Anti-Drug Push Needs Restraint

The Poway City Council has tentatively passed an ordinance that would require landlords to start eviction proceedings against tenants suspected of illegal drug activity, including drug use. Landlords could be prosecuted for a misdemeanor if they did not comply.

Similarly, the Housing Commission in the city of San Diego--the landlord for 1,338 public housing units--is considering a change in its leases that would make illegal drug activities grounds for eviction. The commission also plans to require prospective tenants to authorize a criminal background check. Applicants with a record of violent or drug-related crime would not be able to rent apartments unless there was evidence that they had been rehabilitated.

Both actions are attempts to prevent drug dealers from getting a foothold, in contrast with most drug abatement actions being conducted under state law, which generally require a pattern of problems before action is taken against a landlord. In effect, the new proposals set a standard of “zero tolerance.”

The extent of the drug problem and the dangers that drug dealing bring to a neighborhood or apartment complex warrant a zero-tolerance standard. Evicting drug dealers won’t solve the underlying drug-abuse problem. But it does make it harder for dealers to do business, and it might save the lives of some who get caught in the cross fire of drug and gang violence.

But, in the push to rid our neighborhoods of drugs, care must be taken to protect the rights of the innocent and to avoid creating an atmosphere of paranoia that could lead to vigilantism.

In neither proposal does the tenant have to be convicted of a drug-related crime to be evicted. The standard of proof in landlord-tenant cases is less stringent than in criminal cases. The landlord only has to convince a judge that the “preponderance of the evidence” indicates that the tenant engaged in illegal drug activity, whereas to convict a person of possession or dealing, the proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Most often the eviction action will be prompted by an arrest in which drugs are found on the premises.

Tenants would receive the same amount of notice and have the same rights to contest the eviction as they do in other eviction procedures.

In practice, this might provide adequate protection for tenants. But we are troubled by the inclusion of drug use or possession of drugs in small amounts (without evidence of drug dealing) as one of the grounds for eviction.

Although use and possession are rightly illegal, eviction may be too harsh a penalty, especially without a conviction. This could prove to be a particular problem in a situation where parents are unaware that their teen-ager is experimenting with drugs. Yes, tenants are responsible for any activity that goes on in the rented premises, but anyone who has raised a teen-ager knows that it is impossible to monitor a teen’s every action.

Obviously, this is not the type of activity with which the Poway ordinance and the Housing Commission’s rules were intended to deal. But neither agency will rule out taking action for minor drug offenses. They are clear that they mean zero tolerance.

If so, then there needs to be some provision for weighing extenuating circumstances, especially if the tenant seeks drug treatment or is willing to take action against a child or guest who uses drugs.

This is particularly true in the loosely worded Poway ordinance, because it requires landlords to act but, at least in the version tentatively approved, it does not carefully spell out how that should be done.

We applaud the fact that landlords are encouraging these tough measures, and we are heartened by the cooperation between landlords and government agencies. But, in the current rush to take action on the drug problem, it’s important to make sure that the penalty fits the offense and that the rights of the innocent are not trampled.