Tuesday.
Another eight hours chock full of Postal goodness. Or something.

A news brief during Talk of the Nation, and expounded upon during All Things Considered, was about a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a lower court ruling concerning public housing.

“The U. S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal government’s ‘zero tolerance’ drug policy in public housing. The policy allows an entire household to be evicted if a single member is involved in drug activity, on or off the premises even if no other member of the household knew about it.”

A federal appeals court intervened, to block the open convictions, ruling that Congress did not intend to evict innocent tenants; but today, the Supreme Court reversed that decision unanimously and reinstated the eviction orders. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist said “The unambiguous language of the law at issue in this case clearly allows the evictions regardless of what the tenant knew.” The Chief Justice also noted that the tenants signed leases knowing those were the terms. Said Rehnquist: “It’s not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of the drug activity. Such ‘no fault’ eviction is common under normal landlord-tenant law and practice. And here,” said Rehnquist, “regardless of what a tenant knows, if a household member uses drugs, it means that the tenant is unable to control a situation that could jeopardize the health and safety of other tenants.”

Reaction to the decision was swift: Paul Renny, represented the tenants in the Supreme Court, made the following comment: “If you’re poor and drugs are involved, anything goes. It’s a war where the poor are ‘collateral damage.’ ” Renny said that this ruling illustrates a double standard: “Governor Bush’s daughter is charged and convicted of some kind of a drug violation down in Florida and nobody is suggesting that you should take away his mortgage exemption or any other federal benefit that he may have because his daughter committed a drug violation.”

But, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez disputes that there is a double standard: “This is the policy that has had bipartisan support. This is the policy that was initiated under the Clinton administration. It is the policy that has, now, the unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court Ruling should be an occasion for celebration by most people in public housing. I want to choose to focus on the families that are now… you know, the single mother who’s trying to raise kids, the grandmother who is trying to make… do right by her youngsters who live with her… and that are trying to do right the right thing by the young people who live in public housing. Those are the people who have been victimized by the people involved in drugs that now have an opportunity to maybe rid their places of the people who use drugs.

But, tenant advocates, like Jim Growe (sp.) of the National Housing Law Project, say the consequence of today’s ruling will be more families out on the streets. And, he maintains that housing projects will not be safer because tenants will be afraid to seek help for a family member with a drug problem. “So, it’s going to discourage people who need help from seeking help because the consequence of seeking help is eviction.”

Martinez: “That’s wrong, because the consequence is not automatic. The people who work in public housing are compassionate people who are people who deal with people in poverty, who know that they’re there to serve them. And if someone comes and seeks help… with a problem, they’re going to be on their side and seek to help them.”¹

Listen to the All Things Considered segment.
Read the Washington Post article about this.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not sure what to make of this. I can see both sides’ views of the issue, but this is a case that does not allow for ‘grey areas,’ by definition of its wording and of the subsequent ruling. *sigh* You would think that there would be a way to establish a common foundation from which something (that at least seems) more equitable could be established. Maybe it’s just me; I don’t know… Please feel free to throw in your 2¢ (or more) and share your thoughts on the matter.

On the lighter side….
A group of us were talking during a break when someone suggested that Dee do something (I forget ‘what.’). Dee asked what would he get out of the deal. I told him that I would give him a Golden Shovel Award.

Ah, yes, the Golden Shovel Award. I first became aware of this in my high school Physics/Chemistry class (kind of like the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup® of science classes – part physics, part chemistry, all good). Our teacher, Dr. Rosenblatt, would award Golden Shovels to students who gave… um… “creative” answers on tests or almost believably BS’ed their way through parts of an essay or a report. You would know that you had been honored with one by the small, hand-drawn picture of a ‘glowing’ shovel in the margin of your paper. I haven’t thought about the Golden Shovel in years…

Quotes of the Day:

  • Dee: “Bend. Wince.”
  • Harry Solomon (3rd Rock From the Sun):
    • To Tommy, after seeing how women reacted to Officer Don’s new police motorcycle: “Well, little buddy, hot mamas love the machine!”
    • To Dick, after hearing Dick’s plan to get back at his rival, Professor Strudwick, by sleeping with his wife (and Tommy’s girlfriend’s mother): “Pave the way for the little guy, Caligula!”
      Hmm. This almost made me want to break out my Caligula DVD…
  • Peggy Hill: “What the..?!?! Cotton! You gave him a loaded gun?!”
    Cotton Hill: “Well, you don’t give a toy without batteries!”

And that’s going to wrap it up for tonight. Join us tomorrow for more exciting LJ action… Same LJ channel! Same LJ time!

Peace.

¹ From the All Things Considered website, RealAudio content.