Way to go,AOC

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) pressed the head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about policies that cause public housing residents and their families to be evicted for committing low-level offenses such as marijuana possession on Tuesday.

During a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee, the congresswoman first quoted HUD Secretary Ben Carson from a 2017 speech where he acknowledged that the war on drugs has disproportionately impacted minority communities.

“Do you acknowledge that the war on drugs disproportionately impacted black communities and communities of color despite marijuana and other drug use levels being comparable to white communities?” she asked the secretary for the record.

“Traditionally that has been the case,” Carson replied.



CSPAN
✔
@cspan
.@RepAOC @AOC asks about One Strike Rule and No-Fault Policy and if Secretary Carson would support moving the policies over to a more holistic/case-by-case review.

@SecretaryCasron: "I'm always in favor of more flexibility."

5,551
9:45 AM - May 21, 2019
1,737 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ocasio-Cortez went on to say that she was concerned that “the negative impact of the war on drugs has not been limited to incarceration” and that “we had legislative rippling effect that also seems to have been codified in our housing system”

She pointed to two specific HUD policies: the “one strike” rule, which allows property managers to evict people living in federally assisted housing if they engage in illicit drug use or other crimes, and the “no fault” rule, which stipulates that public housing residents can be evicted due to illicit drug use by other members of their household or guests—even if the resident was unaware of the activity.

Carson said that property owners in individual jurisdictions have discretion when it comes to enforcing the policy, but he conceded that these rules are in effect under federal law.

“So a person could be stop and frisked and be found in possession of a small amount of marijuana and then be evicted or have their entire family evicted from public housing?” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

“That is a possibility,” Carson said.

Fair Chance at Housing Act

The congresswoman then asked if Carson was aware of the “no fault” rule, to which he replied that the “use of such activity is extremely limited, if ever used.” Ocasio-Cortez responded by stating that the policies “are still codified in federal law” and asked whether the official supports “reversing some of these provisions” such as the “no fault” rule.

Carson said he was willing to talk about individual cases, and the congresswoman followed up by noting that there’s a lack of holistic review for these cases. Given Carson’s interest in hearing details about individual cases, she wondered if he’d “support being able to move some of these policies to a more holistic review.”

“Should that case-by-case consideration be codified in federal law instead of having blanket, one-strike or no fault policies?” she asked.

“I’m always in favor of more flexibility,” he said, signaling that he’d be open to reforming some of the anti-drug policies in effect federally at HUD.

Should Carson decline to take action, legislation introduced by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) in April would protect public housing residents who use marijuana in compliance with state law from being evicted.

Ocasio-Cortez herself has filed a bill that would prevent public housing applicants from being denied due to a low-level drug conviction that resulted in a sentence of under ten years and prohibit drug testing of applicants “as a condition of such housing assistance,” among other reforms.

Source

AOC is right in that the evictions she is describing are codified into federal law. That has to change. If not we are subject to political winds and winds change course. If that were to happen that would be very devastating. Contrary to what people think most housing is for law abiding people. Some may be disabled while others are employed. Yes,there are housing for those out of prison unfortunately housing for ex-cons and/or illegal aliens are the ones the media loves to focus on.

S.B. 443 would rein in civil asset forfeiture abuses in California

From CREDO:

Protect and serve. That’s the role police are supposed to play in our communities. Stealing from innocent Americans? Not so much.

Unfortunately, an unjust, racist policy called civil asset forfeiture encourages police in California to do just that – seize property and cash that is allegedly associated with a crime and keep the assets whether or not anyone is charged or convicted. 1 Those assets go into a “slush fund,” and can be used for almost anything, from armored cars and new technology to luxury vehicles and vacations for law enforcement officers.2 It sends the message to law enforcement: Need money? Just seize some assets.3

Here’s a true story of civil asset forfeiture in action: A taco truck owner is pulled over by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. When questioned, he is honest about the fact that he is carrying a large sum of money from his legal business. Officers find no evidence of a crime. The man is not arrested, or even charged with a crime. Despite the fact that he has done nothing wrong, the police seize $10,000 dollars from this man. Even with a lawyer, he is never able to navigate the legal channels effectively enough to get his assets back. This happens to thousands of Californians every year, especially to people of color and people living in poverty. California police pocketed nearly $600 million from civil asset forfeiture between 2006 and 2013. Instead of a tool to undermine drug organizations, this form of state-sanctioned robbery is employed as a routine funding source.

Tell the California Legislature: Vote yes on SB 443, to help rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.

The civil asset forfeiture laws we know today were originally designed to take down drug "kingpins," but they have morphed into what amounts to legalized theft by the police.4

The majority of people who have their possessions stolen by law enforcement never even have charges brought against them. At the federal level, 87 percent of cases where assets are seized are civil, not criminal.5 That means that the program isn’t punishing criminals or keeping them off the street, it is simply allowing police to profit off of Americans, especially people who are living in poverty or people of color.

The man who had $10,000 stolen from him was able to hire a lawyer, but was eventually advised by his attorney to drop the case because of the expense, and because what starts as asset forfeiture has been known to morph into more serious situations when challenged – like deportation investigations of undocumented people or their relatives.6 The risk that comes with fighting law enforcement, plus the incredible expense of pursuing justice through the legal system, makes communities of color and low-income communities particularly vulnerable to civil asset forfeiture.

California made changes to limit civil asset forfeiture almost 20 years ago, but police departments have found, and are exploiting, a loophole: the federal "Equitable Sharing Program."7 The state’s heavy participation in that program brings over $50 million in profit to the state every year, making California the second highest state in the country in civil asset forfeiture profits.8 SB 443 would close those loopholes and rein in civil asset forfeiture abuse by law enforcement in California.

Tell the California Legislature: Policing for profit is unacceptable. Vote yes on SB 443. Click the link to sign the petition.

Citations are on the same page you sign the petition.