Hundreds
of Chicago Housing Authority residents displeased with the notion of being
forcibly drug tested and facing eviction if family members of tenants are
accused of a crime, vented their anger and frustration over the proposed
changes in housing policy.
Standing
in the middle of a crowded assembly hall June 2 at the Charles A. Hayes Family
Investment Center, 4859 S. Wabash Ave., Princeton Village resident Shak Levi
told a panel of CHA representatives that requiring tenants to undergo drug
tests was a direct violation of 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search as seizure.
“The
Supreme Court has held that suspicion less drug testing by the government is an
unreasonable search violation,” Levi read from a prepared statement that he
only had an allotted time of two minutes to read. “Just because the government
has a stereotypical view or assumes a person more than likely will do drugs if
they move inside public housing and possibly commit a crime does not pass
constitutional mustard of not being suspect.”
Changes
to the policy were part of several changes to the Admissions and Continued
Occupancy Policy initiated by CHA President Jordan Lewis who said the proposals
- not yet approved - would curb crime and other illegal activity which
endangers public housing residents.
“Everyone
has the right to a safe and drug-free environment,” Lewis explained to the
crowd, which at times grew boisterous and angry during the public forum. “We're
just trying to find a balance.”
CHA
officials said tenants 18years old or older living or applying for housing will
be required to take a drug test yearly. If a unit member were to fail that test
the individual could be evicted.
A drug
testing mandate for tenants is currently operating at 18 of the 45 mixed-income
public communities in Chicago, officials said.
Many
concerned residents like Ranoule Tatum, who has run for state representative of
the 26th District four times, demanded CHA officials consult an independent
third party to determine whether low income residents were more likely to use
drugs than those who lived in affluent areas of the city.
“I want
to see research that shows a correlation between low income users of drugs with
people with higher incomes,” said Tatum, who promised to seek legal action
against the CHA if the measure is approved. “This is total disrespect and is a
total disregard of the rights of people.”
Residents
also were also unhappy with the possible elimination of the innocent tenant
defense in regards to CHA evictions in the event a drug-related or violent
crime is committed by a tenant's relative or temporary guest without the
knowledge of that person.
Lowden
Homes tenant and head of the Central Advisory Council Myra King described the
possible changes to lease regulations as “unfair and cruel.”
“You have
to be compassionate about the decisions you make,” King chided the CHA panel.
“Why come at us? Why pinpoint us?”
In 2002,
the U.S. Supreme Court found the eviction practice valid, even though entire households
were being evicted for the acts of one person, even a guest who brought drugs
into the unit without the resident's knowledge However, residents may raise as
a claim that they did not know about the alleged criminal activity.
In
January, the Defender reported the plight of Patricia Jordan, 52, who was in
court at the time fighting an eviction order. Her 21-year-old son, who lived
with her in CHA’s Lake Parc Place housing community, plead guilty to a felony
gun charge after being arrested away from CHA property in September for
possession of an illegal gun. The arrest put Jordan in violation of the
agency's Criminal Activity Eviction policy which allows CHA to evict an entire
household if a household member is arrested for certain crimes. CHA had
previously told the mother that her other son could not reside with her in her
public housing unit because he was deemed “a trouble maker,” she explained.
Lawyers
who assist public housing tenants against CHA know the well the battle tenants
face.
“The CHA
will likely dismiss our concerns and argue that the innocent tenant defense is
unnecessary because CHA exercises its discretion to consider all the
circumstances of the case before filing an eviction action,” said Legal
Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago attorney Elizabeth Rosenthal.
“However, this argument is not supported by the facts.”
Rosenthal
said CHA has had a history of instructing its property managers to terminate a
resident's lease whenever it receives notice that someone has been arrested
without taking into account possible mitigating circumstances.
The
burden is on the resident to establish the defense at a trial as residents have
no grievance rights for criminal activity termination as they do for other
adverse actions, she said.
If the
CHA proposal is accepted by the board of directors, it will then need final
approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“I don't
want to sign my rights away,” said Trumbull Park resident Joanne Harris.
Copyright
2011 Chicago Defender
