Monday night's meeting of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority's (ARHA) Board of Commissioners brought into local perspective a policy of holding residents responsible for the actions of their adult children.
That axiom came home to ARHA's Board in the form of Frances Thomas, an eight-year ARHA resident, who now faces eviction due to the actions of her adult son, Lamont, in November 2006. He was arrested on drug charges subjecting her to ARHA's "One Strike" rule since he was a signator to the lease and co-resident.
That rule clearly states that any resident, either on the lease or as a member of the household, that violates ARHA's zero tolerance policy with respect to violations of lease terms pertaining to criminal activity, shall be subject to eviction. Plus, ARHA takes it one step further, that ignorance of such criminal activity by other family members is no excuse or mitigating factor to enforcement.
"Our ‘One Strike’ policy is for the benefit of all our residents. They need to be assured that they are residing in a safe environment. If we begin to make exceptions based on individual circumstances it will initiate a situation where we could lose control over that safety factor for the rest of our residents," said ARHA Vice Chair Carlyle C. "Connie" Ring Jr., after the Board's decision, made in executive session, to uphold their original eviction decision.
AT THE OUTSET of Monday night's meeting, Thomas appealed to the Board to reverse that decision based on her health disability and the fact that her son, who pleaded guilty to cocaine possession, was now off the lease and no longer living with her. His arrest took place off ARHA property.
Prior to the drug incident, Thomas had requested that she be moved from her unit at 1005 Montgomery St. to a single story unit due to her disabilities and inability to climb stairs. "My bedroom and bathroom are upstairs and for the last couple of years I have had to use a portable toilet and sleep on the sofa because I can't manage the stairs," she told the Board in a written statement.
That request was made by her and her therapist to Dwight Wichert, her ARHA case worker, but was never answered, according to her statement to the Board. She had also requested that Wichert remove her son from the lease after his arrest. There was no response by Wichert to that request either until she made a personal visit to his office to be recertified as a tenant in June, according to her statement. That is when she learned of her impending eviction.
ARHA subsequently brought an action in Alexandria Circuit Court to terminate her housing and housing subsidy under the "One Strike" rule. Their decision was upheld by Judge John Kloch in issuing a Summary Judgement on Aug. 22. Reportedly, one of the influencing factors was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that authorizes public housing tenants to be evicted as a result of criminal actions of others in their household.
"In rendering his decision, Judge Kloch indicated that one of the factors he took into consideration was ARHA's consistency in enforcing their One Strike principle. If we had wavered on a case by case basis he stressed he might have been less likely to uphold this decision for eviction," Ring said.
"That fact figured significantly in our deliberations in executive session. Even so, it was not an easy decision," he said.
That was buttressed by ARHA Commissioner Carter Flemming. "This was a very difficult decision, but we have an obligation to all our tenants. Public housing is their community and they have a right to feel safe in that community," she said.
"Once we start down that slope of making exceptions, even though this case is very emotionally wrenching, there will be no end to it. Who couldn't plead ignorance that they were not aware their son or daughter was involved with drugs if they thought that would help them," Flemming said.
The Board's decision to stick with the eviction was unanimous. Only Commissioner Leslie Hagan was absent from the meeting and executive session.
IN PLEADING Thomas' case, Ronald V. Minionis, managing attorney, Legal Services of Northern Virginia, noted that the then Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mel Martinez, in a letter dated April 16, 2002, to public housing authorities nationwide, had counseled that they "be guided by compassion and common sense" in applying the U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"Specifically, the Supreme Court ... upheld the household responsibility clause, which holds tenants responsible when a member of the household or guest engages in drug related activity," Martinez wrote.
"The enforcement of this clause is left to the discretion of each public housing agency; however, I would like to urge you, as public housing administrators, to be guided by compassion and common sense in responding to cases involving the use of illegal drugs. Consider the seriousness of the offense and how it might impact other family members," he cautioned.
"Eviction should be the last option explored, after all others have been exhausted. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted, "This statute does not require the eviction of any tenant who violated the lease provision. Instead, it entrusts that decision to the local public housing authorities," Martinez stated.
He acknowledged, "The household responsibility clause provides public housing authorities with a strong tool ... But as a tool, it should be applied responsibly. Applying it rigidly could generate more harm than good."
In the case of Frances Thomas that could well be the case. As noted by Minionis in a letter to Roy Priest, interim executive director, ARHA, dated Aug. 9, Thomas is a 53-year--old woman who "among other things, suffers from major depressive disorder, anxiety, panic attacks, congestive heart failure, has had one hip replacement, needs another and has severe arthritis."
SHE HAS BEEN determined disabled by the Social Security Administration. Her total monthly income consists of a disability payment of $623 plus $27 in food stamps. "One cannot live in Northern Virginia and pay rent, utilities, medical costs and incidentals on $650 a month," Minionis stated.
"Terminating Ms. Thomas' tenancy and subsidy would essentially make her homeless. There can be little doubt that being homeless would do a lot of damage to someone who is already mentally and emotionally fragile due to her disabilities," Minionis pointed out to Priest.
Minionis questioned ARHA staff's opinion that, based on the One Strike Rule, they had no discretion other than to impose eviction. He found that decision to be in conflict not only with the U.S. HUD advisory of "compassion" but also ARHA's own Administrative Plan.
It states, "In an eviction for criminal activity, the ARHA shall have the discretion to consider all circumstances of the case including: The seriousness of the offense; The extent of participation by family members; The effects on non-involved family members; and Preponderance of the evidence," according to Minionis' letter.
He also points out, "ARHA may permit continued occupancy and impose conditions that the involved family members do not reside in the unit or that the family member involved in drugs provided evidence satisfactory to the ARHA of successful completion of a drug treatment program."
Thomas remains in her ARHA unit and no date has been set for her actual eviction, according to Ring. "We will appeal to Alexandria Social Services on her behalf to see if they can help. But, she will be evicted," said Ring.
For her part, Thomas has filed a complaint with Alexandria Human Rights and intends to do the same with U.S. HUD. "My son no longer lives with me and I am not a threat to anyone," Thomas said.