COURT BACKS EVICTIONS FOR GUEST, KIN DRUG USE UNAWARE FAMILIES COULD BE FORCED OUT OF HOMES.

Byline: Dana Bartholomew Staff Writer

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that public housing officials can evict families unaware of illegal drug use by a single relative or guest - a decision that delighted Los Angeles city housing leaders and dismayed some residents.

Justices, without dissent, agreed with a federal law that allows such agencies as the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles to boot tenants whose family members or guests used drugs on or off the premises.

The ruling was praised by local housing officials, who desire such eviction tools in order to keep their roughly 168,000 housing project and subsidized renters safe.

``It's good for the city, it's good for the residents of public housing, because we need to get rid of dangerous characters - and still show compassion for our other residents when necessary,'' said Lucille Loyce, assistant executive director of the Los Angeles housing authority.

The authority, she said, treats each drug incident on a case-by-case basis, often evicting the drug user while moving his or her family to another apartment. About 100 such tenants are evicted each year.

Tuesday's decision was decried by senior advocates and residents of federally assisted low-income housing who say innocent tenants will only suffer the consequence of the so-called war on drugs.

Whole families can now be summarily evicted, they say, because of an indiscretion by one member. Because of their poverty, residents say, they have few other places to go.

``I don't think it's right,'' said Maria Lara, 46, of San Fernando Gardens of Pacoima, who lives with her seven children in the only low-income housing development in the San Fernando Valley.

``Because I don't know why if my son is caught using drugs somewhere else, why the whole family should pay. He should pay for his own mistakes.''

Her daughter, Maria Lara, 22, agreed. Housing authorities should ``not kick little kids out in the street with nowhere to go.''

The primary losers Tuesday were four elderly tenants of Oakland public housing who had challenged the federal zero-tolerance drug policy after they got eviction notices.

One resident, 63-year-old Pearlie Rucker, was evicted when her mentally disabled daughter was caught with cocaine and a crack pipe three blocks from the family apartment.

Two residents were evicted when their grandsons were caught smoking marijuana in a project's parking lot. Another man was kicked out when a caregiver and two guests were found with cocaine in his apartment.

In each case, tenants said they were unaware of wrongdoing.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that the government, as a landlord, can evict tenants in order to provide safe, drug-free housing.

The ``one-strike'' provision allowing the government to evict unwitting tenants is part of a drug act passed by Congress in 1988 amid complaints about crime in public housing.

``Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who 'cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and their project,' '' Renquist writes, quoting the statute.

``It is not absurd that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of drug-related activity.''

The ruling, which overturns a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Oakland tenants, was watched by housing authorities and resident advocates from Maine to Hawaii.

The Los Angeles housing authority, the largest in the nation, has 15 projects with an estimated 28,000 residents. An estimated 140,000 residents live in 40,000 Section 8 subsidized homes.

Advocates for senior citizens estimate that 1.7 million seniors lead project family households - many of them clueless as to how to deal with drug-using family members.

``We're very disappointed in the decision,'' said Rochelle Bobroff, a staff attorney with the AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired People, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Oakland tenants.

``This isn't about whether or not the housing authority has the power to prevent drug dealing in a housing complex. It's about whether an innocent tenant can show they had nothing to do with the illegal drug activity and keep their home.''