[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Paul Heinlein heinlein at attbi.com
Wed Mar 27 22:49:24 UTC 2002


On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Richard Langis wrote:

> Personally, I think this is entirely fair. If these people have enough
> money to buy drugs in the first place, perhaps they're spending the
> money they DO have in the wrong manner. That shit ain't cheap - which
> is why there's a market for it in the first place.

While fiscal abuse of public housing subsidies is likely a real problem,
I think the larger issues in this particular debate are

a) increasing the safety of the non-drug-using tenants in public housing

b) decreasing the crime rate in neighborhoods surrounding public housing

Public housing, like public education, should be for the support and
protection of the public. I think we do the vast majority of citizens
who use these institutions a terrible disservice if the rule is
"it's nearly impossible to abuse the system bad enough to lose your
right to it."

I do believe that for anyone to lose their privilege to these
institutions, the burden of proof should be on the oversight agency.
Further, there ought to be a near-automatic appeals process to ensure
that an administrator can't engage in capricious or illegal
discrimination.

Still, I think people who seriously abuse public institutions ought to
run the risk of losing their right to avail themselves of those
programs -- not so much for the sake of the tax-paying public who
might feel cheated out of some money, but for the sake of the people who
use our public institutions in good faith.

-- Paul Heinlein <heinlein at attbi.com>






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list