PDA

View Full Version : Residents rally against CHA drug-testing plan



Whet
6/1/2011, 09:44 PM
Florida, how about Rahm's Chicago Housing Authority requiring the freeloaders take drug tests?

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-residents-rally-against-cha-drugtesting-plan-20110601,0,510676.story

chicagotribune.com

Residents rally against CHA drug-testing plan

By Liam Ford

Tribune reporter

6:03 PM CDT, June 1, 2011

Requiring Chicago Housing Authority residents to be drug-tested and making it easier to evict tenants with family members accused of crime is unconstitutional and will backfire, residents said today at a downtown rally.

The CHA is proposing to change its lease policy to require all adults renting or living in CHA housing to be tested yearly for drug use, and to make drug testing mandatory for everyone applying to live in CHA buildings.

The revised policy would also make it easier for the CHA to evict tenants who live with someone who commits a crime.

The CHA says it’s responding to residents’ safety concerns and already has a similar drug policy in place in developments that have replaced older public housing across the city.

But residents who rallied outside CHA headquarters at 60 E. Van Buren St. this morning said the drug proposal would violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable searches, and would penalize families trying to steer relatives away from drug abuse.

“To single us out for these two policies is unfair and unjust,” said Cheryl Johnson, who had to take her son off her lease in Altgeld Gardens on the Far South Side in 2006 after he was arrested with a small amount of marijuana.

When someone struggling with drug use is no longer under the same roof with family members, it’s harder to influence them to stay off drugs or enter treatment, Johnson said.

If the CHA board does approve the drug-testing policy, it should also require drug testing for everyone who works at or is a board member of the CHA, Johnson and others said.

Julia Mitchell, a resident of Lake Parc Place, said the drug testing would cause “humiliation.”

“This policy is just another way of stereotyping a group of people, based on economic status,” said Mitchell.

Although the policy gives tenants a chance to stay in CHA housing if they agree to drug treatment, residents said it would too easily lead to people being evicted.

Drug testing is already in place at 18 of the 45 mixed-income sites that have replaced the old-style public housing. Only one person has been evicted out of 51 cases in which people tested positive for drugs, according to CHA spokesman Matt Aguilar.

“We will not move forward on this unless we hear what everyone has to say,” Aguilar said.

Court decisions on drug-testing policies for people receiving government may end up blocking the proposed policy, even if it is approved.

Ed Yohnka, spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, pointed to a 1999 decision in Michigan that threw out a state policy requiring Public Aid recipients to be drug-tested. The ACLU is opposed to the CHA proposal, even if some — or a large number — of CHA tenants are in favor of it, Yohnka said.

“As a general proposition, we oppose suspicionless searches,” Yohnka said. “We don’t think that it should be any different if somebody is renting an apartment on the North Side, in the Loop, or in the CHA.”

CHA officials are scheduled to take public comment about the proposal at the Charles A. Hayes Family Investment Center, 4859 S. Wabash Ave., at 6 p.m. Thursday. The CHA board could vote on the proposal in July.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-residents-rally-against-cha-drugtesting-plan-20110601,0,510676.story

nice video of the protesters!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/videobeta/0798d883-33b0-4fbb-9e69-e6e28aaa0ca9/News/CHA-drug-testing-protest

Jacie
6/2/2011, 10:12 AM
In a similar vein are bills either passed or currently going through the process in the Florida, Kentucky and Missouri legislatures requiring welfare recipients to pass a narcotics test.

What took em so long?

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:14 AM
I know these things sound nice to us, but they're horrible ideas. Sure, it makes sense to punish people that take advantage of charity, but they're taking advantage of charity because they have nowhere else to go. What happens when we take that away? Desperate people do very stupid and dangerous things.

Tulsa_Fireman
6/2/2011, 10:16 AM
F&^% THA POLICE

jk the sooner fan
6/2/2011, 10:18 AM
I know these things sound nice to us, but they're horrible ideas. Sure, it makes sense to punish people that take advantage of charity, but they're taking advantage of charity because they have nowhere else to go. What happens when we take that away? Desperate people do very stupid and dangerous things.

wait - taxpayer funded housing is a "charity?"

OutlandTrophy
6/2/2011, 10:21 AM
I know these things sound nice to us, but they're horrible ideas. Sure, it makes sense to punish people that take advantage of charity, but they're taking advantage of charity because they have nowhere else to go. What happens when we take that away? Desperate people do very stupid and dangerous things.

what?

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:26 AM
wait - taxpayer funded housing is a "charity?"
From the government, yeah. :D

You know what I'm saying, though. If we take away these programs then a lot of these people have nowhere to go. If they're already doing drugs and other illegal things, how long is it before they end up in the prison system and we have no choice but to pay for their living expenses?

jk the sooner fan
6/2/2011, 10:28 AM
so you're saying its a right rather than a privilege?

no thanks - and frankly at some point we have to make an effort to break the cycle of addition being handed down from one generation to another

i applaud the policy

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:31 AM
so you're saying its a right rather than a privilege?

no thanks - and frankly at some point we have to make an effort to break the cycle of addition being handed down from one generation to another

i applaud the policy
No, no, you misunderstand. I say we're being held hostage. These freeloaders either get free crap from taxpayers, or they run wild and cause damage to the taxpayers. Sure, it feels good to cut them off and I agree that the cycle needs to be broken, but this way is just asking for trouble.

SoCaliSooner
6/2/2011, 10:33 AM
I know these things sound nice to us, but they're horrible ideas. Sure, it makes sense to punish people that take advantage of charity, but they're taking advantage of charity because they have nowhere else to go. What happens when we take that away? Desperate people do very stupid and dangerous things.

I don't know where you live, but in most places "low income housing" is already synonymous with "high crime rate". What you are saying is that we can't expect the poor to also be law abiding. They won't stop getting high, instead they will embrace their criminal nature.

If they need a free place to stay, there should be more money now to build prisons.

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:35 AM
Well, if it works out to be the same amount of money to build a ****ty apartment and house poor people there as to build a minimum security prison, staff it, maintain it, and provide food to everyone within it then sure. Put them all in prison.

OutlandTrophy
6/2/2011, 10:36 AM
why does NP think all poor people are criminals?

jk the sooner fan
6/2/2011, 10:36 AM
No, no, you misunderstand. I say we're being held hostage. These freeloaders either get free crap from taxpayers, or they run wild and cause damage to the taxpayers. Sure, it feels good to cut them off and I agree that the cycle needs to be broken, but this way is just asking for trouble.

i'd much rather ask for trouble my way than to accept it your way

no thanks

OUinFLA
6/2/2011, 10:40 AM
Send them to Mexico.
They'll never know the difference.
Perhaps we can make a citizenship swap.
Those who want to work can exchange places with some of ours who do not want to work.
Since there is no work down there, eveyone is happier.

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:46 AM
why does NP think all poor people are criminals?
Just the poor people that are already criminals and would be kicked out for failing drug tests. ;)

And jk, it's easy for us to say that. We don't live in those neighborhoods. I personally have section 8 housing very nearby that already has meth fires and shootings, etc. I can't even imagine what would go on if the druggies were kicked out into the surrounding neighborhood.

OutlandTrophy
6/2/2011, 10:47 AM
I believe what NormanPride is advocating is also called enabling.

NormanPride
6/2/2011, 10:48 AM
It's "placating". Time-tested tactic to appease the masses, my friend. Bread and circuses.

Whet
6/2/2011, 10:48 AM
A lot of the residents are already familiar to the local law enforcement folks, so they are already causing trouble. Drug possession is a crime in most states, including Illinois. Should a resident be kicked out of public assistance housing, if they are habitual rapists, robbers, thieves, or murderers?

There are generations living off the teat. We must stop the continued abuse by these freeloaders. This is one tool to force them to become more productive members of their community, rather than just take, take, take, gimme, gimme, gimme! A little dose of reality would do them some good.

If you watched the video, you will see several future presidents, current community organizers within the crowd. These agitators will continue to rant and ensure the freeloaders' rights are not diminished - rights to government housing, food, telephone, and internet. Remember, this is a Democrat city - put into power by the same freeloaders, who know who their sugar daddies/ mommas are in the political world.

Whet
6/2/2011, 10:59 AM
More "freebies" (I wonder how much this will cause my Comcast bill to rise?"

Under the Internet Essentials program, families of the 330,000 public school students who receive free lunches can get vouchers from Comcast for $150 each that will allow them to buy computers -- some valued at up to $500 -- and broadband Internet service for $9.95 a month for as long as each eligible family has a student in the school system. There are no installation or activation fees and Comcast will also provide free training.

OU Adonis
6/2/2011, 11:49 AM
So does this mean we can protest employers who want to drug test their employees?

Wishboned
6/2/2011, 11:52 AM
More "freebies" (I wonder how much this will cause my Comcast bill to rise?"

I think they need to add a hairy palm test to this to make sure they're using them for schoolwork and not just watching porn.

delhalew
6/2/2011, 12:11 PM
So does this mean we can protest employers who want to drug test their employees?

This is what offends me most. As a working member of society, I can be tested six ways to Sunday. On the other hand, asking for urine in exchange for your otherwise free money is out of line.

Ask me why I hate a ****ing clueless liberal.

Tulsa_Fireman
6/2/2011, 12:30 PM
This is what offends me most. As a working member of society, I can be tested six ways to Sunday. On the other hand, asking for urine in exchange for your otherwise free money is out of line.

Ask me why I hate a ****ing clueless liberal.

Is this really a conservative vs. liberal thing, though?

It seems more like a tick on society's balls versus diligent taxpayer debate to me.

delhalew
6/2/2011, 12:34 PM
Is this really a conservative vs. liberal thing, though?

It seems more like a tick on society's balls versus diligent taxpayer debate to me.

You haven't seen the usual liberals rushing to call this unconstitutional?

They have spent way to long building this culture of dependency to see it threatened.