this story was originally published on Progressives, South Bend
http://progressivessouthbend.org
John Edwards often cites issues surrounding poor people and housing. As advertised in Chapter 57, this story is about what happened to a good tenant of mine. None of the people’s names appearing here are real (except mine), but the events unfortunately are.
So...Don S. and Don W. (me) spent months completing a serious rehab of one of the homes. A sign went out in the yard, flyers in the tube and the calls started coming in. I’m a believer in affirmative action, so any "tie" was going to go to someone I perceived as disadvantaged.
Happily, someone I perceived as disadvantaged also appeared to be the best candidate. "Michele" was a single African American mom with a son ("John") who was our daughter’s age. She had a stable residence, but was losing it because her landlord was being foreclosed on. She had a long term part-time job as well. I got excellent references from both sources. I even met with her once at her home which very neat and clean. There was one complication for me however. After being on a waiting list for about five years, Michele had finally qualified for housing assistance from the program commonly referred to as Section 8.
Then came one of those moments where one has to decide whether one really believes what one believes...or not? In other words, if one claims to want to address poverty housing issues is one willing to jump through a few hoops to do it? Anyway, I looked into what was required to participate as a landlord. There were certain requirements, but not terribly daunting.
I’ll never forget the conversation with the staff person (over the phone) to arrange the property inspection. I was not too concerned about the inspection itself (I’m a licensed Home Inspector) since the program’s requirements were fewer than my own. But when I called to arrange the inspection I was informed that it would be scheduled for a day certain. OK, I responded, but roughly when? The voice on the phone patronizingly told me that they only schedule days, not times. I said that wouldn’t work, since I didn’t live there. I added that I understood that an exact time was too much to ask, but a portion of the day shouldn’t be. She then "patiently" explained to me that inspectors were "busy and had schedules". That was too much. "SO DOES EVERYONE!", I exploded. I got a call back later. They were able to do better.
Michele and John moved in and things went well. John’s Dad "James" lived in the area and often cared for John while Michele was at work. I met him a couple times briefly on visits to the house. It seemed clear that James and Michele were on something more like businesslike terms as opposed to any closeness. He did seem to take an active interest in the welfare of his son. There were some limits, though – as we shall see.
Sometime early the following summer I got an ominous looking letter from the City of South Bend entitled "NOTICE TO ABATE". This letter informed me confidently that it had been established that criminal activity had been taking place on my property and that if I failed to "abate" the problem i.e. there was any recurrence, I could be sued by the city. The sign bore the signature of Sgt. "Brown".
As you can imagine, I was at a pretty big loss as to what to do next. Since Michele hadn’t contacted me, I thought I’d better figure out what my position was in all this. So I called Sgt. Brown and arranged a meeting.
The meeting was pretty weird and not all that helpful, though it did clarify what the city’s position was...sort of. Sgt. Brown gave a rough summary of events and then proceeded to offer (repeatedly) to be the "bad guy" in order to get my tenant evicted. My thought was that we should establish that there was reason to ask my tenant to leave. The implied threat was that if I didn’t capitulate and start eviction action, I would be perceived as complicit, should a similar problem occur. I know many landlords cave at this point – they don’t see the profit in bucking the system.
Here’s what happened that day, as far as I can put together. Some DEA types were shadowing some suspected big time dealer. At some point, James met with this guy and at least some of the folks followed him. He came to the house and picked up John to take him to his (James’s) house. Remember, John is three years old. On the way, these folks pulled over James and John, pulled James out the car with guns drawn while his young son screamed in terror. I know these things happened.
They drove James back to Michele’s house and asked permission from him to search it. Accounts vary as to his response, but obviously he had no authority to OK it. Wisely, the police waited for a warrant and then searched. In the house they found drugs and a gun (stolen, I think) under Michele’s bed. Michele, remember had been at work this whole time.
It seems likely to me that James suspected he was followed and ditched the stuff when he picked up John. Not a great choice, granted. But I was having a heck of a time figuring out why this was being made Michele’s problem. Though they charged James with several things, Michele was never charged with any crime at all. You’d think that should mean her life wouldn’t be turned upside down, wouldn’t you? Sorry to rain on the parade.
This was roughly the point at which I thought I needed to have a lengthy conversation with Michele to find out how things looked from her perspective. She was embarrassed and very upset. She filled in some gaps for me (most of which I’ve covered earlier). Though I had some doubts, my experience with her had been good and I just couldn’t get past the fact that she hadn’t been charged with anything. It seemed to me the onus was on the police to establish a good reason to evict her and I got clearer about what my position was on all this.
The term that kept recurring in the aforementioned letter to me was "remediation". That’s as specific as it got. It seemed clear that to let their letter stand might put me in a disadvantageous position. Since they asked for a remedy it seemed wise to communicate that I had one in mind.
I drafted a letter in response and sent it certified delivery. The first part discussed my understanding of the facts in the matter (I had a few things wrong, it turned out) and then moved on to the action I planned to take: "Although your letter does not say so explicitly, in our interview you strongly hinted that I should evict my tenant on the basis of this incident. It is hard to see any justification for that action. The suspect (James) did not live at (address), but had reason to visit since his son did reside there. My tenant has no complaint pending that I’m aware of. In fact, if I were to follow your suggestion I may be violating (Michele’s) civil rights. It is unlawful to terminate a lease without cause.
This is the remedy I have chosen. The suspect (James) is barred from visiting the property. (Michele’s) attorney has drawn up a document attesting to her agreement. Your letter implies that remedial action obviates the potential litigation and fines of a subsequent drug offense on the property. I will assume this satisfies that requirement unless I hear otherwise." I also sent a copy of the agreement bearing James’ signature.
That ought to do it, shouldn’t it? ‘Fraid not.
The South Bend Housing Authority had been appraised of these goings on and had sent Michele and me a notice to discontinue her (Section 8) benefits. I talked with her about this and we agreed she should appeal. The meeting was scheduled and we met with two people charged with making determinations on these matters. The hearing seemed to go well and was very civil. I made it clear I objected strongly to the decision and told them that Michele had been a model tenant. The female didn’t ask any questions. At one point the male said "I think I have enough information" in a pretty agreeable way, and the meeting was over.
To my surprise, about a week later I received a letter saying that they had rejected our appeal. Luckily, Michele secured a much better job, but she was not going to be able to afford our house without help. She was able to move to more modest quarters, but I wonder what they thought she and John were supposed to do if she hadn’t gotten that better job. When I spoke with her sometime later she mentioned that John was having a lot of trouble dealing with what happened to his father in his view. This was requiring quite a lot of counseling, apparently. Other than that they were doing OK.
Somewhat earlier I’d consulted an attorney friend who has a reputation for standing up for disadvantaged people. I bounced my ideas off him and he had helped me understand the broad issues. It was and is his contention that what happened to Michele was straight up discrimination and it’s his view that a 1973 (I hope I have the year right) case establishes this clearly. Remember, she was never charged with anything, yet lost the benefit of a program she waited five years to qualify for.
I haven’t heard from Michele in quite a while. I hope she and John are well. Michele is a smart, tough, determined and resilient person, but understandably she wasn’t interested in pursuing things any further – though she’d have had a lot of help. I suspect things will work out OK for them and I’m very glad of that. What I keep thinking about is what would have happened to someone less "put together", who didn’t get the better job just in time and didn’t have anyone who was willing to put some time in to stand up for that person. Why?
It seems to me that our programs for disadvantaged people should be aimed at the person I just described. Instead it seems at times the idea is to discourage as many people as possible from participating – which certainly makes the program easier to administer. But like John Edwards, I think we’re better than this and like John Edwards I think the way we take care of the "least of us" says a lot about us. The conversation needs to change.
Don Wheeler
South Bend, IN