STRIKE EVICTION POLICY

Strike eviction policy

Strike eviction policy

Introduction

Any federal policy that will result in the eviction of grandmothers wearing hooded and community activists well the meaning of public housing is required to obtain the criticisms of investigative journalists and public housing residents alike (Bratt, 1989).

Discussion and Analysis

In 1996, President Clinton announced in his State of the Union that "[c] enal gang members and drug dealers are destroying the lives of decent tenants. From now on, the rule for residents who commit crimes and pedal drug [sic] should be a strike and you're out. "What was the scope of national policy statement of the President to extend the provision of the same" decent tenants, "the President intended to protect?

Popular criticism of this provision has not been focused on the notion of eviction for criminal activity. In a 1995 national survey, 88% of African American adults surveyed agreed that people living in public housing should be evicted if they are convicted of possession and sale of illegal products drugs. Accordingly, the accounts of the media are punctuated with expressions of support for the tenant "ordered a federal policy those automatic calls for the eviction of tenants who commit crimes." In this sense, the policy of a strike appears to enjoy a broad base of support becomes critical when tenants are evicted for "other crimes" or for criminal third activity. Section 966.4 is constructed in such a way that leads to one of three possible circumstances for the eviction of others. First, the criminal activity of a person under "control" of a tenant may result in the eviction of a tenant (Freedman, 1968).

The legal structure suggests that a person need not be a family member or guest to be under control of a tenant. For example, the Housing Authority of San Francisco was an eviction notice in Ann Greene "because his son is 38 years old, Ladell Greene, was charged with drug possession about four blocks from the apartment complex," although not live with her, and did not visit.

Similarly, in Chavez against the Housing Authority of El Paso, Elfid Chavez was ousted after his son allegedly threatened two security guards of the housing project. Mrs. Chavez's son was not a family member or a guest at the time he allegedly committed this criminal act, but public housing authorities considered to be in control of his mother. While family relationships between tenants and criminal agents may be sufficient to establish the necessary "control" that can trigger the eviction, some courts may require that the relationship consists of more than blood ties.

PHA have also employed a strike policy to evict households across the criminal activity of a member of the rebellious house, on the argument that section 966.4 triggers a termination of the lease completely, and not just deport people for their own criminal behavior. For example, in Charlotte v. Patterson Housing Authority, the Authority moved to evict Roxieanne Patterson and his two daughters of the alleged criminal conduct of a third child that appears on the ...