largest PHAs (Public Housing Authorities) for full implementation of its one strike policy. In essence, PHAs gain access to criminal records through the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) databases, allowing them to cross-reference databanks and compare them with the clients listed on their own databases. The NCIC database is managed by the Department of Justice.

Despite all of this technology and access to databases, sources say that the PHAs really depend upon snitches to keep them informed as to who is doing what in the housing projects. The blatant unfairness of the one strike policy is shown by the fact that it only applies to renters, and not to the landlords who may provide housing for subsidized Section 8 renters affected by the one strike policy ruling.

Several strategies to defend innocent renters from the draconian results of the one strike policy are being considered. The first option available would be to organize public housing renters into a .

massive force that would refuse to sign the annual lease utilized by the PHAs to implement the one strike policy.

Local attorney John Murcko, who was part of the legal team defending the innocent renters from eviction, says that many public housing tenants in Los Angeles refused to sign the annual lease being used to threaten them with the one strike policy. Murcko believes that evictions become costly when fought by the renters, and that the budgets of local PHAs do not provide enough dollars for them to hire enough attorneys to evict large masses of people at the same time.

Furthermore, Murcko states that the PHAs are not required to enforce the one strike policy, but were. offered extra money allotted by HUD as an incentive if they enforced it. Murcko adds that since 9/11, the Bush Administration has dried up those funds and shifted them into the war effort, leaving the OHA with less monetary incentive to evict.

To devise strategies to fight the one strike policy in public housing, it may help to clarify. how it is defined and implement-. ed. HUD's zero tolerance policy requires PHAs to utilize leases that provide that "any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants, or any drug-related criminal activity on or off of the premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy."

The tragic results of the implementation of the one strike policy have been the creation of a police-state atmosphere for residents of public housing, who may be virtually under surveillance at all times. The overzealous governmental entities misusing the one strike policy have misinterpreted the intent of Congress's antidrug legislation. The insidious abuse of the policy results in elderly people being evicted because of who they know rather than what they may .have done.

Attorney Simpich believes that to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the one strike policy, Congress needs to rewrite the anti-drug legislation in such a way that innocent victims in public housing may defend themselves from governmental agencies acting as if they have absolute power to evict the innocent.

As bleak as it may appear for some renters, hope is alive and well. In a recent interview, Simpich explained how local anti-eviction activists have come up with a plan to help renters seek protection from evictions by getting under the umbrella of the retaliation laws that may be used to shield them for extended periods of time during their tenancy. He described a plan to promote the state law known as the Repair and Deduct Remedy, and to educate renters on a massive scale as to how they may implement it.

The anti-eviction activists provide a panel of free attorneys for advice, or legal representation if needed, to those that use the Repair And Deduct Self-Help Informational Packet that they have created. (To obtain this packet, people are being urged to call (800) 806-8111 for details.) Local activists are very excited by this approach to organizing renters.

The Repair and Deduct Remedy [Civil Code Section 1942], allows renters to address serious habitability defects in their buildings. The remedy allows renters to deduct two months of rental payments in a one-year period, to be used for repairs that are covered by the implied warranty of habitability. In essence, a renter may use a one-month rent payment twice a year to pay for needed repairs, and then deduct it from their monthly rental payments.

Renters are protected by the laws of retaliation when they use the Repair and Deduct Remedy, and landlords are not allowed to raise the rents or evict during the protected periods. This remedy can legally be used as a means to keep renters protected by laws against retaliation for extended periods of time, and a panel of free attorneys are donating their time to assist those willing to use the above-mentioned packet to utilize the Repair and Deduct Remedy.

Ira Jacobowitz, who spent six days in Washington, D.C.. as part of the contingent to defend renters from the one strike policy, states that he was not surprised by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He says that the case. was really about the fundamental fairness needed to protect all of the people in this country, whether they are rich or poor - and it was an unfortunate decision against the poor.

The decision was flat-out wrong, says Jacobowitz. If it looks wrong, feels wrong and smells wrong, it is wrong. he says with strong conviction. This Supreme Court has no consideration for the poor, and it is all about power, Jacobowitz adds.

The Supreme Court must feel that they are the last word and will tell the whole world what is the lava, says Jacobowitz. The Supreme Court seized the power to do anything they want to complete the total takeover. of the world's resources for the super-rich. The left is to weak to fight back, he says.

As an example, Jacobowitz pointed out that many- liberals waited in silence until after the Supreme Court ruled to uphold the constitutionality of the one strike policy before they spoke out against it. Rather than using their voices to help persuade the Supreme Court to make the right decision, many on the left waited until they felt it was safe to speak up; and by then the wrong decision was already made, and it was too late.

Jacobowitz says that he cannot foresee any change in the system that will come along to make things right; but says that if a change could be enacted in U.S. laws to establish a defense to protect the innocent from the abuse of the rich and powerful, it would go a long way to bring an end to the injustice being done.

The one strike policy has become the law of the land, and it is up to the people of the United States to rise up in rebellion against this most unjust law. Someday. it just might be your own grandmother being tossed out onto the streets because of who she knows rather than what she may have done.

Street Spirit is a publication of the American Field Service Committee. The vendor program is operated by the Berkeley Emergency Food and Housing Project. Contact: Terry Messman, Street Spirit, 65 Ninth St., San Francisco, CA 94103-1401. Ph: 415-565-0201 Fax: 415-565-0204 spirit@afsc.org